User talk:Filmomusico

Since I am being attacked by various users here, in particular socks and meatpuppeteers, I advice the editors not to come here. Please try to avoid leaving template notices. If you have been asked to not post here, please respect that request.

A tag has been placed on Resident Human requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a musical recording which does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, and where the artist's article does not exist or is eligible for deletion itself. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for music.

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 deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Mysterium Tremendum (Lord Dying album) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a musical recording which does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, and where the artist's article does not exist or is eligible for deletion itself. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for music.

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 deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Bbb23 (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Summon the Faithless requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a musical recording which does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, and where the artist's article does not exist or is eligible for deletion itself. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for music.

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 deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Bbb23 (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Poisoned Altars requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a musical recording which does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, and where the artist's article does not exist or is eligible for deletion itself. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for music.

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 deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Bbb23 (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Desire (Desire Marea album) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a musical recording which does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, and where the artist's article does not exist or is eligible for deletion itself. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for music.

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 deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Bbb23 (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on All of Them Naturals requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a musical recording which does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, and where the artist's article does not exist or is eligible for deletion itself. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for music.

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 deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Bbb23 (talk) 22:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Filmomusico. I noticed that in the nomination of Amara Deepam (1977 film) and several others, you simply added the text "Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions" and "India-related deletion discussions," without actually listing them at the delete sorting pages of WP:DSFILM and WP:DSI respectively. Therefore, please transclude the AfDs as instructed at WP:AFD#Deletion sorting so that the concern editors can actually see that these articles are nominated. Thanks -- Ab207 (talk) 08:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ab207: Hello. So they don't come off automatically? Good to know. Thanks. Will try to keep my eyes open for those.--Filmomusico (talk) 10:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your nominations are also not transcluded/linked on the main nomination log pages as per nomination instructions #3. This means no one is actually aware of them unless they watch the articles (or follow article alerts). This is also why so many really old ones are not closed, because administrators are not aware they need closing.

They are all also slightly malformed because they don't have the section title with the article name (needed when listed for the main log page). I fixed some, but you have so many old ones. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hellknowz: Thanks for the tip. I guess I copied it from somewhere and assumed "this is how it is". Sorry about the mess, I have started to add the header.--Filmomusico (talk) 15:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should also not remove the AfD template from the article if you decide to withdraw your nomination per WP:WITHDRAWN. You should leave a note on the AfD discussion page that you wish to withdraw and someone else may close the discussion early if criteria for withdrawing are satisfied. But you should not close it yourself and removing the AfD template looks like the discussion is closing/withdrawn, but is not and may in fact have a different outcome, like "keep". —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have just spent a considerable length of time cleaning up these nominations (the ones old enough to show up here, anyway) to get them onto today's log page so that people will actually see them. (I didn't even bother to check if you'd gotten them transcluded to delsort pages as requested above.) In the future, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO so as to avoid making work for others. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 18:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of The Boy Behind the Door at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Pamzeis (talk) 07:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was noticing many of your nominations of films. Wanted to suggest using WP:PROD which is used for uncontroversial deletions. I think most of your nominations would meet this. Take them to AFD if someone contests a PROD. I have always found it very useful. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nomadicghumakkad: I tried that once, and my "speedy" was declined, that's why I chose to go straight to AfD, and, in fact, some articles were saved that way. I understand what you are saying though.--Filmomusico (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Filmomusico, WP:CSD is different than WP:PROD. And don't be disheartened if speedy was declined. We are all on the same team here. Honestly, a lot of this is just procedural. You have to go through right process. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nomadicghumakkad: I understand. I just don't want to waste my time and your time. You see, I found no criteria for film articles at WP:CSD. Neither do I see it at WP:PROD.--Filmomusico (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I pinged you on this page, but I am not sure the ping got through. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by saying the plot summary can be expanded after the nomination? Per WP:FILMPLOT, a plot summary should only exceed the 700 word mark if absolutely necessary. Considering the simplicity and minimalism of this film's plot, it should actually probably be closer to the lower-end 400 word mark and definitely shouldn't exceed the 700 word mark. Instead of reverting to a previous version that is still too long, why not attempt to fix the problem by rewriting the plot summary? Throast (talk | contribs) 18:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Throast: I didn't saw the film so I can't judge on what to remove and what to left alone.--Filmomusico (talk) 18:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if an article has issues that one can't solve themself, one shouldn't nominate it for DYK. Throast (talk | contribs) 18:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Throast: Well, somebody should write clearly that 1500 words long articles doesn't mean that they will be nominated because we somehow have a cap on a plot summary which is hidden from the main view of a nominator. Next time write it like this: The article must be 1500 words long (700 of which should be a plotline).--Filmomusico (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the point you are trying to make. WP:FILMPLOT is an official guideline and it is very clear on the 700 words cap. I added the "long plot" tag a while ago and provided a link to the guideline in my edit summary, so it couldn't have been out of your view. Like I said previously, as the nominator, the burden is on you to make sure that the article you're nominating is in line with Wikipedia guidelines. Otherwise, it will be rejected. Throast (talk | contribs) 20:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Throast: Yes, you wrote that in the edit summary, but most future nominators aren't aware that 700 words of those 1500 is deserved for a plotline. When I was nominating the article, I got the impression that as long as it meets 1500 words (excluding infoboxes, quotations, categories and tables), it will be considered for a nomination. At least, that's how it's stated at DYK nomination. It says nothing of a plot. Now, you come up, and you telling me that "even if it is 1500 words long, the plot should be trimmed to 700".--Filmomusico (talk) 20:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's so difficult to understand here? Beside being at least 1,500 words long, an article obviously also has to meet Wikipedia guidelines in order to pass a DYK nomination. If you nominate films for DYK, you should be aware of at least the most basic guidelines pertaining to articles about films (like WP:FILMPLOT). This should be a no-brainer. Throast (talk | contribs) 21:06, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Throast: According to you, yes, but a newcomer such as myself doesn't have those skills. Thanks for the tip though, will keep it in mind.--Filmomusico (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi...you don't need to manually add entries to this list--the bot regenerates a fresh list daily. --Finngall ^talk 21:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Finngall: Well, I tried to do it the way you suggested, but it created a mess, so I decided to do it via this bot. That way, at least you will know that I am not skipping anything. --Filmomusico (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The page you are editing is a bot-edited page which tracks the oldest AfD tags. It updates nightly, and the new AfD discussion pages you've been adding simply get flushed away at that time. What you need to do is transclude them to the current day's daily log page, as noted at Step 3 of WP:AFDHOWTO which I had referred to previously. These daily log pages are what the AfD !voters use to track discussions, and if they don't get put there, most people won't even know a discussion is taking place until some obsessive like me finds them on that other page and repairs the damage. (There's another bot that's supposed to track malformed nominations more immediately, but that bot has been down for weeks.) And you're still only linking to delsort pages and not properly transcluding to those pages. --Finngall ^talk 03:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What you are doing is absolutely right. I'll try to salvage those I can using offline sources, the rest... off with their heads. Moreover, they were created by a sock. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kailash29792: Some were, others were not. I don't delete them because they are created by a sock - I delete them because they lack notability. If the sock would have used any other source, like The Hindu or The Times of India I wouldn't nominate it for deletion. --Filmomusico (talk) 03:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Day of Reckoning (2016 film) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BuySomeApples (talk) 06:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't mean to remove votes! from the nomination, that was completely not intended and I apologize for that. I was just trying to fix the nomination for the daily log because it was transcluded incorrectly, but somehow it did an 'undo' rather than accepting my intended change. Nate • (chatter) 19:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrschimpf: I kind off got it. I was going between warning or not warning, and decided to assume good faith instead. --Filmomusico (talk) 19:46, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; just realized it today double-checking and then I saw I removed stuff and...yeah, not what was intended at all; I'm completely neutral on the nom otherwise since it's not in my interest field. Nate • (chatter) 19:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrschimpf: Well, I too have no interest in it, but my nomination is based only on severe BLP violations, which is writing an unsourced article.--Filmomusico (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure you are not using IMDb as a source. You indicated here to check IMDb for an addition to the cast list, and I see that you corrected it later. Even if listed at IMDb, that website is built on user-generated content and should be used as a source per WP:IMDBREF. You can use IMDb as a starting point, but make sure you are verifying with a reliable source. BOVINEBOY2008 10:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bovineboy2008: If I corrected it, that means there is no reason for you to message here, right? I know what IMDb is and who runs it. I use it as an external link, no more.--Filmomusico (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just trying to communicate! I apologize for repeating info you already know! BOVINEBOY2008 15:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bovineboy2008: Pretty much, I get all my cast from there, without using IMDb as a source. IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes are the only sites that list cast with IMDb list the fullest.--Filmomusico (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You might find Twinkle to be helpful in your editing. I assume you intended to PROD Bart Gatling and Vipers (film), but you ended up using CSD. Twinkle can help you PROD them properly, and allow you to easily send notifications to the page creators (which you are supposed to do). I hope this helps. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdrqaz: The difference between the two? I used CSD four times so far, and got 2 articles deleted. :)--Filmomusico (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you are using CSD when you know they do not fit the clearly laid-out criteria, then you are abusing the process. You are required by policy to notify page creators when you either tag pages for CSD or PROD or nominate for deletion. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdrqaz: What is the template for PROD then?--Filmomusico (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You add {{subst:Proposed deletion|concern=reason for proposed deletion}} to the page, while adding {{Proposed deletion notify|Name of page}} to the page creator's talk page. Twinkle semi-automates this for you with a drop-down menu on the page. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdrqaz:  Done--Filmomusico (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Filmomusico, if you don't know the difference between Speedy deletion and Proposed deletion, then you shouldn't be tagging any pages at all. Please read over the relevant policy pages I have linked to, you held responsible knowing it if you want to be doing any deletion tagging. And it is mandatory for you to inform the page creator whenever you tag a page for deletion, whether CSD, PROD or AFD/MFD/TFD/MFD/etc. Do not skip this step. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Thanks. Your comment was late but informative, never the less. I always inform the creator when I propose a deletion. Either way, I probably won't do any tagging for a while as I will be busy getting accustomed to the policies. :)--Filmomusico (talk) 00:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 9 September 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Day of Reckoning (2016 film), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a television in the film Day of Reckoning includes scenes from Big Ass Spider!? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Day of Reckoning (2016 film). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Day of Reckoning (2016 film)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—valereee (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of information you added to Aloners is plain wrong. Jeong Da-eun is not Hong Sung-eun's daughter. They are not related at all. Moreover, the movie premiered in Jeonju were the main actress, Gong Seung-yeon was awarded for her performance. It later was screened in Toronto, San Sebastian, Hamburg and Zurich as well as Frankfurt and Chungmuro. Jeong Da-eun is also not the main role, but one of the two bigger supporting role. The film clearly focuses on Gong Seung-yeon's role of Jina. --Christian140 (talk) 09:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Christian140: Sorry for all that. I assumed that if the ending is the same than they are related. Similar to Danny and Richard Elfman.--Filmomusico (talk) 16:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, no problem. The family name of Hong Sung-eun is Hong. The family name of Jeong Da-eun is Jeong. -eun is a syllable of the given name. Actually, Seongeun and Daeun would be the prefered romanization of the names, but wikipedia chose to include the hyphen which is quite old-fashioned but also still present in news articles. A Korean name usually consists of a one syllable family name followed by a two syllable given name, usually based on Chinese. But nowadays, native Korean names get more and more popular, as well as biblical names and simple "English" names. Two syllable family names also exist that are then followed usually by a one syllable given name. It can also happen that you have a one syllable family name followed by a one syllable given name. But nowadays, it is getting more and more diverse. E.g., you can have the family name of both your parents. Biblical names are often longer than two syllables.

Anyways, there are not many family names in Korea. One Korean term for "people" is "baekseong" which literally means "100 names". Korea has only some 200 family names. 25 % of the population are named Kim. You can never assume a family relation based on the family name. If you look up Kim Hye-jun on Google, it sadly says, that Kim Yoon-seok is her father. But they are not related at all. It could be that the Google algorithm falsely assumed it because Kim Yoon-seok is playing her father in the movie Another Child. Additionally, Koreans do not change names after marriage. The wife does not take the family name of the husband. So, children usually have other names than their mothers. --Christian140 (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: For Thai names, you might could assume a family relation as Thai names are really unique, probably the most unique in the world by far. --Christian140 (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Christian140: Got it. I read it wrong I guess. Either way, thanks for a thorough explanation. I also come from an assumption that if there is a family name that is popular among actors than their daughter, son, or wife becomes entangled into the business. Again, I will refer to the Elfmans. Richard Elfman's son is an actor Bodhi Elfman, who is married to a renown actress and producer Jenna Elfman, and who is a nephew of Danny Elfman, a renown composer. So, it all runs in the family. :)--Filmomusico (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Filmomusico, while there is no strict policy or guideline against doing these two things, there's also none against me saying "please don't yet; it made a negative impression in both cases". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: Ok. Why I went there is because I see no outcome from the block. You see, he wants to prove that he have changed his editing habits, but because he is blocked he can't prove it. How on earth will you trust an editor if you don't give them a chance? As he said, "And if I do, administrators are free to block me permanently. Please!" It seems reasonable to me, give him rope and tomorrow he will be blocked, if he will violate copyvio policy again.--Filmomusico (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand that position and hope to have addressed your concern in Special:Diff/1054726687 now. I may also simply be overly cautious, which is why unblock requests are always reviewed by other administrators who didn't decline a previous request. So we'll hopefully get a third/fourth opinion soon. Unfortunately, CAT:RFU is usually very full and it may even take a month for an answer to happen. Or fortunately, as in this specific case, this may be a positive side effect increasing the likeliness of an unblock. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably also provide a reason instead of just saying so, sorry. Regarding the unblock request, see above; regarding the sockpuppetry notification, I was quite happy to be notified about it, as I was affected by the sockpuppetry at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reza Tajbakhsh (2nd nomination) and had previously been discussing this user's global contributions at Special:Permalink/1053996363#Spam?. I was a bit upset about the request to ignore the sockpuppetry and not to waste time with it, as we do value such reports and have a dedicated page for them (WP:SPI) and various policy sections and exemptions regarding this kind of reverts (WP:3RRNO#3, WP:BE, WP:BANREVERT, even WP:ROLLBACKUSE#4). I am usually very happy about people responding to messages on my talk page, and 90% of the time, I click "Thanks" after seeing the response. So this is not meant to be a general rejection of help; I'd be silly to reject help. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: The thing is, is that it have been shown numerous of times that blocking one sock, creates more socks. Which bags a question, why we need to block them if they will continue to reappear? Who is winning in this battle? Speaking of battle, even though user Hoseinkandovan was the sole initiator for WP:BATTLEGROUND, the attacks from other admins by WP:POINTing the obvious enraged him. Take a look here, the editor's official language is Persian, and Persian Wikipedia have many articles that we don't. What he wanted to do is to expand Iranian diaspora on the English Wikipedia, which is totally fine. As for him calling admins - managers, there should never be an offence to that. Wikipedia is an organization, and like any organizations we have "managers" of some sort. We just call them differently. 😅--Filmomusico (talk) 19:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In cases of repeated sockpuppetry, checkusers and stewards create rangeblocks behind the scenes. They don't announce this publicly, and they ideally don't create rangeblocks for accounts they have blocked, to avoid disclosing the connection between IP addresses and accounts. In the end, the amount of work required to keep creating sockpuppets becomes way higher than the amount of work required to block them on sight, and to prevent them from editing and creating accounts at all. This is also why we revert their contributions and delete their articles: Over time, the lack of a permanent influence on Wikipedia and the repeated wasting of time becomes too boring to keep sockpuppetry up. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: Don't know how to say it properly, but is the deletion of articles by socks is a form of oppression? Like, sometimes they come from countries where Wikipedia is banned but they want to help us (such as the case here), but instead of saying that you, we delete their contributions putting their precious time in jeopardy and possibly even their lives in danger???--Filmomusico (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. There are very rare cases where the Wikimedia Foundation actually bans people from all Wikimedia projects (meta:WMF Global Ban Policy). However, these bans usually protect others, not the banned users. There are also very rare cases where the Wikimedia Foundation removes advanced privileges from editors, such as when the Wikimedia Foundation is concerned about state-forced misuse of the permissions. This has recently happened in the Chinese Wikipedia ([1]). None of these measures, however, are related to the English Wikipedia community's general practice of deleting articles created in block evasion (WP:G5) or reverting sockpuppets' contributions. It is also unrelated to the physical location and language of editors. We can't decide whether someone's participation in Wikipedia is a danger to their lives. If at all, the WMF deals with such topics (e.g. via WP:Emergency). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: The reason why I raised this is because the sockpuppeteer is an Iranian journalist. Journalism in Iran is a taboo, and Wikipedia there is nothing like here. What I am saying is that some of the articles that he contributed to us and are deleted per WP:G5 are rather good articles and we might not see similar contributions.--Filmomusico (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay, I wasn't aware of that. I'm sure that we're not deleting the contributions to save their life, though. That's just the usual approach to sockpuppetry. Regarding the articles, that's a frequent concern with many reasonable arguments for both positions. My personal view is that we can afford to wait, as there is no deadline for the creation of articles. The longer we wait, the more likely it becomes that an article about a notable subject is created one day. My personal preference is waiting multiple years for this to happen instead of letting sockpuppetry have a permanent effect on Wikipedia, but I may have one of the most extreme viewpoints in this regard. The community is in two minds about this topic, and currently actively discussing it at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#WP:PROXYING_(banning_policy):_Clarification_needed. There seems to be no clear "right" or "wrong" in this debate; it's a philosophical question. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: My proposition would be to scrap WP:G5 altogether. I'm sure that we're not deleting the contributions to save their life, though - no by deleting we endanger their lives. I hope this makes sense.--Filmomusico (talk) 21:05, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's the other side of the spectrum. I don't yet understand how deletion is supposed to endangers their lives, though. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: Since now I am blocked, we can continue this discussion. :) Ok, so, how does deletion endangers someone's life? Well, if an editor edits from a country where Wikipedia is banned, he is a subject of torture. Instead of helping such people, however, we end up blocking their accounts and spitting on their grave. We delete their contributions which they spend maybe years to make. Makes sense?--Filmomusico (talk) 03:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We can't help people with their off-wiki problems, and we shouldn't attempt to. Article deletion does not cause editors to be physically harmed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: Well, not really, but in theory, article deletions could lead to suicides, depending on the psyche of a person. But then, why should you care? WP:NOTTHERAPY, you would say, while my believe is that WP:Emergency applies. Again, if couple of people in another country will die due to our actions, is not our problem. I like this attitude of Wikipedia "If we have blood on our hands, we will just wash them as nothing happened". How would you feel if somebody will delete your article, especially if you worked hard on it?--Filmomusico (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. You may call it shutting my eyes to what you believe to be a fact, and I'm fine with that, but my position is: I don't have "blood on my hands" for the actions I take. This idea is absurd to me. If a beloved article is deleted, I have a local copy and can publish it on my own website instead. I can even do this for my translated articles, as everything here is freely licensed. The idea of the content's usability not being dependent on this specific platform is fundamental on Wikipedia. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: Well, not every country has the same access to the Internet. Some countries have a freedom to express their views, like USA and most of Europe, others, like Iran and China do not. I never said that it's a fact, but every theory can be either get debunked or be proven. :) Sometimes, even the most absurd one. I have nothing against you personally, fyi. :)--Filmomusico (talk) 23:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: Just saw in Recent changes how Materialscientist blocked an anonymous account for 9 years and 364 days for vandalism. That's even more then indef (which is usually 6 months). :)--Filmomusico (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Regarding temporary block durations: {{anonblock}} and {{school block}} are not directed at a specific person, and the affected person is invited to create an account at home and to use it in the public institution. Long-term temporary blocks that are directed at specific people can be appealed just as any indefinite block can be appealed. So no, that's not "more" in any regard.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mind me posting again the draft Draft:Film009 test to be moved as it got deleted again. Thanks. 218.147.176.163 (talk) 08:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Rashevski's Tango.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're blocked for 2 weeks, for returning to some of of these same things that caused your last block. You're wasting the communities time. There's no logical reason for you to be edit warring over something as stupid as having the alt parameter on an infobox. Sergecross73 msg me 14:54, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 26 November 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Falling for Figaro, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that one critic opined that "it's hard to fall for Falling for Figaro"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Falling for Figaro. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Falling for Figaro), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Leo & Claire, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:19, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Filmomusico,

Why did you create two articles on the same subject? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:31, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Accident. I created King Car (film) but after saving I realized that King Car would be an appropriate name, unless I am wrong?--Filmomusico (talk) 02:45, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:King car ver2 xlg.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Filmomusico,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 13:11, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks for uploading File:Chaplin of the mountains xlg.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Keep the change xlg.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Scuba-personality.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sro23: Don't you confuse me with somebody else? Mishae and Biografer were writing about everything.--Filmomusico (talk) 07:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since Sro23 doesn't answer, which is fine, I guess (as his userpage says) he is busy, maybe @Oshwah: will be able to help. As I said earlier, I am not a sockpuppet of anyone, and you can believe me that I am not. Sro23 mistaken me for somebody else. I will appreciate any help. Thanks.--Filmomusico (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you're really not a sock puppet account, then appeal your block. We'll be happy to investigate further. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Filmomusico (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I'm hearing about Mishae and Biografer accounts for the first time. However, I have looked at their contributions and see no similarities with my accounts of Filmomusico and MollyPollyRolly. The topics were different. Every editor can create stub articles, and I see that rapid editing is a common sin of new editors. I admit that I shouldn't have done it. Editing styles can be similar as well between different users because they learn from each other. Everybody greets new editors for contributions and everybody makes mistakes. As for "inappropriately editing others' comments on talk pages" I agree that I shouldn't have done that, but that doesn't make me a sockpuppet of Mishae and Biografer. Similarity of timecards maybe just be geographical artifact. As a new user I found interest in music and films which many contributors edit as well.--Filmomusico (talk) 03:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You gotta be kidding me. You're even on the same IP range as Biografer. This one is on me because I already ran a check on you a while ago, but I didn't see how obvious this is. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@NinjaRobotPirate: Well, the IP address isn't the same. You really think I am jumping around? @Oshwah: I have tried. Is there anything else I can do?--Filmomusico (talk) 07:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At this time, no. NinjaRobotPirate, feel free to email me any details that I should know. At this time, I'm standing neutral and not choosing to interfere or take action. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate and Oshwah: I wouldn't believe a word this user says about their supposed innocence. I made @Sergecross73: very aware this user was well known for removing spaces between pipes and parameter titles, and how coincidental that Biografer did that too... along with Biografer starting various music articles that somehow, out of the millions of articles on Wikipedia, Filmomusico would try to have us believe they coincidentally came along and expanded. What a timesink this editor has been. I'm sure they'll try to come back editing under a new account again, but because they seemingly can't resist doing exactly the same things, it should be easy to spot them again. Ss112 21:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose unblock. Sro and NRP know their stuff, and this user is no stranger to trying to get away with stuff once they think no one's looking, and doing a bad job of being subtle, so this all feels on-brand really. Sergecross73 msg me 22:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to note that I politely asked this user to stop stripping space from articles, and they refused to even entertain the discussion.[2] (I was also optimistic that bots would eventually tidy the Infoboxes back again.) I wasn't sure their refusal to acknowledge WP:STYLEVAR and hostile attitude amounted to disruptive editing, but I didn't pursue it further. I would not have thought to ask for a sock puppet investigation. -- 109.77.211.177 (talk) 15:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ss112: Isn't expanding an encyclopedia an improvement? Can you kindly show, where, in your policy does it state that writing stub articles is a no-no?--Filmomusico (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I see that you don't like when someone hounds you? Then why on Earth did you decided to hound me with |alt=? Or it is Ok to do for one editor, but the rules are different for another?--Filmomusico (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: @Onel5969: Can you please stop removing my articles? I demand it! I demand you all to stop!--Filmomusico (talk) 05:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are in no position to make demands which are incompatible with a collaborative project and because you are blocked. Any articles that you have written that are out of compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are at risk of deletion, and this is a simple fact of life. You should be using your talk page to work towards an unblock, not for generalized complaining. Cullen328 (talk) 05:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I already said that I am not a sock puppet. Please restore my articles! You started harassing me with |alt=, yet @Bovineboy2008:, @Lugnuts: and many other editors don't use it. You are not preventing anything from keeping me blocked, blocks create more accounts resulting in an endless cycle. What kind of collaborative project would ban their editors and then make fun of them and then bully and harass them? All I wanted to do is to help the project!--Filmomusico (talk) 06:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: Please assume good faith and unblock my account. I will write more articles. Isn't that what Wikipedia is about, collaboratively writing articles and improve them?--Filmomusico (talk) 07:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I will not unblock you because you have failed to address the reasons for your block. Wikipedia is about writing encyclopedia articles in accordance with policies and guidelines and any successful unblock request must address the italicized part. Cullen328 (talk) 07:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what this is about, or why I was pinged. But if any admin has any questions, please drop me a note, either on my talkpage or via email. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lugnuts. User @Ss112: harassed me with not putting |alt= and then ordered @Sergecross73: to block me. I was doing everything in accordance with policies and guidelines, until @Ss112: decided to hound me. I don't think I violated anything if everybody else was doing it!--Filmomusico (talk) 07:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: I already explained that I was doing everything in accordance with policies and guidelines. I was writing articles on notable film and music, nothing more nothing less. How can improving or writing articles be a violation? No policy was violated, so to speak, at least I don't see any violations...--Filmomusico (talk) 07:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As for me being "so-called" sock puppet of Mishae and Biografer, as I explained, I have no relationship to them. My interests are different, and as for the same IP, how many Wikipedians do live in Minnesota, let alone St. Paul?--Filmomusico (talk) 07:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "harassment" when it's someone repeatedly catching you doing something you weren't supposed to be doing. Your whole experience on Wikipedia thus far seems to have been an exercise in seeing how far you can push things when people tell you to stop doing something. You pushed too far, and were called out on it. This line of reasoning is closer to getting your talk page access revoked than it is to getting you unblocked. Please stop. Sergecross73 msg me 11:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: You have a child with a disability, correct? Do you as a father approve of hounding people with disabilities and then blocking them? And then revoking their talk page access when they need to bow to the mighty admin, even if they feel that they were in the right and are trying to prove it?--Filmomusico (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you intend to use one's family member as some sort of means to argue for an unblock, I'm revoking talk page access. Do not do this. There are no parallels here. Sergecross73 msg me 15:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: Fine, I admit that I didn't put |alt = where I should. I promise to do it from now on as long as there will be a description of some kind. Will you please unblock me? If you want you can put the |alt = yourself I won't revert. Deal? My experience on Wikipedia was writing articles, an experience which I tend to enjoy.--Filmomusico (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just that, it's that you actively removed it many times, when there is zero benefit for you to do so. You were literally doing it just to be antagonistic. That's unacceptable on a collaborative website. That alone is enough reason for me to not unblock you. And that's not even addressing what Ninja is calling pretty blatant abuse of multiple accounts... Sergecross73 msg me 15:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: Ok. I won't do it to be antagonistic.--Filmomusico (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the exact reason I turned off pings, so I wouldn't get notifications from editors who lack any clue whatsoever and are clearly here to be nothing more than a waste of productive editors' time. You have made so many of these simple, one-sentence "I won't do this" statements and then gone back on them just with this one account that nobody should unblock you for that reason alone. How many times did you edit others' comments after saying you wouldn't? Even in discussions where other editors were telling you to stop. Funny how you say you are not Biografer yet you two are the only accounts I have seen remove spaces from infobox formatting in all my years editing. You have been proven to be a sockpuppet and an antagonistic timesink. "You say you don't like people hounding you, then why did you do it to me!? Waaah!" Love that you dug up me telling another editor who's speeding towards a CIR block that he's a pest. Hilarious stalker behaviour. Good riddance. No admin should ever unblock you, and I will immediately report you to Sergecross73 or another admin who's commented here if I find you on another music article with another account in future. Considering you can't help doing the same things that have led you to be blocked on something like four occasions now, you'll be easy to spot. This will be my last comment here, as I've wasted enough time addressing this editor and I have nothing to defend myself over or answer to as I am not the one who's blocked. Ss112 20:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, if you are blocked, you should be deaf and mute, but when you are not you can call people "pests" here? Keep in mind that WP:NPA applies here. Pinging @Tim96144: here to see what editors are saying about him "behind closed doors".--Filmomusico (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: I realized that, in fact, I did went too far, but wasn't aware of it until this block, nobody in fact does. As I said earlier, I am not a sock, and, just because my IP is identical you should all know that every neighborhood is different. I can use one provider while a neighbor next door can use another. Sometimes people have the same provider in the whole neighborhood. As for the same edits, people learn from each other, they copy styles. Templates are easy to copy and distribute. In music its especially easy, as you don't even need to change the artist, genre or label sometimes.--Filmomusico (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning[edit]

The above discussion is at its worst, inappropriate in the way that you keep tagging people with various tangents, and at best, not persuasive. Your approach isn't working. Time to wrap this up. Your next talk page comment needs be an attempt at one last formal WP:UNBLOCK request or your talk page access is revoked. Sergecross73 msg me 00:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Alien-on-stage-movie-poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Mope.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Night drive xlg.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Petite fille xlg.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]