User talk:Willondon/Archives/2021

Question

Hey feces face, why did you remove my edit to Russell M. Nelson? It was clearly cited. You can't arbitrarily remove information that you don't like. This is Wikipedia, not Nazi Germany. FroggieApplePie (talk) 02:28, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

You mean this edit here [1]? In the comments section, I wrote "dubious". That means "arousing doubt; questionable; open to suspicion." Willondon (talk) 02:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one. What is dubious about it? FroggieApplePie (talk) 02:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Condie published "Father, Surgeon, Apostle" in 2003; but Nelson's wife didn't die until 2005. I'm going by the hardback edition. I don't have access to the paperback edition, or when it was published. If you can refer to a page number, I would consider deferring to your superior scholarship. Willondon (talk) 03:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

It was on page 97. FroggieApplePie (talk) 03:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find someone who has a copy. It seems strange, since in the hardback edition, page 97 is still dealing with the very early stages of Nelson's life. And I see that you're new here. If you precede your comments with full colons (that's the ":" symbol), it will indent the thread of our discussion so that it's easy to read. Willondon (talk) 03:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. The citation is actually found on page 397. I am new, and accidentally omitted the 3 from the page number. FroggieApplePie (talk) 03:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@Willondon: The user you were interacting with is a sockpuppet account of a user who's been banned from Wikipedia for over a decade now. You'll see him under a new name a few times a year, he apparently finds his troll edits to be high comedy. Ignore him.  White Whirlwind  10:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I didn't know they were a sockpuppet, but I did know they were a troll. I enjoy trolling the trolls. Did you see the thanks I got in the end? I aspire to even higher comedy. I wasn't upset at being called "feces face", because I often sport a shit-eating grin. Cheers. Willondon (talk) 10:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

For reference: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/GeraldFord1980/Archive.  White Whirlwind  01:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Starhill Gallery

Hey, can you not change Starhill Gallery description as it is what Starhill copywriter intended. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nazrinnoorzan (talk • contribs) 13:32, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia. What the Starhill copywriter intended has no final influence on what shows up in Wikipedia articles. Willondon (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Rebel Wilson

I have reverted my accidental rollback at Rebel Wilson. Sorry for my fat fingers! WWGB (talk) 23:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

*phew* Thanks for self-reverting. When a solid, reliable editor reverts me, well.. I was about do some research to see if Rebel Wilson had indeed made a legal name change. Stranger things have happened. Cheers. Willondon (talk) 23:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

November 2021

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to School uniforms in South Korea: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. TylerBurden (talk) 15:20, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

From Ricoballer23 (vandal)

Hi. Joe Byron is our new principal, he was just introduced to us today by the school board. Please refrain from editing the page further. Ricoballer23 — Preceding undated comment added 03:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

(re various edits [2],[3],[4],etc.)

Tipping points

Hi Willondon you have edited on the Tipping points in the climate system page. I have posed some questions on the talk page re Observable warning signals. Would you care to comment? Yaklib (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

From The big zoro

Hello buddy, Why did u cancel my edit? The big zoro (talk) 22:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

What I put in the edit summary of my edits:

[5] unexplained changes, deletion of reference

[6] unexplained deletion, and

[7] unexplained deletion

_signed, Willondon (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Blue angel cafe

Ho provato ad aggiungere una informazione su questo film. La voce dell'attrice nel brano di Luigi Ceccarelli è mia! Mi viene risposto: conflitto di interessi e viene rimossa questa informazione. In Italia tutti sanno ciò!

Loredana Armone Caruso. Loredana Armone Caruso (talk) 10:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The editor that brought up conflict of interest did so because you are adding yourself. Wikipedia would find it hard to remain neutral if people who had a personal interest in the article could edit it unchecked. I brought up the lack of sources. See (WP:Verifiability, not truth). Unfortunately, you didn't give any outside sources for your addition. And I couldn't find any myself. That's the problem we have with your edits. Willondon (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Or as Google translate might say: "L'editore che ha sollevato il conflitto di interessi lo ha fatto perché stai aggiungendo te stesso. Wikipedia troverebbe difficile rimanere neutrale se le persone che hanno un interesse personale nell'articolo potessero modificarlo senza controllo. Ho sollevato la mancanza di fonti. Sfortunatamente, non hai fornito alcuna fonte esterna per la tua aggiunta. E non sono riuscito a trovarne nessuno. Questo è il problema che abbiamo con le tue modifiche."

Lyle Tuttle

Hey dude why do you keep editing something you know shit about! In 1971 I personally asked Lyke why he didn't tattoo his neck, ha ds or feet to which he replied: "'Cause you can't hide them!" That is a fact!!! Maybe you are tattooed where he said not to, but that's your personal problem for being an idiot. 184.91.49.182 (talk) 01:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

There was no reliable source given [8]. Willondon (talk) 01:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Go away, Will

Will, I'm going to have to politely ask you to go waste your time somewhere else. We will make sure that this article includes this TRUE information, regardless of how much of your time we have to waste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.12.41.72 (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

(I believe this had something to do with my reversal of this edit [9], and many others like it. Willondon (talk) 00:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC) )

Unsourced?

Dear Willondon, Why was the contribution “unreliable”? I have used the Meta project as the main source and was described by one of the greatest Dutch newspapers (see NRC Handelsblad. So can you explain why people will not see the facts about the past situation on that site? Regards, 89.205.142.19 (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

No answer? 89.205.142.19 (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Not right away, no. I had to eat dinner (which I had to prepare, too). Turkey scallopini breaded with some ground pepper and paprika added, orzo cooked in chicken broth with grated romano cheese and basil, with a carrot slaw topped with blue cheese. It was delicious.

Your first edit [10] changed a section header from "Quality" to "Bureacrats", while leaving the subsections "Article depth" and "Bytes per article" thereunder, then listed some names with a link to a list of administrators for the Dutch Wikipedia project. Not an improvement.

Your second edit [11] added a paragraph of unsourced opinion. The sources given were to a banning policy and a list of banned users. To describe how those links support your additions would be a Ralph Dibney-sized stretch to even call it synthesis. Not an improvement.

You must expect me to take my time in replying to comments on my talk page. (Less than two hours. Not bad for a volunteer project.) For dessert, some slices of Asian pear, topped with a bit of brown sugar (not too much) and a pinch of cinnamon. Cheers. Willondon (talk) 23:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Why?

Why are undoing a gender-neutral edit on the adultism article? I find a boy of 12 and a girl of 13 to be sexist! Quit undoing my gender-neutral edit! 216.145.84.246 (talk) 21:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

If you select "View History" on a page, you can see all the changes made and, if the editor left a comment, which they're supposed to, you will see why. In the first case [12], I said "not an improvement", and in the second case [13], I said "replaces two people with one, not an improvement". I appreciate the quest for gender neutrality, or even gender agnosticism, but it doesn't work in this case. Firstly, what you are changing is a quote of someone else's words (Patterson du Bois). Secondly, it introduces a grammatical error where a singular subject is now paired with the verb 'were', a plural construct. In either case, not an improvement. Willondon (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Spam link

Why on earth are you restoring a spam (link farm) link on ringless voicemail? It's an obvious violation of wikipedia's stealth advertising policy. 97.124.152.48 (talk) 03:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Because I totally didn't read your edit comments. *Ouch* I restored your edit. Sorry. Willondon (talk) 03:12, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Warning

Hi, can you add warning templates when reverting edits? Thanks! ― Qwerfjkltalk 23:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I will consider my editing habits further. There are a few reasons I don't often add warning templates now:

• I'm just getting back into editing, and I'm a bit rusty on them.
• I don't like the canned text involved; it's usually contrary to something I would write.
• I don't agree with the escalated warning system; it doesn't account for different offenders' intents.
• I often can't be bothered.

I will heed your message, though. I can see where my failure to use warning templates may be considered a dereliction of duty, as in this case. In fact, I recently started the process of crafting some personally acceptable warning text in my Sandbox. Again, I will spend some extra time adapting my editing habits to include more use of warning messages. Cheers. Willondon (talk) 23:22, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I mentioned this because I was warning the IP in question, and it's hard to tell if the IP has vandalised etc. if no warning is given. Thanks! ― Qwerfjkltalk 23:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Praise from 70.26.86.156

youre a loser wilondon. get a life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.86.156 (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

(See [14],[15] and [16] for a tiny glimpse of this editor's rich and full life. "Another Saturday night, and I ain't got nobody...")

From user Cemsid1

I add articles related to the subject to external links. Why are you removing it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cemsid1 (talk • contribs) 10:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I took some time to search for the edits you were talking about ([17],[18],[19],[20]). In the edit summary for all my reverts, I said "link spam" with a Wikilink to the article section Wikipedia:Spam#External_link_spamming. If I need to expand on that, all your edits added a link to "medicineclue.com", one of them to the page "/what-is-the-eucalipto-plant-where-can-you-buy/". So, why? Link spamming. _signed, Willondon (talk) 14:51, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

December 2021

Welcome to Wikipedia! Please stop your understated use of humor in your edits, as you recently perpetrated here and repeatedly on your user page. Your measured levity may lead to premature de-escalation of conflict, and may be perceived as light-hearted playfulness, joie de vivre, or worse. If you continue to disrupt the gloomy calm you will be subjected to further scolding, and a report of your subversive behavior will be stapled firmly to your permanent record. –MadeOfAtoms (talk) 06:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Can you amend passage on being an 'expert'

This is a meaningless phrase. He is an idiot. He's an 'expert' in nothing and can't follow the scientific method as evidenced by his dismissal to carry out a test. Therefore he doesn't warrant the word 'expert'. 31.52.154.8 (talk) 13:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Drives you mad. And maybe when you're on the end of this you might start considering how this so called 'expert' practices and treats his patients. 31.52.154.8 (talk) 13:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

(I assume reference to this edit [21] on the Christopher Bunker article.)

I'm afraid I can't. I understand your passion born of personal experience [22], but to add this to Wikipedia would be what is called original research unsupported by a reliable source. A regrettable experience for you, but you can imagine what would happen if everybody modified Wikipedia based on their own experiences and beliefs. _signed, Willondon (talk) 13:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

From TongZhiCuiWei

mr kim no edit me no me thank you veery much my freidn — Preceding unsigned comment added by TongZhiCuiWei (talk • contribs) 03:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

About Emilie Kalkenberg

Why you say that Emilie Kalkenberg Notable is not clear. I see her on TV weekly basis and seems to get medals in different international champs. Also I did had a link - there is a wiki for her and tells where she is born? Did I miss the link in text I wrote? Emilie_Kalkenberg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timoikola (talk • contribs) 15:23, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

That was my mistake. I'm not sure why I didn't see the article when I tried to retrieve it; the article has been around for a while. I reverted myself, so your addition is back in there. Again, my apologies. _signed, Willondon (talk) 15:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

No problem - I am still learning this and was a bit confused when it got lost. In my perspective all should be more or less correct in her case and she definetly is notable - at least in eyes of biathlon fan in 2021. Also I will expcect her to be more notable in coming years as a member of Norwegian biathlon team she will for sure gain some more significant medals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timoikola (talk • contribs) 16:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit, hope for more awareness

I have reverted your edit at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Censorship_by_Google&diff=prev&oldid=1061125860 and added 3 citations to support the original wording. Please refrain from making derogatory edits like this. Your edit might even be considered libelous, especially without reliable citations. You should not be injecting your personal opinions on controversial subjects like this. From a psychological perspective, your edit was also false, as lolicon can refer to pedophilic, hebophilic, or ephebophilic depictions, not strictly pedophilic or hebophilic, as you claimed. 2601:C9:C000:20A8:8682:4B8B:9044:7ABE (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

A note to the IP - in future you MUST acknowledge where you have copied text from, and you also should have transferred over the sources called by the references. Undefined references are useless. I have corrected these errors of yours in this case, but please be more careful in future. DuncanHill (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

(posted after clearing an edit conflict)

Are you sure you have posted on the correct talk page? My last edit on Censorship by Google was on December 12, a week ago [23], and did not inject personal opinions (edit summary: Reverted [...]; unexplained revert"). (This was a mistake on my part, since I reverted an editor obviously trying to correct vandalism.) Your revert [24], on December 19, today, says in the edit summary: "Undid revision 1055590445 by Evedawn99", and addresses content completely unrelated to my edit. So I don't believe it's my edit which causes you such umbrage.

You probably feel foolish now, so I won't ask you to further apologize for the ridiculous hyperbole in suggesting the edit (not mine) might be "derogatory" and "libelous". I merely suggest that when you find the correct target of your outrage, you select language judiciously, with a view to being more effective in changing minds and accomplishing things. Cheers. _signed, Willondon (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Reversion

Is you homo? 92.6.33.41 (talk) 21:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Is you homophobic? _signed, Willondon (talk) 21:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Not at all, all I said is homo, you implied homosexuality, I could have meant are you a homo sapiens? Xx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.33.41 (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh, in that case, no. _signed, Willondon (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Your revert of John Campbell (YouTuber)

I reverted your revert of my lead expansion of John Campbell (YouTuber) (plus copy-pasted one sentence from the lead the main body, although I find it superfluous). Of course it reflects the information sourced in the article body. Otherwise let me know, so I can fix it. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I meant that in my opinion, the detail provided in the lede didn't leave the reader with the same impression they would get from reading the rest of the article. It's a balancing act. Improvements aren't going to happen one revert after another, so I'm happy to see the fine-tuning that's been going on. Carry on as you see fit. _signed, Willondon (talk) 12:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Editing John Campbell (YouTuber)

I appear to be not the only one editing this article!

I'm inexperienced at editing and understanding the Wikipedia publishing standards is quite difficult for a beginner. I'd appreciate some help. You reverted my addition: "A feature of Campbell's videos is his layman-level explanations of highly technical material combined with a degree of academic rigor - for example his repeated exhortations to not rely on his judgement alone, but to read the original papers he cites" on the grounds that is unsourced. It's not obvious to me how I can add sources for this when the verification is statements made within the videos themselves. Do I need to reference individual videos and provide time codes, something like that?

Also, I'm finding edits being removed before I have had time to finalise them. There are some very fast response editors! Is there a way to save an unfinished draft version without publishing to provide time to go check details, corroborate sources and so on? Or do we have to draft all changes offline and only publish the finished version?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digital davem (talk • contribs) 19:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

The go to place for sourcing is Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS), especially the section on Reliability in specific contexts. In the case of this revert [25], of special benefit would be the section at Primary, secondary and tertiary sources in the No original research article. Using this case as an example, if you had cited the YouTube video^*, it would be a primary source, useful only to verify that he said that, but not that what he said is true, or that it is important. That's where secondary sources come in. People often forget that they not only verify facts, but they also serve as a source of what is notable. Another problem with sourcing is that what you added to the article was your own commentary about what he said in the video.

^*Cool trick: with YouTube URLs, you can usually add "&t=273" to have the link start playing at 273 seconds (or 4:33) into the video.

As for getting edits to the article without rushing, there's no good solution. I often do draft things off-line if the article is frequently changing. That way, I have the references ready to go. Unfortunately, sometimes the article has changed in a way that doesn't fit your edits, and you have to tweak or abandon them. If you really need a large amount of time to revamp something (say totally rewrite a section of an article), you can use the {{In use}} template to let other editors know that the article or section is being worked on. There's no guarantee that others won't edit anyway, but you can add to the template to indicate how long you think you'll be. The "In use" would not be suitable for the above situation, where a number of editors are making frequent changes to the article. For that, you just have to flick your fingers furiously to be "caller number five". Cheers. _signed, Willondon (talk) 20:18, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, very useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.188.241 (talk) 15:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

BSCNFTS

We’re being required by Twitter to have a Wikipedia page for our Blue Check mark verified account. You recently speed deleted the page we created today. Can you supply a format that won’t get speed deleted? BSCNFTS (talk) 20:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@BSCNFTS: Wikipedia's username policy forbids accounts that represent businesses. Wikipedia accounts are for individual use only. You should not be attempting to write about your business here at all due to it being a conflict of interest. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

(reply posted after clearing edit conflict with above)
(to save time, you should probably just read the above and move on)

That's going to be a tough one. It may not be possible. First, you should look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Basically, you shouldn't write or edit about yourself or things that you have a connection with. It doesn't mean you absolutely can't, but you would need to declare the conflict of interest, and the common practice is to make changes by posting on article talk pages or other Wikipedia forums, so that the changes come ultimately from a disinterested third party.

Actually creating a whole new article about yourself would be almost impossible. Articles need to rely on secondary sources (see: Wikipedia:Reliable sources), sources that are separate from the subject of the article that can verify not only the accuracy of statements, but that they are noteworthy. So you would need to have references to other publications that write about you, trade magazines, sources that report on business and finance, mainstream news that covers your area of activity, etc. To create a whole new article, you would definitely have to do this all outside Wikipedia, so that it is of top quality and ready to go. The reason this will be almost impossible is that your connection to the subject would make it immediately suspect, and if any disinterested Wikipedia editor were to vouch for it, they would want to feel 100% confident that it reads as if it could have been written by a disinterested party, and that plenty of outside sources have legitimately taken note of the company. Not an easy task when writing about yourself. And the editor would also have to defend their opinions against any other editors that would consider the article dubious, and argue against it. It's likely that if it were to come to this point, other editors would have already written an article about it.

Wikipedia can't control Twitter requirements, of course, but (not being on Twitter) I suspect that they have this qualification to ensure that you are noteworthy enough to enjoy a "Blue Check mark verified account" (sorry, I don't know what that is). If any company were able to just create a durable article on Wikipedia about themselves, Twitter likely wouldn't include this among the criteria for such an account.

You might have to resign yourself to the fact that for now, you will need even further accomplishments to earn a Blue Check account. I suppose the "verified" part means that Twitter can assure themselves that people using the account are really you. Check Twitter to see if a Wikipedia article is a required element, or just one among other things that might qualify you. I know Twitter allows personal accounts. Investigate to see how you might use a personal account to speak for the company. Sorry this isn't the help you probably hoped for. _signed, Willondon (talk) 21:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Willondon thanks for the input. We don’t use Wikipedia for anything. As, anyone can just edit anything they want on a entities Wikipedia, may be false information. Hence why I asked what format to use because I kinda followed the format from the learn sections. I guess using the companies name as a login was against your rules. I guess we will just use Twitters other paths to blue check verification. Have a blessed day. BSCNFTS (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, "anybody can edit" is true. "Anyone can just edit anything they want" is definitely false information. Wikipedia would be worthless were it so. _signed, Willondon (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles characters

The characters do not need a whole big summary on one page. That is why they all have seperate pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.210.33 (talk) 02:23, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Well that's all well and good, but you still should explain reason why when doing massive removal. Otherwise people are gonna think it is vandalism.P.greenlink (talk) 02:28, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I understand now. Yes, edit summaries make edits less vulnerable to getting reverted. _signed, Willondon (talk) 03:04, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Janice Long

Hi Willondon. I've reverted your edit to Janice Long. The source is no good. It is incredibly poorly written, possibly by an AI, and seems to be nothing but an anonymous rehashing of an online rumour. I doubt the author even knows who Janice Long is as they actually misgender her at one point. I can not say for sure that "US day News doesn’t confirm or refuse this reason for his death, but an illness may relate to Janice Long’s cause of death." is not the work of a human author but, if it is, they are spectacularly inept. US day News seems to be a pure clickbait operation with absolutely no journalistic value. The fact that its "About Us" page fails to even identify who the publisher actually is just screams "fake news site". Of course, the rumour may unfortunately turn out to be true but we need to wait until some genuine news sources cover it. We do not want to risk upsetting her friends and family if there is any risk that the story is untrue. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:45, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Certainly; agreed. This was a case where I hate editors throwing in the death stuff with absolutely no source at all. It gets bounced back and forth, unsourced, reverted, until someone actually does the work of finding a source. I try if I have the time. I'm embarrassed to say that was the best looking one I found, so I threw it out there. (Notice I didn't go to the trouble of all the related edits: verb tense, infobox, templates, etc.) Many editors are just chomping at the bit to get late breaking news into Wikipedia. Now I feel like I've broken down and said "Okay, you can open one..." Thanks for being the sensible one. Cheers. _signed, Willondon (talk) 02:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of the information added.

Mr. @Willondon, can you please clarify that why did you removed the information which I added about H.M. on Wikipedia ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.207.158.44 (talk) 14:18, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

You must refer to this edit here [26]. I removed the information because you didn't provide a source, to let the reader know where you got the information from. _signed, Willondon (talk) 14:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I see now what you did. I changed the referece (a Wikilink to a non-existent article) to a proper one, which refers to the named reference ("corkin") given earlier in the article. [27]. _signed, Willondon (talk) 14:30, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Spikeart

Hello, Willondon,

You put a CFD tag on this page but didn't start a discussion on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 December 27. Would you post a nomination on December 28's CFD page or remove the CFD tag? You need to follow through if you are nominating a category for deletion, renaming or merger. You can find instructions at WP:CFD and if you use Twinkle, it'll take care of most of these steps for you. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

My mistake, and my apologies. I thought it was more of a speedy-delete mechanism, since it was related to a promotional account which had made no edits except to create the category with thier artwork on it [28], and a promotional user page (which has since been db-u5'd). Also, I'm not sure what a category "looks like"; this page just has three sample images on it. And it has no pages or files that invoke the category. In any case, I've reversed my edit until I have time to read through the documentation for CfD (I did skim it). Please let me know if there's a quick and simple way to remove a category such as this one (Category:Spikeart) _signed, Willondon (talk) 01:50, 28 December 2021 (UTC)