Jump to content

User talk:Ancheta Wis/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14

New administrator activity requirement

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

  1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
  2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

"DNA experiments" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect DNA experiments and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 19#DNA experiments until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Army Futures Command

Not often that I have anything meaningful to add to United States Army Futures Command, but here's a link for you. No idea where this would fit. I leave it in your capable hands. SuperWIKI (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I propose an edit to the Futures Command article which could show how the Army is evolving. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 14:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:HistOfScienceSummary

Template:HistOfScienceSummary has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Mathematics block

I’d prefer not to initiate a WP:ANI regarding the block you imposed for my 3RR infraction at Mathematics. Bear in mind that I’m not denying the 3RR violation nor am I contesting the propriety of the block. Instead, my concerns relate to circumstantial behaviors you demonstrated as a sysop and the subsequent comments you made about the incident. Specifically –

  1. You seemed to ignore the 3RR implications regarding six reversions by D.Lazard (i.e., reversion #1 by D.Lazard; reversion #2 by D.Lazard; reversion #3 by D.Lazard versus diff; reversion #4 by D.Lazard versus diff; reversion #5 by D.Lazard versus diff; reversion #6 by D.Lazard versus diff. To be clear, I have no complaint whatsoever re D.Lazard nor do I care that the six reversions violate the 3RR guidelines. Indeed, two of those reversions – one of which prompted my public thanks in keeping with WP:BRD – improved upon my own edits. My only concern is that you targeted me for a 3RR block without applying similar rationale to D.Lazard. That, to me, speaks of an untoward bias from whatever source and for whatever reason beyond my interest in speculating. To reiterate from my email, I neither expected nor desired administrative action against D.Lazard and am merely highlighting the capricious disparity of treatment.
  2. If your reason for the block, noted as “cooling off time” is construed as “intended solely to ‘cool down’ an angry user” as provided by WP:CDB, such a block is prohibited under the blocking guidelines. Moreover, no anger was – nor is it now – part of anything that I felt or observed regarding the edits at issue.
  3. The block contravenes WP guidelines that state, “Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators.” In this instance, you initiated a content dispute with this edit at 20:58, 20 May 2022 and subsequently blocked me at 21:00, 20 May 2022. Thus, you needlessly inserted yourself into a substantive controversy and immediately thereafter engaged in the corresponding administrative controversy.

Please be aware that I don’t intend to vilify you, and I’d rather not escalate my concerns by bringing them to further attention via WP:ANI. Meaning, we all make mistakes and I hope to avert the bureaucratic scrutiny of a WP:ANI. Instead, I’d like you to consider doing the following:

  1. Please delete this post from the Mathematics talk page. I’m not particularly offended by it, but (a) the post is superfluous in light of editors’ ability to readily see your corresponding reversion in the “View History” window, and (b) the “3RR is now in effect for K.D. for 31 hours” contravenes the purpose “to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article”.
  2. Please revert your recent post from my talk page. Why? The post-
  • Presumes too much about the acceptable speed of change for the venue, as evidenced by D.Lazard’s response.
  • Disparages mathematicians in a supposedly humorous way that nonetheless reeks of a unflattering stereotype.
  • Patronizes mathematicians as unable to understand the type of rationale I provided in my edit summaries.
(I’m not personally offended at the characterization that my edit summaries somehow “barrages words against them”. Also, I’m not asking you to reconsider whether (a) any mathematicians might disagree that an edit summary within the provided word limit constitutes a barrage, and (b) words in an edit summary provided for everyone's benefit can be rightfully recast as words against them, as if mathematicians are the only ones who read the edit summaries for the article. Instead, in lieu of an apology to mathematicians and others who might interpret your comments as condescension, please simply remove the post to avert prospective controversy.)
3. Please do a re-revert of your reversion re the mathematics article. The edit – three mentions of "of" in a six-word span – relates solely to readability and not at all to substance. Alternatively, please offer an explanation why you prefer the current wording seeing that you neglected any explanation in the edit summary.

Cheers, --Kent Dominic·(talk) 15:16, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

It is prudent to observe the behavior of the community of editors for a well-trafficked, well-established page; often the culture of that community becomes apparent to its observers. You may wish to study the history of editors of that page before mooting more possibilities for our interactions. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 15:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
To editor Kent Dominic: Apparently you do not understand the 3RR rule, when you accuse me of breaking it. You did 13 edits in a row; some were improvements, some not. My 6 reverts are each a single revert of one of yours 13 edits. So, from the 3RR point of view, they count as a single revert, and even as a partial revert since half of your edits were kept. On the other hand you have clearly been WP:edit warring since, when one of your edit is reverted, you revert the revert instead of discussing the issue on the talk page, as you should do per WP:BRD. IMO, this is clear WP:disruptive editing and justifies your edit block. D.Lazard (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
To set the record straight, I don't accuse you of breaking the 3RR rule. I've merely observed, without alleging faut or blame and without any complaint whatsoever about your edits, that both you and I transgressed the rule – you to the tune of 6 reverts versus my 4 reverts. Indeed, before this episode, I had misunderstood the 3RR rule in much the manner you just described it. Subsequently, I learned that your both your reversions of my edits and your tweakings of my edits technically count as six separate reverts:
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material— within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that manually reverses or undoes other editors' actions — whether in whole or in part — counts as a revert. The term "revert" is defined as any edit (or administrative action) that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, and whether performed using undo, rollback, or done so completely manually.
If you somehow construe your six reverts to be one revert, then my four reverts should be similarly construed. But, that's not what the rule says. At least, that's not how Ancheta Wis interpreted the rule as applied in my case. There's no language in the 3RR rule that limits it to re-reversions, as I had believed, and as you misstated the rule. Kent Dominic·(talk) 17:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

A heads-up

I've made two reverts @Mathematics in the past 24 hours and I'm set to make my third in the spirit of WP:BRD. I'll be surprised if the edit survives the day, much less an outpouring of consensus on the talk page. Two requests: (1) If you don't care for the edit, please allow another editor to revert it rather than doing it yourself; (2) if an editor who has already made three reverts initiates a fourth by undoing the edit, please block that editor in the same manner that you blocked me. Cheers. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 08:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your suggestion, but here's the rub: you have your preferred MO for editing; I have mine, which favors WP:BRD and an inevitable slew of reversions. Ordinarily the disparate approach is not be problematic. In this case, however, you complicated things by offering this minor reversion, thus inserting yourself into the substantive issues AND subsequently blocking me, contrary to WP policy which says admins can't block someone re a substantive issue to which they're a party. That's why I've asked you to undo your reversion to negate the conflict of interest you created for yourself.

Again, I'm not bitter about the block. I just want you to follow the rules. If you undo the reversion, you're entitled to block me again if need be. Otherwise, the rules say you're supposed to consult with another administrator to block me. Do you really want to jump through those bureaucratic hoops?

Secondarily, I see you've struck one of your @Mathematics posts about your rationale for the block. The striking was well considered since the post isn't relevant to the substantive issues. Please also revert (or strike) this edit for the same reason. Cheers. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 11:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Someone else struck that post.
I have not followed the sequence, but I hope that the article lede has remained stable.
A cascade of reversions to any article is disruptive, and is to be avoided, please. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 11:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
A cascade of reversions is obviously disruptive. Only you know why you blocked me for my four inadvertent reversions while ignoring another lucky editor's six cascading reversions.
Whether I deserved the 3RR block has never been at issue. The sole point of contention is that you were not entitled to initiate the block upon inserting yourself into the substantive controversy by your own revert two minutes before the block. You've yet to acknowledge that the rules require an impartial administrator to initiate the block. My question remains: Do you wish to correct your error by undoing this minor reversion, or would you rather that I brought this to light via WP:ANI?
Again, it's not about the block; it's about how you did it. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 11:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
See § my previous reply. A pattern of behavior (a track record) needs to be established to avoid being categorized as disruptive. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 12:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Your immediate reply and your previous reply deflect from the impropriety of administratively blocking an editor for disruptive edits amid an issue in which the blocking administrator is substantively involved and thus in a position of compromised partiality contrary to the published WP guidelines. For the third (and hopefully last) time, in order to alleviate the appearance of impartiality, do you wish to undo this minor reversion, which has nothing to do with the @Mathematics lede, or are you content to explain your involvement via WP:ANI? I really would prefer that you undo the edit so we can let this thing go. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 13:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm seeing a pattern. Enough said? You yourself are building my case. How about letting this go, to break the pattern I am seeing. The encyclopedia is not about winning. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:39, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Forgive me for scrupulously caring about one particular edit, but this is not at all about "winning." Hear me out...
You made this minor reversion moments before blocking me. I suspect you had actually intended to revert the substance relating to the lede as another editor also pointed out here. I would really, really, really like to restore the language you reverted, but it's probably not the most prudent thing for me to revert a reversion by an admin who blocked me, right?
So, I keep asking you to do the reversion yourself. Problem solved. Conflict negated. End of story. This whole thing could have been avoided if you had simply blocked me without reverting anything.
For the umpteenth time: This isn't about holding your feet to the fire. It's not about winning. I'm not asking for an apology. I'm not angry about you or anyone else. I don't want arbitration that might affect your sysop credentials. I just want you to fix a wording change that I – a lowly editor – don't have the temerity to fix on my own under the circumstances. I'm pretty sure that's why the rule says an admin should find another sysop to block someone after becoming substantively involved in an editing matter. Kent Dominic·(talk) 15:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages. (T307341)
  • The IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2022).

Technical news

  • user_global_editcount is a new variable that can be used in abuse filters to avoid affecting globally active users. (T130439)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The New Pages Patrol queue has around 10,000 articles to be reviewed. As all administrators have the patrol right, please consider helping out. The queue is here. For further information on the state of the project, see the latest NPP newsletter.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Unnecessarily sharp answer?

This answer on Talk:Mathematics seems a bit unwelcoming. Minimally, let them know that the page is for discussing editing and not for asking questions about the topic? If it is some young teenager (or younger), I imagine your answer being unhelpful... --John (User:Jwy/talk) 15:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I added some citations as further help. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 17:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2022).

Administrator changes

readded Valereee
removed Anthony Appleyard (deceased) • Capitalistroadster • Samsara

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
  • An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.

Technical news

  • The Wikimania 2022 Hackathon will take place virtually from 11 August to 14 August.
  • Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (T308570)

Arbitration

  • The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

  • You can vote for candidates in the 2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
  • Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed here. There are also a number of in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
  • Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

the talks

war 198.161.203.11 (talk) 00:11, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 00:51, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2022).

Guideline and policy news

  • A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
  • An RfC is open to gain consensus on whether Fox News is reliable for science and politics.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • An arbitration case regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
  • The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

  • The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
  • Voting for candidates for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees is open until 6 September.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

File:Brunei2.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Brunei2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 11:32, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

File:Brunei3.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Brunei3.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 11:32, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to Preferences → Gadgets and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Articles on Nuclear Power

Hello Ancheta Wis. I have been impressed with your contributions to these articles, especially the Molten Salt Reactor article. I am in a dispute with Writ Keeper over the article on the ThorCon Nuclear Reactor. He has deleted my edits and left only a link to an anti-nuclear organization. I have tried to engage him in a good faith discussion, but he refuses. At this point, I am tempted to try Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, but maybe there is a simpler solution. Are you willing to participate in a discussion on the article's talk page? David MacQuigg 02:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I have contributed on the talk page --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 05:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm still hesitant to start undoing Writ Keeper's edits, as I don't have time for another futile debate, but I will follow your advice. My main effort has to stay focused on the Citizendium articles on Nuclear Power. I see WP and CZ not as competitors, but complementary. WP has a bigger audience, and good quality on non-controversial topics. CZ has better quality on controversial topics, like nuclear power. I would like to hear your opinion on our CZ articles. You can communicate privately, if you wish to macquigg at gmail. David MacQuigg 07:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
I've been thinking some more about your comment on the talk page, and your suggestion to read up on SWUs. That article on Separative Work Units is way too technical for the audience I am addressing at Citizendium, but it could serve as a "reliable source" in the Wikipedia article to confirm the claims of very high fuel efficiency in the ThorCon webpage. I haven't done the calculation, but it looks like the needed data is all there in the webpage. We could add a section "Fuel efficiency" to the article - "ThorCon claims their uranium fuel efficiency is much better than a standard Light Water Reactor. ... " why this is important ... (conserve resources, minimize waste) ... then cite the SWU article to confirm ThorCons calculation. Is this something worth doing? David MacQuigg 04:04, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I decided to leave the ThorCon article as is, and not add that section on Fuel Efficiency. I'm afraid anything positive about a nuclear reactor will upset the anti-nukers. The SWU article needs some good graphics to make the equations more comprehensible. I made a spreadsheet and plotted the requirements to generate 1 kg of enriched uranium. It looks like a linear function of the enrichment %, but not exactly. Here is a link to my spreadsheet. Use whatever you think is helpful in the article. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OyKPyjo6k1ckZVwAh8sfkDEtB5W22VUriBaelK3LWY4/edit?usp=sharing David MacQuigg 22:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure I have my calculation right. If SWU is an almost perfectly linear function of x, why bother with all the more complicated functions? Also, look at the calculation for starting with 50% HALEU. Only 7 SMU to get to weapons grade! This could have implications for non-proliferation. David MacQuigg 17:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
@David MacQuigg: Thank you for identifying an example 'breakout' symptom. It would be the job of the regulators of the Thorcon Can supply centers to detect that those fuel suppliers for Thorcon produce no higher than 19.7% HALEU enrichment product for the Thorium-233 molten fuel mix. The 19.75% value can be detected at the supplier location by geometrical considerations (number of centrifuges etc., their dimensional measurements, the speed of rotation) as well as by direct measurement of the degree of uranium enrichment by the regulatory apparatus. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 15:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Direct measurement is the simplest. I think there will be very few, but very large, licensed suppliers of HALEU, or any other enrichment services. The key to limiting proliferation will be regulation of these enrichment factories. I would go a step further: give a big discount on enrichment services to countries willing to go along with IAEA inspections. There should be no excuse for any country to brew their own. The subsidy would be a small price for the nuclear weapons states to pay for the privilege of keeping our weapons while denying others. David MacQuigg 07:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Fixed-point combinator

I saw your recent edits at fixed point (mathematics) and fixed-point combinator, and changed "has" back to "is". Since I didn't understand the reason you gave in the {{citation needed}} tag in fixed-point combinator, I'd like to ask you to explain it. The "f" that appears in the definition of Y is just a formal parameter, so whether f does anything or not depends on the actual parameter that is supplied to Y. In section Fixed-point_combinator#The_factorial_function, an example calculation is shown where Y is applied to the body of the factorial function (more precisely, to the 2-argument function F defined in that section). Unfortunately, "Y" is called "fix" there. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 17:32, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

A different user tagged the citation needed. The user apparently coded up the combinator in a language like Python and failed to learn anything from the print statements. Unfortunately, the combinator expresses a constraint which needs to be solved for; the prints don't prove anything. If we take the Simon Peyton-Jones (SLPJ) citation at face value, what needs to happen is the type system needs to be let alone, and laziness needs to produce the value, given constraints (this could take infinite time). So the 'Citation needed' should stand. (I actually tried to fix the tag, but SLPJ's book convinced me that I should give up) --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 18:45, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
To me, a point is an object, with properties, such as a value; to me, a parameter can be fed to a function. Thus in my view an object can have properties, such as x- and y-values. I have been influenced by Bartosz Milewski's (2019) Category Theory for Programmers. To him, objects can be illustrated as pictorial points, while mappings (functions) can be illustrated as arrows. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 18:45, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2022).

CheckUser changes

removed TheresNoTime

Oversight changes

removed TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget. (T319449)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Follow Me, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anduril.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy Seventeenth Adminship Anniversary!

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, Chris Troutman (talk) 16:48, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:MtCristoRey.jpg

Notice

The file File:MtCristoRey.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused, low quality, superseded by files at c:Category:Christ the King (Urbici Soler).

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:49, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:UrbiciSoleri'sCrucifixOnMtCristoRey,CloseUp.jpg

Notice

The file File:UrbiciSoleri'sCrucifixOnMtCristoRey,CloseUp.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused, low quality, superseded by files at c:Category:Christ the King (Urbici Soler).

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:49, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ancheta_Wis/Archive_12&oldid=1133892265"