User Talk: Dmartin969

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

{{Talk Header}}
{{template me or else}}
{{Archives
| list={{hlist|2025|2024|2023|2022|2021|2020|2019|2018|before 2018}}
}}

Happy New Year, Dmartin969!

<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em; height:auto; min-height:173px; border-radius:1em; box-shadow:.1em .1em .5em rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.75); box-shadow:.1em .1em .5em light-dark(rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.75), rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.75));" class="plainlinks">
left|x173px ↗x173px|right ↗
{{Paragraph break}}
{{Center|{{resize|179%|'''''Happy New Year ↗!'''''}}}}
'''Dmartin969''', Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year ↗, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
 Abishe (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2025 (UTC) 
</div>
   ''{{resize|88%|Send New Year cheer by adding {{tls|Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.}}''
{{clear}} Abishe (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#(Posted) PDC World Darts Championship ↗

When you nominated 2026 PDC World Darts Championship ↗ on In the News, you listed "Created by Teflon94", which is incorrect as Teflon97 did not create the page and did not edit the page until November.

Could you make a correction to this please? DartsF4 (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

:Been corrected, so no worries DartsF4 (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2026 PDC World Darts Championship ↗

{{ivmbox
|1=On 4 January 2026, '''''In the news ↗''''' was updated with an item that involved the article '''''2026 PDC World Darts Championship ↗''''', which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page ↗. Black Kite (talk) ↗ 21:48, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
|2={{Ambox globe current red}}
|imagesize=50px
}}

A (re-)invitation to WikiProject Omaha ↗!

<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em; height:auto; min-height:173px; border-radius:1em; box-shadow:.1em .1em .5em rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.75); box-shadow:.1em .1em .5em light-dark(rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.75), rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.75));" class="plainlinks">173px|thumb|right|Wikiproject under construction! ↗{{Paragraph break}}
{{Center|{{resize|179%|'''''A (re-)invitation to WikiProject Omaha ↗!'''''}}}}
Hello!

You are listed as a member of WikiProject Omaha ↗. The project has been inactive for several years now, and I am looking to relaunch it. I'm making plans for a Discord server, and for local meetups and edit-a-thons. If this sounds like something you'd be interested in, please let me know!

Thanks and happy editing.

   ''{{resize|88%|Not interested? No problem. You can remove yourself from the Active participants list ↗}}''
</div>
{{clear}}
–DMartin ↗ 00:26, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

:Please unsubscribe me from membership of the project. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
::You have been removed. Have nice day. –DMartin ↗ 00:38, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Your A7 CSD nominations

Hello, DMartin. Please note that I have declined several of your A7 CSD nominations. These include Matan Even ↗ and Christopher Kaufman ↗; please see the history for why I declined them. In addition, I would have also declined your A7 nomination of Laurent Simons ↗ as it contained coverage from the BBC, Reuters, the New York Times etc (thus giving it a good chance at meeting the general notability guideline ↗), but deleted it under G4 as it was previously deleted at AfD. Please be more careful when tagging pages, as it is easy to miss such things.

As written at WP:A7 ↗, a credible claim of significance ↗ is a lower bar than notability. Something may have a credible claim of importance while being non-notable. As it allows administrators to delete articles without waiting for consensus, it is a low bar. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Sdrqaz (talk) 03:29, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Bob Pulford ↗

There are two references in the article now. Thus the appropriate tag is refimprove, not unref. Bearian (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Delcy Rodríguez ↗

{{ivmbox
|1=On 7 January 2026, '''''In the news ↗''''' was updated with an item that involved the article '''''Delcy Rodríguez ↗''''', which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page ↗. '''Schwede66''' 02:04, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
|2={{Ambox globe current red}}
|imagesize=50px
}}

Non-free rationale for File:SUM Air livery.jpg

64px|left|alt=|link= ↗
Thanks for uploading or contributing to ''':File:SUM Air livery.jpg ↗'''. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under the non-free content criteria ↗, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page ↗, and edit it to include a non-free rationale ↗.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions ↗" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion ↗. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion ↗ and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page ↗. Thank you. — Ирука13 ↗ 14:37, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Speedy deletion ↗ nomination of :File:SUM Air livery.jpg ↗

48px|left|alt=|link= ↗

A tag has been placed on :File:SUM Air livery.jpg ↗ requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion ↗, because it is a file licensed as "for non-commercial use only", "no derivative use", "for Wikipedia use only", or "used with permission"; and it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content ↗. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions ↗ then:

state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.

add the relevant copyright tag ↗ and if necessary, a complete fair use rationale ↗.

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 {{Querylink|Special:Log|qs=type=delete&page=File%3ASUM+Air+livery.jpg|deleting administrator}}, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here ↗.   — Ирука13 ↗ 08:21, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Speedy deletion ↗ nomination of :File:Kayla Mueller 2016.jpg ↗

48px|left|alt=|link= ↗

A tag has been placed on :File:Kayla Mueller 2016.jpg ↗ requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion ↗, because it is a non-free file ↗ from a commercial source (e.g. Associated Press ↗, Getty Images ↗), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary. If you can explain why the file can be used under the non-free content guidelines ↗, please add the appropriate non-free use tag ↗ and rationale.

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 ↗.   — Ирука13 ↗ 08:59, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Grubby Alaska Zoo.jpg

64px|left|alt=|link= ↗
Thank you for uploading ''':File:Grubby Alaska Zoo.jpg ↗'''. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright ↗ status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page ↗.

Why did you take down my Apple Store edit?

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

Please refer to the '''image use policy ↗''' to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads ↗. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page ↗. Thank you. — Ирука13 ↗ 09:01, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

:Hello, the author and source are listed as Alaska Zoo. I have removed the template.–DMartin ↗ (talk ↗) 09:15, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
:: Hello. Did they deliver this image to you personally? — Ирука13 ↗ 09:22, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
:::It is from Facebook as is stated in the fair use rationale. I am going to remove the deletion tag again. Please do not re-add it unless you have a good reason.–DMartin ↗ (talk ↗) 09:45, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
:::: If you actually took this image from a Facebook page, according to paragraph 4 and 10a of WP:NFCC ↗, you must provide a link to it. — Ирука13 ↗ 09:52, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Iruka13}} If you wanted me to add a direct link, why didn't you just say that? Twinkle templates can be useful, but if you had left me a message in your own words, or used an edit summary ↗ to explain your actions it would've been a lot clearer and saved us both some headache. It would've also helped if you had discussed ''before'' reverting. Also, the source and date were both there, it would've been relatively easy to just WP:FIXIT ↗ instead of going straight for deletion. –DMartin ↗ (talk ↗) 10:00, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

January 2026

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed a file deletion tag from :File:Grubby Alaska Zoo.jpg ↗. When removing deletion tags, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary ↗. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted ↗. Take a look at the welcome page ↗ to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox ↗. Thank you. — Ирука13 ↗ 09:19, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Please do not remove file deletion tags from file description pages on Wikipedia, as you did to :File:Grubby Alaska Zoo.jpg ↗, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary ↗. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted ↗. Thank you. — Ирука13 ↗ 09:23, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

25px|alt=Warning icon ↗ Please stop. If you continue to remove file deletion tags from file description pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at :File:Grubby Alaska Zoo.jpg ↗, you may be blocked from editing ↗. Edits of this type may be considered vandalism ↗. — Ирука13 ↗ 09:50, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Hi, Dmartin969. Thanks for patrolling new pages. I've declined your deletion request for a page that you tagged for speedy deletion ↗, because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Please take a moment to read the new tutorial for patrollers ↗, criteria for speedy deletion ↗, and particularly, the section covering non-criteria ↗. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion ↗ or proposed deletion for biographies of living persons ↗, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion ↗. Thanks!  ~2025-31245-28 ↗ (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

:{{ping|~2025-31245-28}}Just out of curiosity, why do you consider articles only a few months old as not "recently created"? I can't find an official definition, is there precedent? I would argue that any article well less than a year old that is unreviewed is recent.–DMartin ↗ (talk ↗) 21:15, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
::See WP:R3 ↗, it is footnoted there "Pages older than about 3–6 weeks are unlikely to be considered recently created; pages older than about 3–4 months almost never are." Those pages were almost six months old hence ineligible. ~2025-31245-28 ↗ (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I thought Twinkle had a level-4 warning for those who remove deletion tags from file description pages, but it doesn't. So this is my final warning. Listen, if not to me, then to the people above me. If I see another serious violation of your file handling, my next step will be ANI. Formal reason: deleting a tag from this file :File:ALANG at Tree Burn 3.jpg ↗.— Ирука13 ↗ 14:24, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

:{{ping|Iruka13}} If you want to go to ANI you should start by responding to the discussion about your behaviour there ↗. If you bothered to read the edit summaries you would see that all of the tags I removed I had valid reasons for. I realise that you came here after being banned from Commons, and I don’t have anything against that, but you have to understand that Wikipedia has different rules for local files.–DMartin ↗ (talk ↗) 19:42, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi {{u|Dmartin969}}. I have merged the January 2025 section with the January 2026 section because they were duplicates here. Since the last edit, they put January 2025 instead of 2026, so I moved the talk info from January 2025 to January 2026. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Fcom1212

Maybe take a break?

Can you please take a break from CSD tagging? You are making way too many errors in judgement as to whether specific criteria apply and many are being declined. It eats up admin time reviewing consistently poor CSD nominations.-- '''Ponyo'''''bons mots'' 23:59, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

:I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with your assessment. Do you have any specific examples of "errors in judgement"? While a couple of them were declined on technicalities, I stand by the noms and will be going to xdd etc. I think this is all just part of the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle ↗.–DMartin ↗ (talk ↗) 00:25, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
::Numerous objectively incorrect tags. I could diff at least a half-dozen that I personally declined. It is not so much error in judgement as simply wrong. Please read WP:CSD ↗ in its entirety with particular attention to WP:NOTCSD ↗, thank you. ~2025-31245-28 ↗ (talk) 02:12, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
:::Again, I would like some specific examples. All I'm seeing is a difference of opinion. Nothing wrong with that, of course.–DMartin ↗ (talk ↗) 02:18, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
::::Fine, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_British_military_bases&diff=prev&oldid=1332097369 ↗ where you tagged for WP:A10 ↗ as duplicating an article, but provided a ''category''. Or see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haii_Dubetski&diff=prev&oldid=1332085757 ↗ where you tagged Template:Db-reason ↗ citing one that is ''explicitly'' covered under WP:NOTCSD ↗, point 15 to be specific. Or https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goryeosa_Jeoryo&diff=prev&oldid=1332098115 ↗ where you tagged a book in direct violation of NOTCSD points 4 & 5. There is no ambiguity or difference of opinion. The taggings are objectively wrong and simply waste time. You clearly know how to use the normal method of deletion, so the taggings are really just bizarre. I could diff a half-dozen more if you want, but if the examples provided are insufficient, I do not know what to tell you. ~2025-31245-28 ↗ (talk) 02:29, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
:::::Point taken, I'll slow it down and consider PROD.–DMartin ↗ (talk ↗) 03:16, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
Hey buddy, came here to say the same thing. I deleted a few of the articles you tagged (thanks for finding those!), but declined 30-40 of your CSD tags - including one article that had even survived AFD in the past. Note that speedy-deletion being declined doesn't always mean someone disagrees that an article should be deleted; it means someone disagrees with that process being used. I think "slow down" is good advice here. (1) Spend more time thinking about each case. (2) Instead of doing so much so fast, do a couple, wait a week for feedback, learn, then continue again. Even when you switch to using prod or AFD, it would be good to learn before spamming those processes. Quarl (talk ↗) 14:02, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

:{{ping|Quarl}} I can see where you're coming from. There was a large swath of articles about Pakistani soldiers that were created by a now-clocked user. None of them had an any credible claim of significance(in my opinion), is there something I wasn't seeing on those?–DMartin ↗ (talk ↗) 05:07, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
::Yes. See WP:CCS ↗, and WP:CCSI ↗ which further explicate. The bar as you will see is incredibly low. That does not mean those pages must remain, only that speedy deletion is inappropriate. WP:PROD ↗ is often a good alternative. When that too is unsuitable, deleting the normal way following an WP:AFD ↗ discussion is necessary. Remember speedy deletion is only for a specific narrow subset of non-controversial cases. The only advantage it has over normal deletion is volume management. It is inferior in every other way. ~2025-31245-28 ↗ (talk) 04:24, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
:::@~2025-31245-28, I largely agree with you but advocated against PROD because of the socking in that subject area. They're allowed to remove the PROD so it just wastes more time than going right to AfD which is what I advised @Dmartin969 Star Mississippi 13:22, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
::::Which is fine. Suitability can be ''de jure'', but can also be ''de facto''. I agree that the nuance surrounding PROD can be rather complex, and no one gets it right all the time. Regardless, for controversial topics in South Asia AFD will normally be the best choice. Or more generally in any situation where a clearer consensus one way or the other is desirable. ~2025-31245-28 ↗ (talk) 16:39, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

As a result of your recent incorrect CSD noms, I have revoked NPR as I do not feel that you have a good enough grasp of deletion policy, which is one of the requirements for holding the right. You should feel free to appeal my decision to AN. voorts (talk/contributions ↗) 05:11, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

A7

Hi! I've declined a few of your A7s. The barrier here is not established notability, and these have a credible claim so would not be eligible. If you do not think they meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, feel free to nominate for deletion at Articles for Deletion ↗. Thank you! Star Mississippi 19:47, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

:{{ping|Star Mississippi}} Ok, thanks for letting me know. I was working through the new pages backlog and found that a blocked user created a ton of similar articles for Pakistani soldiers. I did some research and it looks like the Pakistan Army has ''thousands'' of officers. So if I found an article whose subject wasn't involved in any engagements I marked them for A7(I also PROD-ed a few others that seemed dubious). I'll probably xfd the ones where speedy is declined.–DMartin ↗ (talk ↗) 20:00, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
::The only reason I'd caution against PROD @Dmartin969 is there's a lot of socking in this area beyond the editor recently blocked so it's possible you'll waste energy and time with a PROD, so AfD may be more efficient use of your time. These are highly unlikely to be notable, they're just not speedy eligible unfortunately. Star Mississippi 20:28, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: :Closed preordered set ↗

Hello Dmartin969. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of :Closed preordered set ↗, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: not recently created. Thank you. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:59, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: :N. Shanmugaiah Pandian ↗

Hello Dmartin969. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of :N. Shanmugaiah Pandian ↗, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: not recently created. Thank you. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: :King of Rot ↗

Hello Dmartin969. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of :King of Rot ↗, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: not recently created. Thank you. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Bha Bha Ba (soundtrack) article

Hello Dmartin969, This is with regard to the article ''Bha Bha Ba (soundtrack) ↗'', which you have marked as reviewed ↗. However, the article provides no sources or references. Have you marked it as reviewed by mistake? If so, I would appreciate it if you could make necessary corrections. QEnigma 论 04:27, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

:I've marked it as unreviewed. Must've misclicked.–DMartin ↗ (talk ↗) 04:29, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Non-free use of File:SUM Air livery.jpg

64px|left|alt=|link= ↗
Thank you for uploading ''':File:SUM Air livery.jpg ↗'''. However, there is a concern that the use of the file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content ↗. Details of this problem, and which specific criteria that the film may not meet, can be obtained by going to the file description page. If you feel that this image does meet those criteria, please place a note on the file description or talk page explaining why. Do not remove the {{tl|di-fails NFCC}} tag itself.

An administrator will review this file within a few days, and having considered the opinions placed on the file page, may delete it in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion ↗ or remove the tag entirely. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page ↗. Thank you. — Ирука13 ↗ 14:31, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Deletion review for :File:Facade of Panda Hotel.JPG ↗

An editor has asked for '''a deletion review''' ↗ of :File:Facade of Panda Hotel.JPG ↗. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — Ирука13 ↗ 11:41, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi {{u|Dmartin969}}! Please note that as a non-admin XfD closer, you are accountable to policies WP:ADMINACCT ↗ and WP:UNINVOLVED ↗ just like admins are ↗. You may not state your view on the article or file in the discussion, and then proceed to close that same discussion. I reverted your close per WP:REOPEN ↗. I appreciate your help in these discussions, but if you have an opinion on the issue itself, please leave closing that discussion to someone else. Thank you. Owen× <big>☎</big> 16:36, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Deprodding

I have drafted one of the article you had proposed for deletion, Omer Naseem ↗. As the person is a serving two star general and has both Hilal-e-Imtiaz ↗ and Sword of Honour (Pakistan) ↗, the officer may receive more significant coverage ahead in future if he attains the rank of a three star. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 19:32, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

:Taking another go at a CSD is exactly what we were discussing above @Dmartin969. You knew it had been declined, the PROD was fine. A second speedy is not. Please stop or you will lose further access Cc @Sdrqaz and @Voorts as my on wiki time is extremely limited. Star Mississippi 17:38, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Kate Hudson

I wanted to add to her article that she didn't win the golden globe and who did win it. Is there a better way I can do this as I see you reverted what I did? PlainJane91 (talk) 08:43, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

:Looking for an answer here. TYSM. PlainJane91 (talk) 11:56, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Gurr ↗

If it's autobiographical, that's more of an argument for deleting it, not sending it to draft. ''TarnishedPath''talk 09:52, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

:Ps, also WP:DRAFTNO ↗ and you can't withdraw an AFD once there has been any !votes that aren't keep. ''TarnishedPath''talk 10:04, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Merge tags

You need to actually start a merge discussion, not just tag the articles ↗. voorts (talk/contributions ↗) 18:09, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

ANI discussion

I did not want to be here, but I see no other path forward.
link=|25px|alt=Information icon ↗ There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ↗ regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Star Mississippi 22:01, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
The thread is:
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic ban from starting deletion processes, Dmartin969 ↗

:{{ping|Star Mississippi}} I've replied there. Thanks. –DMartin ↗ (talk ↗) 01:47, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Bans and blocks

On Wikipedia blocks and bans are different.

If your account is blocked from editing a page or type of page, Wikipedia software will stop your account from editing it.

If your account is banned from editing a page or type of page, your account is likely to be blocked if you edit it. But the software will not stop your account from doing it.

On :Wikipedia:Files for discussion ↗ you have posted messages saying:
:{{tq|q=y|''Note:'' Nominator is currently banned from the file namespace ↗ for wikilawyering, nominating in bad faith, and other disruptive activities.}}
Please could you correct these messages. He/she was blocked, not banned.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
:Bans are typically done for topics. For example a person who made a nuisance of themselves editing pages about India, might be topic banned from any page about India, including people from India.
:See :Wikipedia:Blocking policy ↗ and :Wikipedia:Banning policy ↗.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
::They've been site wide blocked now, I don't think it matters.–DMartin ↗ (talk ↗) 06:52, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Evertune AI logo.jpg

Hi Dmartin. Just for reference, :WP:CSD#F1 ↗ only applies when both files are uploaded locally to Wikipedia; it doesn't apply when one of them is uploaded to Commons. So, it can't be used for : File:Evertune AI logo.jpg ↗. In such cases, :WP:F8 ↗ can apply and {{tlx|Now Commons}} used as long as certain conditions are met. However, in this case, F8 doesn't apply because the Commons file and the local Wikipedia file aren't in the same file format; so, you will need to nominate the file for deletion/discussion via FFD if you want it to be deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:21, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

:Didn't know that, fixed now. Kind of annoying that we have to let it sit around for seven days. I'd do an RfC on that if I weren't so lazy.–DMartin ↗ (talk ↗) 07:25, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
::Most of the speedy deletion templates, except for really serious violations, are for seven days; so, not much is lost by going to FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:33, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
::I forgot about {{tlx|Orphan file}} in that you can also :WP:PROD ↗ files like this for deletion using {{tlx|Proposed deletion}} as long as they've not already been prodded or nominated for deletion once before. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:52, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Edit warring warning

30px|alt=Stop icon ↗ Your recent editing history at :Murder of Sonya Massey ↗ shows that you are currently engaged in an '''edit war ↗'''. This means that you are repeatedly changing a page's content back to how you believe it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree with your changes. Please ''stop editing the page'' and use the '''talk page ↗''' to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus ↗ among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaining how this is accomplished ↗. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard ↗ or seek dispute resolution ↗ such as a third opinion ↗. In some cases, you may wish to request page protection ↗ while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

'''If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing ↗ Wikipedia'''—especially if you violate the three-revert rule ↗, which states that an editor ''must not perform more than three reverts ↗ on a single page within a 24-hour period''. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you do not violate the three-revert rule'''— if things indicate that you intend to continue reverting content on the page. BretHarteChitown (talk) 08:36, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

:Aggressive warning. Let's get a third opinion. –DMartin ↗ (talk ↗) 08:52, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
::Hey, I'm here from Wikipedia:Third opinion ↗.
::I don't see any discussion on this in the talk page? Seems like you guys are editing back and forth without having ever discussed it on the talk page. It would be easier to help if there were already a discussion, instead of trying to figure things out from the revision history. And in general it would be good to have a discussion rather than editing back and forth, of course.
::Also, @Dmartin969, please note that you placed the request outside of the appropriate part (between the "below this line" and the "above this line") in the wikitext Third Opinion page.
::Thanks and good tidings, User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 12:49, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
:::@BretHarteChitown your statement here ↗ that "Dmartin969 might also lack neutrality ↗" seems like an unnecessary escalation. It's ok to have a substantive disagreement, doesn't seem like there's a need to suggest bad faith before any discussion was even had in the talk page. Also, your statement there that "They have also received a warning regarding edit warring" seems to suggest that this warning was made by a third party, when it was yourself that gave it.
:::Thanks and good tidings, User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 12:58, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
::::I've started a discussion ↗ on the talk page. Thanks. –DMartin ↗ (talk ↗) 13:11, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Air India Flight 171 and fuel cut off switches

Preliminary report is at https://aaib.gov.in/What%27s%20New%20Assets/Preliminary%20Report%20VT-ANB.pdf

On page 15, the relevant paragraph is: “As per the EAFR, the Engine 1 fuel cutoff switch transitioned from CUTOFF to RUN at about 08:08:52 UTC. The APU Inlet Door began opening at about 08:08:54 UTC, consistent with the APU Auto Start logic. Thereafter at 08:08:56 UTC the Engine 2 fuel cutoff switch also transitions from CUTOFF to RUN. When fuel control switches are moved from CUTOFF to RUN while the aircraft is inflight, each engines full authority dual engine control (FADEC) automatically manages a relight and thrust recovery sequence of ignition and fuel introduction.”

This has been debated several times on the article talk page, and the consensus was that the passive voice as per the preliminary report is the appropriate one here. (I agree that one of the pilots moved the switches, but the most authoritative source, i.e. the preliminary report, does not warrant that conclusion.)
Talk:Air India Flight 171/Archive 5#Movement of fuel cutoff switches ↗
Talk:Air India Flight 171/Archive 4#Details about switch movement leaked ↗ IlkkaP (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

:I'm going to lean pretty heavily on Wikipedia:Don't "teach the controversy" ↗ in saying: it's obvious what happened here, and the Indian government source is not the most authoritative(anymore), nor is it neutral. Especially considering more recent sources, I think it's best to say the switches were moved. –DMartin ↗ (talk ↗) 16:39, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
::I strongly disagree. If “were moved” stays, I suggest you to add a source to verify the claim as per WP:V ↗ IlkkaP (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
:::I went ahead and added a citation to the new report. –DMartin ↗ (talk ↗) 16:59, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Better source request for :File:John Viola.png ↗

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

:File:John Viola.png ↗

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright ↗ status of the image because the source is incomplete or generic. Please consider clarifying the ''exact'' source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact source (such as the web page, or printed document) where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain, search engine, pinboard, aggregator, or the direct/bare URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [{{fullurl:Special:Log|type=upload&user={{BASEPAGENAMEE}}}} this link]. If you have any questions please ask them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions ↗. Thank you.  -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:39, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
: Hi Dmartin969. Please provide a better source than "John Viola" for this image to aid in verifying its copyright status. If, for example, you find the image somewhere online, adding the URL to that site would be a big help. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:42, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
:{{done}} Second time this sort of thing has happened, I think it's a error within the upload form. Thanks for letting me know. –DMartin ↗ (talk ↗) 04:42, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
::Thank you for doing that. If you believe it's a problem with the "upload form", maybe watch to see whether the same thing happens again with any of your future uploads. If it keeps happening, you could ask about it at :WP:VPT ↗ to see whether someone else can duplicate the problem and figure out how to fix it if they can. There are lots of bugs ↗ that stil need to be sorted out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:23, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Better yet just have these visual editor bugs fixed

It's unbelievable its allowed to just randomly garble text, or delete text whenever 1 paragraph is divided into 2 (everything below after pressing Enter is deleted, despite being still visible in the editor before vanishing eventually) so it needs to be copied and pasted into the new line. After how many years?

Wikia/Fandom has similiar issues, also in the text editor (garbage text, vanishing content, even super hard to repair as the invisible code is still there after the content vanished). Who are creating these, and then just leaving them like that? They're being paid for this, right? ~2026-10040-75 ↗ (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

:{{ping|~2026-10040-75}} If you're having a technical issue, see mw:How to report a bug ↗. –DMartin ↗ (talk ↗) 21:05, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Candy Darling ↗

While I thank you for reverting the addition of the deadname, since the subject is long deceased it is not a BLP problem, as you state in the talk page warning. Once again, thank you for that revert, but just keep that in mind for the future. Thank you. JeffSpaceman (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

:I didn't realise they were deceased when I did the revert, thanks for letting me know. –DMartin ↗ (talk ↗) 18:30, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Joanne Bland ↗

{{ivmbox
|1=On 26 February 2026, '''''In the news ↗''''' was updated with an item that involved the article '''''Joanne Bland ↗''''', which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page ↗. '''Spencer'''T•C ↗ 20:28, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
|2={{Ambox globe current red}}
|imagesize=50px
}}

John McDonald (architect)

{{GOCEtb|article=John McDonald (architect)|sign=Cheers, '''''🅑🅰🅖'' ☿ 🅴🅻🅵🅵🅐🅱''' 03:58, 4 March 2026 (UTC)}}

Orphaned non-free image File:Joanne Bland 2015.webp

35px|text-top|left|⚠|link= ↗ Thanks for uploading ''':File:Joanne Bland 2015.webp ↗'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free 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) 18:28, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Sergius Octavius Laenas Pontianus

Hello, I was wondering why did you revert my edits? You do realize that the page did not actually reflect Syme's position nor Groag's genealogical reconstruction from which Syme and other scholars like Eck and Raepsaet-Charlier draw their conclusions, right? I added a lot more sources that were not present before, removed unsourced information and clarified genealogical confusions that were not present in the original source material. — Preceding unsigned ↗ comment added by ~2026-20717-30 ↗ (talk) 01:32, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Reversion on Sergius Octavius Laenas Pontianus

Saw you reverted the edits the IP editor was making at Sergius Octavius Laenas Pontianus ↗. I was concerned about them yesterday, but most seemed minor except for the changes to the paragraph and note involving his possible descent from the Imperial family and connection with another similarly-named person first known from a lead water pipe inscription. But before I reverted anything, I wanted to check out the contentions the IP editor made in the edit summary, that the information was wrong or irrelevant.

When I obtained a reading copy of the Syme article on JSTOR, I still wasn't sure—but the IP editor continued to edit and restored some of the content that was deleted, worded in a way that seemed fair. So in the end I felt that all the changes needed was some tweaking for grammar and some dangling modifiers. Now I'm wondering why you reverted all of the changes ''en masse''. Do you have some knowledge that I don't about this topic? Or is it a banned editor using a sock? Even so, the edits look like they might be an improvement. Anonymous editing certainly isn't forbidden by itself. P Aculeius (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

:I didn't intend to revert all of your edits, just the final one. It should be fixed now. My apologies. –DMartin ↗ (talk ↗) 01:35, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
::It wasn't my edit; I'm not the IP editor. And actually I think "cognomen" (or "surname", as I think I might have written before the IP editor started) is better—but it's not a big deal. Thank you! P Aculeius (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
:::I wanted to change it back to name because of WP:JARGON ↗, though that was my only concern. –DMartin ↗ (talk ↗) 01:39, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I am not a banned user I merely did not log in to my account, also I did not notice somebody had reverted my edits otherwise, I would have tried to discuss them on the talk page of the article or individual talk pages, I edited the article because the former state of the page was inconsistent with the scholarship on this subject and made several genealogical mistakes, collapsing generations and not reflecting what was actually argued by each of these authors. — Preceding unsigned ↗ comment added by ~2026-20717-30 ↗ (talk) 01:39, 7 April 2026 (UTC) 

:It's fine. While it'd be better to log in, the edits seemed logical and I read Syme with interest to make sure your edits were in accordance with what he actually said—and where I thought you had wrongly excised the part about the lead pipes and relationships they implied, you later went back and added them with more clarity. I reworded a few things that I thought were vague or awkward, and to include some uncertainty as Syme was not certain of the relationships, though his guesses are probably correct. But otherwise I did not change your structure or what you had to say on the subject. Thanks for putting in the effort; it definitely improved the article! P Aculeius (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
::Yes, thank you I appreciate you doing this, my only clarification is that Syme is not the only person writing on this and that he does not include the same conclusions reached by Groag and Charlier-Raepsaet or even Eck and others (which present the now dismissed granddaughter possibility.) Thank you for saying that it improved the article, yes it was a whole lot of research across multiple languages! : p ~2026-20717-30 ↗ (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

inappropriate?

instead of this childish repeated delete/silent treatment, how about telling me JUST ONCE what is inappropriate about my original queries?! i.e. why the SNL UK page does not (and CAN not, per all of u!) address issues which the SNL US page does?? it is such a basic issue, i cannot understand your obsession with suppressing it. (u work for sky?)

and no need to threaten me abt editing the article "again". i have not edited it EVEN ONCE!! perhaps u do not understand the difference between an "article" and a "talk page"? editors these days!! lol! ~2026-21196-49 ↗ (talk) 05:10, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

:You seem to be trying to use the talk page to voice complaints about the show and its distribution. The talk page is only intended to talk about the content of the article. Wikipedia is not social media and is not a way to contact the producers of the show. The civility ↗ and disruptive editing ↗ policies apply, even on talk pages. –DMartin ↗ (talk ↗) 05:40, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
::not voicing complaints abt the show or its distribution policies; voicing complaints about the lack of comment on same IN THE ARTICLE. this is how a normal article handles these things:
::https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Week_Tonight_with_John_Oliver
::i will pause while all my detractors ask "how is youtube posting in any way relevant to the last week tonight article?!"
::yet somehow they added it there w/o a cabal of moderators trying to stifle it. go figure. ~2026-21196-49 ↗ (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

:I think you're misunderstanding the purpose of Wikipedia. '''This is an encyclopedia''', a place where people go to look up neutral, educational information about different topics & subjects.
:Wikipedia Talk pages are ''only'' used to talk about how to write and improve encyclopedia articles - they are ''not'' designed for people to chat about the subject generally.
:No-one will reply to your questions because that's not what this website is designed for and that's not why any of us are here.
:We're here to write an encyclopedia, that's all we do at Wikipedia.
:If you want to chat with other people about the show (or other stuff), then you should try websites like Reddit or Discord, which are specifically designed for people to chat to each other.
:Imagine that Wikipedia is a pizza restaurant and we're all here to eat pizza. You're currently trying to buy a bicycle & we're trying to explain that you should go to the bicycle store across the street. Blue Sonnet (talk) 08:55, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

ANI FYI

FYI: wp:ANI#Use of Talk:Saturday Night Live UK as a chatroom by ~2026-21196-49 ↗ Adakiko (talk) 08:01, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Rollback on Brenda McKenna ↗

Hi, just wanted to give you some feedback on this ↗ edit as the IP was actually removing a BLP violation. Thanks for your work at NPP! ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 18:25, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
:Was coming to comment on this too. Don't want to pile-on and we all make mistakes but that's a pretty bad one. An unsourced, highly libellous allegation of that nature should ''never'' be restored to a BLP. AusLondonder (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
::Thank you for letting me know. If the editor had bothered to use an edit summary then I wouldn’t have reverted it. As the situation was, an anonymous user removing(seemingly cited) critical information from a politician’s article sets off loads of vandalism/POV alarms for me. A few minutes later once I checked the citation for verification I went to remove the claim.
::Not trying to be defensive, just explaining my thought process. –DMartin ↗ (talk ↗) 17:00, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lil Poppa 2026.png

35px|text-top|left|⚠|link= ↗ Thanks for uploading ''':File:Lil Poppa 2026.png ↗'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free 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) 07:37, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

April 2026

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Hello and welcome to Wikipedia ↗! It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates ↗ from :Visa requirements for United States citizens ↗. When removing a maintenance template ↗, please either ensure that the problem that the template refers to has been resolved, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary ↗. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as this change has been reverted ↗. Take a look at getting started ↗ to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. TEMPO156 (talk) 02:35, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
:I absolutely was not going to template a regular, but since you have requested it at the top of your user talk, I decided to obey the spirit of your request :). The issue is that a template should not be removed without first engaging with the specific talk page concern (unless it's just totally without reason or merit, which I hope is not the case here). It is Talk:Visa requirements for United States citizens#Advice on country safety ↗. See you there! TEMPO156 (talk) 02:37, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
:As an aside, you have a couple travel-related userboxes I like. I may add them to my own user page... TEMPO156 (talk) 04:52, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

New pages patrol May 2026 Backlog drive

{| style="border: 2px solid #36c; border-radius: 4px; background: linear-gradient(to right, #ffffff, #eaf3ff); padding: 10px; color: #000;"
| style="vertical-align: middle; font-size: 130%" | May 2026 Backlog Drive ↗ | '''New pages patrol ↗''' 
| rowspan=3 | right|100px ↗
|-
|

On 1 May 2026, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.

Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.

Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.

Each review will earn 1 point.

Interested in taking part? '''Sign up here ↗'''.

|-
|colspan=2 style="font-size:85%; padding-top:15px;"|You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. ↗
|}
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:23, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

New Page Patrol Newsletter - May 2026

<div style="border:2px solid #90C0FF; background:#F0F0FF; width:99%; padding:4px">

Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}},

thumb|400px|New Page Review queue November 2025 - May 2026 ↗

'''Backlog update'''

At the time of this message, there are 15,282 articles and 32,951 redirects awaiting review.

After the January–February drive the article backlog was reduced to 15,179 articles and the redirect backlog to 19,053 respectively. Great job! However, both queues are growing rapidly and any additional reviews are highly appreciated.

'''2024 and 2025 NPP Awards'''

74px|left ↗{{no ping|JTtheOG}} was selected as the NPP reviewer of the year for both 2024 and 2025, for reviewing the most articles amongst all reviewers.
{{no ping|Hey man im josh}} and {{no ping|MPGuy2824}} won the Redirect Ninja Master Award for 2024 and 2025 respectively, for reviewing the most redirects.

Overall in 2024, one Platinum, two Gold, eight Silver, 12 Bronze and 45 Iron Barnstars were awarded. Additionally, 66 reviewers got the NPP barnstar for doing more than 100 reviews through the year. In 2025, one Platinum, ten Silver, 13 Bronze and 38 Iron Barnstars were awarded. Additionally, 38 reviewers got the NPP barnstar for doing more than 100 reviews through the year.

{{no ping|BoyTheKingCanDance}}, {{no ping|Rosiestep}}, {{no ping|SunDawn}}, and {{no ping|Vanderwaalforces}} were inducted into the NPP Hall of Fame ↗ for having two separate years of 2,000+ article reviews.

'''January–February backlog drive'''

The experimental two-month long backlog drive concluded with 183 reviewers patrolling over 27,761 articles and 35,309 redirects, earning over 36,836 points. Congratulations to {{no ping|JTtheOG}}, who achieved first place with 6,484.6 points in this drive.

'''May backlog drive'''

An article-only backlog drive is currently underway. We are hoping to make a big dent in the backlog. You can read more about it or join at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2026 ↗.

'''PageTriage'''

An attempt was made to get the New Pages Feed ↗ to sort by date marked as reviewed instead of date created. However we had to revert it due to bugs. We may try again in the future. You can subscribe to the Phabricator ticket ↗ if you're interested in following along.

{{refbegin}}
'''Reminders:'''

You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord ↗.

Consider adding the project discussion page ↗ to your watchlist.

To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here ↗.

{{refend}}
</div>

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletion ↗ of :The Creative Center ↗

left|link=|alt=Notice|48px| ↗

The article :The Creative Center ↗ has been proposed for deletion ↗ because of the following concern:
<blockquote>'''Fails WP:NCORP ↗. First three sources are primary and last is a data-only report not containing independent coverage.'''</blockquote>

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary ↗ or on the article's talk page ↗.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process ↗, but other deletion process ↗es exist. In particular, articles for deletion ↗ allows discussion to reach consensus ↗ for deletion based on established criteria ↗.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion ↗ of the article at any time. ~ A412 talk! 17:09, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of :The Creative Center ↗ for deletion

<div class="afd-notice">
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0;">48px|alt=|link= ↗</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article :The Creative Center ↗ is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines ↗ or whether it should be deleted ↗.

The article is being discussed at '''Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Creative Center ↗''' until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.</div> ~ A412 talk! 16:02, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Alan McDonald (architect) ↗

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Hello, Dmartin969. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Alan McDonald (architect) ↗, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted ↗, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it ↗ again or request ↗ that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted ↗ so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:07, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Newspaper of record ↗, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Granma ↗ was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Could you help with a request about Justin Driscoll?

You helped me with some previous requests on the Justin Driscoll Talk page, which was much appreciated. I have a new request ↗ about the career section and I would appreciate any feedback or suggestions. I took a stab at reordering the information chronologically so it's easier to follow and adding context to a misleading quote. TN NYPA (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Speedy deletion ↗ nomination of :Category:2021 disestablishments in Nebraska ↗

48px|left|alt=|link= ↗

A tag has been placed on :Category:2021 disestablishments in Nebraska ↗ indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category ↗, a category redirect ↗, under discussion at Categories for discussion ↗, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion ↗.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may '''contest the nomination''' by visiting the page ↗ and removing the speedy deletion tag.   '''''L'''''iz '''''Read!''''' ↗ '''''Talk!''''' 04:43, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Creative Center Omaha.jpg

35px|text-top|left|⚠|link= ↗ Thanks for uploading ''':File:Creative Center Omaha.jpg ↗'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free 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) 17:09, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

AI 171 preliminary report does not reveal the cause of crash

Hi, you reverted some text I removed. The text reads:

with the aircraft's front [EAFR] revealing that the crash was caused by the loss of thrust in both engines after their fuel control switches were moved from RUN to CUTOFF three seconds after liftoff.

As I understand the preliminary report text, as well as the intention of the preliminary report, it is incorrect to say that "the crash was caused" by anything. What is your thinking? Thanks! Amitrao17 (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Sidney Buchanan ↗

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Hello, Dmartin969. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Sidney Buchanan ↗, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted ↗, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it ↗ again or request ↗ that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted ↗ so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 07:07, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Goodstop by Casey's ↗

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Hello, Dmartin969. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Goodstop by Casey's ↗, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted ↗, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it ↗ again or request ↗ that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted ↗ so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 05:08, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Alan McDonald (architect) ↗

48px|left|alt=|link= ↗
Hello, Dmartin969. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation ↗ submission or draft ↗ page you started, "Alan McDonald ↗".

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing.  '''''L'''''iz '''''Read!''''' ↗ '''''Talk!''''' 03:21, 1 July 2026 (UTC)