User talk:Wmjuntunen

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Manual of Style
Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! NSR (talk) 5 July 2005 22:57 (UTC)

Detroit Focus Quarterly[edit]

Hello -- thanks for leaving a message. First, let me remind you to please sign all messages with your Wikipedia username by typing four tildes in a row ~~~~. Otherwise a person has to look back through the history of their talk page to see who to answer. Okay, formalities out of the way, as to your concern over the deletion of DFQ. Wikipedia works through consensus in all decisions, and the consensus of editors who voted whether or not to delete DFQ was unanimous to delete. It was not, you see, my decision; all I did was carry out the will of the community in physically deleting the page. Even if you had voted to keep the article, your vote would not have been enough to sway the result because otherwise it was unanimous. I hope this makes sense. Thanks. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On your points -- you're right, in some ways Wikipedia is not a democray, and in cases where there is no apparent consensus articles nominated for deletion may be kept, since generally Wikipedia errs on the side of keeping where there is a question. But in the case of this article, there was no question, no quibbling, no equivocation; the vote, in all cases, was to delete, the voters feeling that there was no chance for an article on this entity to ever have encyclopedic merit. I don't say that to be harsh as it's clear you're of a different opinion, I am only summarizing the fact of the matter. As for your entreaty about not having been notified that the article was up for deletion -- with all due respect, that is what watchlists are for. When an article is on your watchlist, it's flagged when changed, and it would've been easy to have seen that it was nominated for deletion. It is unreasonable to expect someone to notify you -- beyond the watchlist, which is what that feature is expressly for -- every time someone changed an article, or, yes, even nominated it for deletion. That you were not logging on often enough to see the deletion notice, or weren't checking your watchlist, is unfortunate but is noone else's fault. Continuing to try to convince me that DFQ is a worthy article is fairly fruitless; I have no special power in this instance, save to help you understand Wikipedia's policies. I'm very sorry you got caught off guard. You should know that you are not preluded from re-creating the article at a later date, PROVIDED it is significantly different and significantly expanded from the first version. If it is not, and instead is significantly the similar to the article that was deleted, it may be deleted on sight by any administrator. Best of luck · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will not reverse the deletion; the community's consensus was unambiguously unanimous that it should have been deleted. There has been some discussion of other means of notifying people of various changes to articles, but none have borne fruit. You might like to visit Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) to discuss those sorts of issues further. Thanks. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can request undeletion at Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion. However I must caution you that the VFU process is intended to be deliberative only of whether the process of deleting an article was proper, not for judging whether content itself was encyclopedia-worthy. Good luck · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for inclusion[edit]

Hi/hei there - you've expended a lot of work on articles, but I am concerned that a number of them are about subjects who simply may not meet the generally accepted guidelines for inclusion. (You can find these at WP:BIO). The guidelines agree that inclusion should cover: painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is recognized as exceptional and likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field

Those articles which document or relate closely to your personal exploration of arts and culture probably belong on your own personal website rather than on Wikipedia. Humansdorpie 15:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I am sorry if you felt patronised by my message above - that was not my intention. I agree with you that there is a need for emergent, often regional, artists to be criticised and documented. However, I don't agree that Wikipedia is the place to do it. Regards, Humansdorpie 15:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your message. With the greatest respect, it might be helpful for you to reconsider what you are trying to accomplish. There is an important official policy of long standing that Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own research, thoughts or critical analyses, and I repeat that articles which document or relate closely to your personal exploration of arts and culture probably belong on your personal website rather than on Wikipedia. On a related matter, don't forget that the deletion process involves not only the three or four people who actively vote to delete a nominated article; it also includes the people (twenty individuals? Fifty? 100?) who view the nomination for an article and decide not to vote to keep it. Regards, Humansdorpie 10:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gretchen Kramp[edit]

I nominated an article that you created, Gretchen Kramp, for deletion. If you think that the article is salvagable, or that I'm mistaken, please comment on its talk page. Please see the Guide to deletion and proposed deletion guidelines if you have any questions about Wikipedia's deletion process. --Thatcher131 03:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Water Works Theatre Company[edit]

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Water Works Theatre Company, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 05:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Inzero johnny.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Inzero johnny.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

various articles[edit]

Ive seen your comments at AfD, and I in general agree very much, and I appreciate your persistence. But I do have a suggestion. I've got a similar problem with science or humanities researcher's articles getting deleted, which is mainly why Im there. They tend to write too much, or too little, and don't pay much attention to the way the WP style is. Some of them I can coax into adequate attention, but often I just take one or two a week and simply rewrite them to the accepted style with the accepted type of documentation. It looks like many of the artists--visual artists and classical musicians alike--do something similar. They write one long paragraph the way hey would write it for a bio at a show or performance, and actively resist putting in straightforward links to reviews or catalogs. They'll link to the MOMA home page, when they could have linked to their artwork. You might want to do similarly. I've found it's easier and more rewarding than defending them at AfD. DGG 07:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Marelcostello.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Marelcostello.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walk and Squawk Performance Project[edit]

Walk and Squawk Performance Project has been proposed for deletion. An editor felt this organization or company might not yet be notable enough for an article. Please review Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for the relevant guidelines. If you can improve the article to address these concerns, please do so.

If no one objects to the deletion within five days by removing the prod notice, the article may be deleted without further discussion. If you remove the prod notice, the deletion process will stop, but if an editor is still not satisfied that the article meets Wikipedia guidelines, it may be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion for consensus. NickelShoe (Talk) 15:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Deleury.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Deleury.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Charles McGee2007.JPG[edit]

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Charles McGee2007.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Rosetta Pebble[edit]

An editor has nominated Rosetta Pebble, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosetta Pebble and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Walking Project[edit]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Walking Project, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Walking Project. B. Wolterding (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of TheDetroiter.com[edit]

I have nominated TheDetroiter.com, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TheDetroiter.com. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Jfire (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Hello Wmjuntunen! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 3 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 942 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

Vince Carducci - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Marsha Miro - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Sam Karres - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Sam Karres – Urban Expressionist[edit]

The article Sam Karres – Urban Expressionist has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

not a notable book

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Sam Karres for deletion[edit]

A discussion has begun about whether the article Sam Karres, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Karres until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. J04n(talk page) 19:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Kessler – Francis – Cardoza for deletion[edit]

The article Kessler – Francis – Cardoza is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kessler – Francis – Cardoza until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Inzero johnny.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Inzero johnny.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Purple Rose Theatre Company for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Purple Rose Theatre Company is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purple Rose Theatre Company until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Pburka (talk) 04:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of TheDetroiter.com[edit]

The article TheDetroiter.com has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Is not able to meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Boleyn (talk) 09:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 09:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of TheDetroiter.com for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article TheDetroiter.com is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TheDetroiter.com (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 09:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of automated file description generation[edit]

Your upload of File:Charles McGee2007.JPG or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of InZer0[edit]

The article InZer0 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

It has been tagged with a tag asking for an assertion of its notability, which has not been provided in a satisfactory manner. Therefore, I'm proposing this for deletion.

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}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 22:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Nadine Deleury[edit]

The article Nadine Deleury has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Appears to fail notability guidelines both academically and musically.

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}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SITH (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Sofa painting[edit]

The article Sofa painting has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wiktionary article already exists. The rest of this article is promotion of a gallery.

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}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 21:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Sofa painting for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sofa painting is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sofa painting (2nd nomination) 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 improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mccapra (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Michigan Architectural Foundation[edit]

The article Michigan Architectural Foundation has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No footnotes, reliable sources since creation in 2005. No indication passes WP:GNG. Loksmythe (talk) 06:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

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}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Loksmythe (talk) 06:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Julian Scott Department Store[edit]

The article Julian Scott Department Store has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No sourcing found whatsoever

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}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Julian Scott Department Store for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Julian Scott Department Store is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julian Scott Department Store 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 improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]