User talk:Starfall2015

Suggestion

Hello, Starfall2015,

I think you would get a better response from your fellow editors if you didn't blank your User talk page after every single message. Leave up messages from the past few weeks so that editors who posted here can come back and see what your response is. It's unfriendly to immediately remove a message after it's been posted. Sometimes discussions can go on for a few days so just leave the messages up on your talk page until it is finished.

Also, for example, I'm an administrator and I want to look over what messages you have received lately and instead of just looking at your User talk page, I have to look through your archives to see messages from just a few days ago which is a nuissance. I leave up messages from the past two months on my User talk page but I realized that might be too many messages from some editors. But considering letting messages stay, at least a week or two, before they are removed to your archive. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:38, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello Starfall2015, I'm Moneytrees, and I'm an admin and experienced RfA nominator. I noticed you have created a request for adminship page after being advised to do so by another editor-- I very strongly encourage you to not move forward with your run, and tag the page with a G7 CSD notice so it can be deleted. You are not experienced enough to run, and will not pass-- you were just partially blocked within the last 24 hours, which is something RfA voters will harp on and will bring you unwanted attention, potentially even after the RfA is over. I'm not trying to be mean by telling you this, I'm trying to save you from an unpleasant experience: RfA's are very high scrutiny and can be quite intense. My own RfA is a prime example of this. There's more advice and information at Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. Let me know if you have any questions. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 14:23, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to echo Moneytrees's statement above. I often get bring up as an example of an editor who went through RfA with a tenure/edit count less than what people expected. Even then I had eight thousand edits and many years of continuous editing when I requested admin. This is not to say that you obtaining eight thousand edits would even guarantee you success then (it would take a lot more to get people to support). Please do not go further with this, it is a bad idea. I'd recommend a break from Wikipedia, or to focus on other non-controversial areas. dbeef [talk] 14:58, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

@Dbeef @Moneytrees they have been offered this advice at the AN thread and below. Unfortunately they are unwilling to delete it. I consider myself Involved as I declined the unblock, but I would suggest a housekeeping delete because this isn't going to end well based on the feedback here and at the AN thread and would prefer not to see them and their nominator end up blocked. Star Mississippi 15:13, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Starfall2015, I just wanted to add my voice to others that are telling you to cancel your RFA. I had two years of experience and tens of thousands of edits when I went through my RFA and I still got raked over the coals. It was very unpleasant and I still consider it one of the worst experiences of my life even though I'm glad I got through it. Comments are very personal and if you have made mistakes, other editors will grill you on them. You shouldn't put yourself through such an ordeal until you have years' worth of editing experience and knowledge. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I am Starfall's father. He is (age specified) and has been doing all of this and hiding it. How do I cancel what ever an RFA is? Starfall2015 ^{let's talk} _profile 21:46, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Please see WP:CHILD. However, this is a non-issue now as the account is indefinitely blocked due to it being WP:COMPROMISED. Starfall2015 will be welcomed back in a few years, once they are significantly more mature and you think it is a good idea. --Yamla (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you I asked for a vanish of the account but was told that it can't happen due to the block. Is there a way to keep him from this. He has some disabilities and it is clear talking to him that he doesn't understand what has been happening and doesn't really see the scale, importance etc. of wikipedia and it's accuracy requirements. I think he views it more as a coding experience.

Thanks Starfall2015 ^{let's talk} _profile 21:52, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I've deleted the RFA Floquenbeam (talk) 21:52, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Starfall2015's father, the block should actually work better than vanishing (which isn't an option here) anyway. This allows Starfall2015 to continue reading Wikipedia but not editing anything. --Yamla (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Perfect. That's the best outcome. Starfall2015 ^{let's talk} _profile 07:57, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

To Starfall’s father, there are loads of tasks other than writing articles and adminning (like WP:GNOMING) that people can do on Wikipedia, and lots of editors with disabilities make important contributions (myself included). The timing may be wrong now, but it can be a good outlet in the future. Kowal2701 (talk) 11:39, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes I agree. I think, too much too soon is the only issue. He is a very very clever child and will definitely return in time. Starfall2015 ^{let's talk} _profile 15:10, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Unblock me

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).

Starfall2015 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I want to be unblocked as it is something I want to help out at. I don't believe I have done anything wrong. Starfall2015 ^{let's talk} _profile 07:54, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

That is precisely the problem- you don't think you did anything wrong, and you didn't listen when others told you what you did wrong. Until you realize what you did wrong and can tell how you will correct it, you will not be permitted to edit UAA. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 08:42, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

---

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.

Unblock me (attempt 2)

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).

Starfall2015 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I wanted to suggest some usernames, and I might have done it slightly wrong. My correction method is to read through the username policy, and then find some users with a bad username and 1 or 2 bad edits. I would appreciate it if I can help out at UAA again. Thank you. Starfall2015 ^{let's talk} _profile 08:45, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Please gain more experience before considering an unblock request. This is not something you rush into, nor is adminship Star Mississippi 13:34, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

---

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.

• Courtesy link for reviewing admin: please compare [1]. Bishonen | tålk 09:17, 11 July 2025 (UTC).

• It seems the main issue[2][3] is that you are not an admin, and thus cannot clerk the page. A review of your edits shows very impressive work on ANI and other boards—indeed, the quality was so high that I had assumed you already were an admin. With your consent, I will happily nominate you for the upcoming admin elections. LordDiscord (talk) 12:50, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Of course you can nominate me! Starfall2015 ^{let's talk} _profile 12:51, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Or I can start an RFA? Starfall2015 ^{let's talk} _profile 13:02, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  That works too, I will support your candidacy either way. I can have something done by the end of the day if not. LordDiscord (talk) 13:17, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  This is my nomination. Starfall2015 ^{let's talk} _profile 13:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Awesome! Writing up a message in support. LordDiscord (talk) 13:27, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  I can't believe I have been nominated for adminship. Starfall2015 ^{let's talk} _profile 13:28, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Starfall2015, I say this with complete sincerity, please withdraw your RfA as soon as possible. It is not going to be pleasant in the slightest. Weirdguyz (talk) 13:35, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Starfall2015, while I believe that LordDiscord was sincere in their comments, I don't recommend applying for adminship at this time. I believe that you need to acclimate more experience first before attempting to make a request for adminship. There have been users who have over a fifty times the editing experience that you hold and users have been here for over a decade longer than you have that are not admins. I myself fall into the latter category. You should slow down a little and try to learn more about Wikipedia before attempting to become an admin. --Super Goku V (talk) 14:16, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  But, I meet all the requirements and shouldn't be treated like this. Starfall2015 ^{let's talk} _profile 14:18, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  The "requirements" for adminship are the absolute bare minimum required for the premission added to an account, they aren't what people are actually looking for in an admin candidate. It's a bit like saying "to run a marathon you need two legs", while it's true statement of the requirements most people with two legs probably wouldn't make it across the finish line.

  This can be a bit confusing because the requirements aren't written down in plain black and white anywhere and aren't firm, fixed things (like have x amount of edits), instead people are looking for you to demonstrate that you understand how Wikipedia works (including it's policies and processes), You have a need for the tools, and you have the experience and maturity to use the tools properly. You need to get a lot more experience before running for adminship. 86.23.87.130 (talk) 14:35, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  While you might meet the minimum requirements, I must admit that I don't believe that you are even halfway to the recommended requirements. Being an admin comes with great power, which is why the community has high standards as to who is qualified enough to be an admin. Right now, there are users who have serious concerns with your edits and actions to the Usernames for administrator attention page. While you are making well-meaning edits and trying to help, those editors who are more experienced do not believe that you were following the assessment criteria and were unintentionally causing disruption as a result. As noted in our Blocking policy, Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users..., hence the block. Right now, you are being told that you don't have enough experience yet to continue editing at UAA. But, even though you cannot edit the UAA page, you are not blocked from the rest of Wikipedia. In time, you can gain more experience and reflect on what happened which will likely improve you as an editor. But for now, I do agree with the others that you should withdraw your RfA. --Super Goku V (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  @LordDiscord This is a completely ridiculous suggestion, the problem with Starfall's edits wasn't that "they aren't an admin", the problem is that they have no idea what they are doing. You only became active on the project about 2 months ago, it is ridiculous that you are telling people to nominate themselves for adminship. If Starfall does start an RFA the "best" outcome is that they are going to have a horrible experience where people pile on with oppose votes, the worst outcome would be a CIR block. 86.23.87.130 (talk) 13:08, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Please be WP:CIVIL. Starfall meets all the requirements and has shown the clear capability to be an effective admin.

  Also, I didn’t tell them to nominate themselves, I offered to nominate them. LordDiscord (talk) 13:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  @LordDiscord You have nowhere near the experience to be reccomending people for adminship and are telling starfall to do something that is going to really upset them. This isn't being uncivil, this is simply a fact.

  If they attempt to RFA they are going to end up with people piling on with oppose votes, because there are a lot of serious issues they need to address:

  • Starfall has been here for 3 1/2 months, most people would expect an admin candidates to have at least a years experience.
  • Starfall has made ~ 580 edits, most people would expect an admin candidate to have made tens of thousands of edits.
  • Starfall has not written any good or featured articles, the articles they have attempted to write have been draftified as being unsuitable for mainspace.
  • Starfall is currently partially blocked from Wikipedia space for disruptive editing.
  • Starfall has repeatedly requested page protection that has no basis in the protection policy, all of which have been declined [4] [5] [6] [7]
  • Starfall's AFD noms fail to cite policy, a significant proportion result in articles being kept [8] [9] [10] [11]
  • Starfall doesn't seem to understand how speedy deletion works, see, for example, [12]

  and so on and so on. 86.23.87.130 (talk) 13:33, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  You are not being WP:CIVIL. Starfall2015 ^{let's talk} _profile 13:35, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  What do you expect an RFA to be like? These are exactly the kind of things that people are going to be looking at and commenting on.

  You really really should withdraw your nomination before it turns into a nasty pile on of oppose votes. 86.23.87.130 (talk) 13:43, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  You have made your point clear. --Super Goku V (talk) 13:45, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Very much agree with all the points you make, IP86. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 13:45, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to remove speedy deletion notices from pages you created yourself, as you did at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Starfall2015, you may be blocked from editing. 88.97.192.42 (talk) 14:12, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Please stop harassing Starfall2015. Your edits might be well meaning, but they are not helping by adding an improper deletion notice. --Super Goku V (talk) 14:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Striking a bit as I guess the notice isn't really improper. Though, you shouldn't tell Starfall2015 that they can be blocked for removing it. --Super Goku V (talk) 14:22, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

88.97.192.42, I'm not saying they're making a good choice but G6 is one of the tags the creator can remove per WP:CSDCONTEST: The creator of a page may remove a speedy deletion tag only if the criterion in question is G6, G7, ... No need to edit war, even if it's in their best interest. Skynxnex (talk) 14:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Your RfA

Seems like you started an RfA (which I don’t think anyone can see because you haven’t started it properly). While I applaud your enthusiasm, I highly suggest you withdraw the request to save yourself a lot of trouble. Successful adminship candidates usually have ~10,000 edits, at least, and years of experience on the encyclopedia. As the IP said, this is going to be a Wikipedia:Not now situation - I suggest you would be much more likely to pass if you run again in a few years. Best , GoldRomean (talk) 14:46, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

They listed it, but another editor removed it. LordDiscord (talk) 14:49, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks; sorry, I overlooked the discussion above. LordDiscord’s advice is good, and I suggest you follow them (and the suggestions of those above as well). GoldRomean (talk) 15:34, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Apologies

I saw your ANI report and am concerned this is spiraling. Per the overwhelming consensus, there is no chance you will succeed in an RFA yet. It will not be a fun experience and I recommend withdrawing. Also a break from Wikipedia for a couple days would be healthy. I am sorry for prodding you into this situation. LordDiscord (talk) 15:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I need an unblock.

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).

Starfall2015 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

OK. So you changed my block and now I can't tell the community that I want to start a WikiProject? And that my block is preventing me from starting it? Right. It's going to be called WikiProject Logs, and it's where users gather to look at logs, and help the project. I'll also be writing an essay on the incident in my user space, and hopefully I get unblocked soon. Thank you.

Decline reason:

You won't be unblocked, unless and until you give us a reason to unblock you. Just saying that you want to do things that your block is preventing you from doing is not a reason; if anything, it's the opposite. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:31, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

---

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.

Starfall2015 ^{let's talk} _profile 08:21, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Starfall2015, I get that you are not happy about the situation. (In fact, I don't see a message that your block got changed, which does confuse me a bit, but you did already have the notification for the ANI discussion.) Our blocking policy (as mentioned here at Wikipedia:Blocking policy) is designed to prevent disruption to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, your edits were deemed to have caused significant disruption and there are users who have concerns with your future editing to the project space. As per BLOCKPREVENTATIVE, the goal of this is to prevent and deter continuing disruption while encouraging users to be more productive within the community. While you might not view your edits as disruptive, others did. However, you should note that you have not been prevented from editing entirely. You still have the ability to edit articles and participate in talk page discussions. That gives you access to the majority of Wikipedia. You can still contribute and help. This will give you more experience on Wikipedia and can help you become more knowledgeable about how Wikipedia works. Given both time and experience, you might be able to properly appeal your block.

However, at the moment, by repeatedly asking to be unblocked, you are falling afoul of WP:EBUR. Specifically, Requests that look like the examples shown below are likely to be denied. If made repeatedly, they may lead to your block being extended or removal of talk page access by either a change of block settings or your talk page being protected from editing. What I recommend is just taking a week or longer off to make sure that you have processed what has happened and then try to move on from the incident by editing something else if you still want to participate on Wikipedia. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:00, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Just an aside: Liz asked Pppery about the lack of an updated block notice. I checked the WP:PBLOCK page and it does actually say Consider placing a template such as {{Uw-pblock}} on the talk pages of the users you block. Possibly why there isn't an updated notice. Weirdguyz (talk) 12:37, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I didn't see the need since Starfall2015 was clearly aware both of the ANI discussion that was heading toward a consensus to block them and of how to request an unblock, so there is nothing a notice would say that they didn't already know. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:14, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you to Weirdguyz and yeah, that is fair. Just caught me by surprise when I was typing things up earlier, so I put my main reply here instead. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Unblock me (attempt 4)

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).

Starfall2015 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

OK. Three unblock requests in. I believe I should be unblocked because if you don't block me you're probably driving away this very precious editor. The real reason? I want to alert admins, and if I do it in my talk it'll be slower. Also, when I get unblocked I'll start a WikiProject. It's going to be called WikiProject Logs, and it's where users gather to look at logs, and help the project. I'll also be writing an essay on the incident in my user space, and hopefully I get unblocked soon. Thank you.

Decline reason:

You are clearly deliberately wasting our time with these unblock requests. Yamla (talk) 09:54, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

---

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.

Starfall2015, can you just remove this and give me 30 minutes to reply to your earlier discussion? --Super Goku V (talk) 08:38, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Halfway though, but if you meant to remove it, all that you did was make it smaller. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:47, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't want to remove it as then I'd have to memorise it. Starfall2015 ^{let's talk} _profile 08:49, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I see. Thankfully you don't have to memorize anything as every edit is record in that page's history. As you can see here, this is the edit where you created this section. The history and the changes made from that edit will exist, even if you remove this discussion entirely. (Which I still recommend. Or at least the unblock template above.) --Super Goku V (talk) 09:05, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

At this point, Starfall2015, you should be aware that I and (likely) other admins are considering whether to extend your block site-wide. I want to strongly emphasize that you are much, much, much closer to that than you are to having your existing partial block lifted. --Yamla (talk) 09:57, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Seconded. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:16, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

There's also this: User:Starfall2015/The July 2025 Admin Incident. 88.97.192.42 (talk) 11:51, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Bishonen | tålk 12:33, 14 July 2025 (UTC).

Fourth. I believe we're deliberately being trolled now despite my initial hopes of naivety at work. Star Mississippi 13:10, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Hey Starfall, how about we just work on an article together instead and give this some time to cool down? I was planning on working on Sampit conflict, but if you have another article you are interested in fixing up, would be happy to collaborate. LordDiscord (talk) 12:35, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

@LordDiscord I'm not really interested in that kind of stuff, maybe we could do something with WikiProject Highways? I have two drafts which could do with some more citations. Starfall2015 ^{let's talk} _profile 12:44, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I’m not a highway person and know nothing about the article creation process, but certainly I can give a stab at finding citations. How can I find your drafts? LordDiscord (talk) 13:23, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

(1) (2) Starfall2015 ^{let's talk} _profile 13:26, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

When I click on those, I just get “This page has not yet been created”. Not sure what I am doing wrong. LordDiscord (talk) 14:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Both pages say that deletion was requested by the author of the page, so it was deleted per WP:G7. If Starfall2015 did tag both drafts with G7, then Starfall2015 will need to indicate that they wanted the drafts REFUNDED. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Final warning

With respect, I am seeing an ongoing pattern of a refusal to get the point of your blocks. You've made four unblock requests in four days. All of them have been denied. Four administrators in the section above this one have told you that you are close to a site-wide block. I want to stipulate in clear, unequivocal terms; if you make another unblock request it is highly likely you will be blocked indefinitely from the site.

You must take time from this. Being partially blocked is not the end of the world. Work in other areas of the project. There are seven million articles here. I'm sure you can find something to do outside of the WP space. Build a good track record of doing such things and maybe in a few months an unblock request to clear the WP space block can be successful...if you acknowledge what you did wrong. Right now, there is no such opportunity given your demonstrated lack of understanding. Please, I beg of you, lay off the unblock requests and go edit something else. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:03, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I'll go to main and draft space and see what happens. My next appeal will come when I reach 1000 edits. Starfall2015 ^{let's talk} _profile 14:06, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I'd recommend against identifying a particular edit count with appealing. Given your editing history, that would put your next appeal about five weeks out. That's not going to work. Focus instead on producing good, well cited content in article space or some other worthy effort on the project. Demonstrating capability to work with the community in producing quality work will go a long way to restoring trust. An edit count does absolutely NOTHING to restore trust. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:11, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Christmas 2025. That gives me 5.5 months to work on the encyclopedia and just hopefully pass an appeal. Starfall2015 ^{let's talk} _profile 14:13, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Setting an arbitrary target, be it edit count or a date, isn't going to magically re-establish trust. Demonstrating ability to contribute constructively will. That might happen before Christmas 2025 (or Easter 2026 or Halloween 2027 for that matter), or it might not. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:13, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely

Your account has been blocked indefinitely because it is suspected that it has been compromised. If your account is globally locked, contact cawikimedia.org for assistance. Otherwise, if you are able to confirm that you are the user who created this account, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section), then add this below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Yamla (talk) 21:51, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Starfall2015,

You've now been indefinitely blocked from editing on this project, in part, due to your family's request for some action to be taken. I just wanted to thank you for the contributions you have made here over the past few months. I hope you will find some other pursuit to occupy yourself that is far away from Wikipedia. Maybe in a few years, after you have had more time in school, you can reach out and we can have a discussion on whether or not Wikipedia is a suitable environment for you. But I think you should wait at least 5 years before trying again. Have a good summer and I hope you find something enjoyable to spend your time on. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:42, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Starfall2015/The July 2025 Admin Incident

User:Starfall2015/The July 2025 Admin Incident, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Starfall2015/The July 2025 Admin Incident and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Starfall2015/The July 2025 Admin Incident during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 01:11, 15 July 2025 (UTC)