User talk:BuilderJustLikeBob

Hello, BuilderJustLikeBob! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! JesseRafe (talk) 12:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Directories and indexes Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Sign your comments on Talk pages by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your comment. Indent your comments properly. Schazjmd (talk) 21:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will do thanks BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Jacobin (magazine) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Schazjmd (talk) 22:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to get the page protected and edit pending verified, I can't remember the name of the actual function. Also I have only reverted the edits done by the other two editors on the talk page. Please look at the edit page of this wiki. Other editors questioned the writing and sourcing, some still removed parts that were found to be unreliable. They provided evidence for this, for example wiki's deprecated sources. Also better sourcing was requested by some of them. None of these actions were undertaken by the editors I have disagreed with. Again they just deleted the section outright. The other editors on the page corrected any grammatical errors. Please look at the reasoning provided by both of them for the deletions, and check against the section to see whether they are correct. I do not believe I have done anything against the rules. I have only asked that if there are factual errors or grammatical errors that they be pointed out and rectified. BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 22:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The wiki editor I asked to protect the page can be found here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HJ_Mitchell I asked for an experienced third party to vet the claims made by both the section, and the editors who have taken issue with it. BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 22:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of that is relevant. Reverting more than 3 times in a 24-hour period will get you blocked.

Separate from the edit warring issue, making your desired change when discussion has just begun is poor form. You don't have consensus for these changes. You haven't even allowed time for other editors to engage. (Discussions can take days, even weeks.) editing to add: I suggest you read dispute resolution on Wikipedia. Schazjmd (talk) 23:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I have only reverted one edit. Every other time I retyped it verbatim. The reason I put it back in to the page was because you said that the post on the talk page was useless without the sources. Adding it to the page allowed me to add the sources in a legible manner. This way any editor can read the section and get to the sources with ease. BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 23:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can see the sources in the diffs, they don't need to be in the article. Let me be clear: adding content back in that has been deleted, or deleting content that has been added, is a reversion even if you type it manually. You made 3 reverts to the article today: here, here, and here. I strongly suggest that you let the discussion have its course before adding any of the content back to the article again. Schazjmd (talk) 23:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. How long are we usually supposed to wait for replies?BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 23:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, days...weeks, even. Editors are volunteers who edit when they want to. Schazjmd (talk) 00:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm JesseRafe. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Talk:Jacobin (magazine) have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. You are now spamming the talk page with these external links. Please stop this behavior and read the links on your talk page about how to effectively and constructively edit Wikipedia and the way to comport yourself on a talk page. JesseRafe (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you revert the post you just made, and read WP:RFC to learn how to do one properly. You don't just ask a bunch of questions. Schazjmd (talk) 01:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ack! And you publicize the location of the open RFC, you don't repeat the post in multiple places! Please revert yourself, slow down, and do it correctly. Schazjmd (talk) 01:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Schazjmd: When you say that I should revert the edits, do you mean from the Jacobin talk page, or from the noticeboards, or both? Also I read that rule earlier, maybe I misunderstood it, am I only supposed to ask one question at a time? I used the example in the page as a template. BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 01:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments at Talk:Jacobin (magazine) are more and more coming off as trolling. For example this: "If it is not your responsibility to make copy edits, then why bother doing so on other pages? You copy edited the Long Bay College article 30min ago. Why do that if it's not your responsibility?" What kind of question is that, and how is it your business if the user you're speaking to copyedited something else recently? That does not mean you get to demand they copyedit your additions (and, by implication, to demand that you get to edit carelessly and without proofreading). It's completely that user's own choice if they copyedit one article and not another. If you continue on this path of trolling and unfunny "jokes", you may be blocked from Jacobin (magazine) and its talkpage. Bishonen | tålk 15:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: I haven't made any jokes since the last one, and you are mistaken to see that sentence as a troll. It's about consistency. These editors have pointed out some errors in the copy, some of which we have agreed upon. Why have they not made those copy edits on that page, but made them on other pages very recently. Here I'm speaking of some of Asoka's objections which I accepted, explicitly. It's not a troll. It is a genuine question, coming from inquisitiveness. I am not saying they should copy edit every mistake I made. What I am saying is they should copy edit the mistakes we have agreed upon, if not I'll do it.

I will correct any errors later on this week, when I can sit down and comb through everything. Also please do speak to Dsakey about them accusing me of abuse. It's a serious allegation, and one I don't believe holds water. Thanks BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 15:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a genuine question it's a foolish and intrusive question. User:Dsakey1978 is a volunteer just like yourself, and it's completely up to them where they choose to work or not work on Wikipedia. Their "consistency" is no affair of yours. I can't believe I'm having to tell you this twice. As for "accusing you of abuse", that was a very general remark which you're blowing up into a "serious allegation". It is abusive to waste people's time with snide comments such as "it's funny how with this edit you suddenly gained the ability to point out with specificity were the errors were, but for some reason have been unable to do so with the material in the Rfc." Do you really not see that? Would you like to be spoken to in such a way, in such a tone? ("it's funny how.. suddenly.. for some reason") See also the remarks by you quoted by Doug Weller below: they're also abusive. Bishonen | tålk 17:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: I hope you are not suggesting that I am telling them where to work, because that's not what I am saying.

The editors in question have wasted my time by not genuinely conversing. Please do read the section on the Talk page before the Rfc. There you will see that they have spoken to me in a condescending manner, and been unreasonably stubborn. This is why I initiated the Rfc. They then continued this behavior in the following discussions. See my response to Doug. BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at Jacobin (magazine), you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Please review the multiple links that you've been directed to on multiple occasions about how to write on this encyclopedia. You're certainly proficient at writing on talk pages, perhaps read one or two? JesseRafe (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 17:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We ask editors to be WP:CIVIL and assume good faith, and you've done neither. Telling an editor "Don't dare", and "It's funny how you always show up behind other editors to shout "hear, hear!".' are examples of posts that could get you blocked, either from the whole site or the Jacobin article, or even topic banned from American politics.

That said, the solution is simple. Be polite, assume other editors are doing their best. As for the SPI, I note how few edits you have so far, not that different from the others. You're new, I hope, and clearly have a lot to learn as do all new editors. Doug Weller talk 17:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Noted. I am learning the rules as I go along. I'm assuming that since you implemented this sanction you are probably both interested in and knowledgeable about the topic (Politics, Economics, Philosophy). If that is the case I would like to ask that you provide an outside opinion on the current back-and-forth. My view is that the edit I made only improved the page. The other editors have not bothered elaborating on why it does not and I think have failed to follow these Principles of Wikipedia:

1) Argue facts, not personalities

2) Do not intentionally make misrepresentations. Apologise if you inadvertently do so.

3) Do not ignore reasonable questions.

4) If someone disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think that it is appropriate.

5) Concede a point when you have no response to it, or admit when you disagree based on intuition or taste.

6) Avoid reverts whenever possible, and stay within the three-revert rule except where exemptions apply.

7) When reverting other people's edits, give a rationale for the revert (on the article's talk page, if necessary), and be prepared to enter into an extended discussion over the edits in question. Calmly explaining your thinking to others can often result in their agreeing with you; being dogmatic or uncommunicative evokes the same behavior in others, and gets you embroiled in an edit war.

This is the edit in dispute: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jacobin_(magazine)&oldid=963151905

I should not have made the jokes I did. Also I will try not to make posts like those above again. I'm tired of dealing with this article, and would like to move on to others. The time I have wasted with disingenuous editors could have been spent elsewhere. If you are not a potential mediating editor, please tell me where I can go to find one with both knowledge of and interest in the subjects. BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 18:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't implement the sanction, I helped write it. I'm not getting involved, once I get involved I can no longer use my Administrator's toolkit, ie blocking and topic banning. Note that the sanctions cover talk page posts. We don't have "mediating editors" but we do have the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Doug Weller talk 11:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was written by another Administrator, not me. Doug Weller talk 11:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by I dream of horses was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Lacks significant mentions in independent, reliable sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Catalyst (journal) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Catalyst (journal), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

I dream of horses (talk page) (Contribs) Remember to notify me after replying off my talk page. 03:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BuilderJustLikeBob! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! I dream of horses (talk page) (Contribs) Remember to notify me after replying off my talk page. 03:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@I dream of horses: Hey, I have added some citations and references to the journal by third party sources. I am unsure of where I could find other sources because this is a very obscure, and young academic journal. What else might I be able to do if the amount of sources out there are paltry? Also does the ISSN factor in, considering that it's an academic journal? Thanks BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 04:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It can be difficult to fulfill notability requirements early on. The draft will be left up until six months after the last edit. You can take advantage of this by making minor edits every so often until most-to-all sections has a source that fulfill these requirements, or you can add information to the Jacobin article. Perhaps you can do both. I dream of horses (talk page) (Contribs) Remember to notify me after replying off my talk page. 04:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you might be interested in this conversation: WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Jacobin. Schazjmd (talk) 14:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Schazjmd: Thank you BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dsakey1978, JesseRafe, and Asoka89: Heads up! I know you parade yourselves as experts on the magazine, so maybe you should chime in here. I have nothing to say. BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 14:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dsakey1978, JesseRafe, and BuilderJustLikeBob: What in God's name is that supposed to mean? I don't parade myself as anything but someone who's tried to make good faith edits, including adjustments to your work here. Asoka89 (talk) 02:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there something about Wikipedia:Civility that you do not understand? You've been given a very long leash and warned by multiple admins, but these passive aggressive snide comments need to stop now. Also, stop pinging me every day, this isn't a chat board and I don't have to look at every conversation you're involved in. But you do need to adjust your behavior in the community. JesseRafe (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To explain my last edits, I do think it's a problem that on three pieces you essentially cut and pasted the same language and line about the artistic influence of three different publications, not really explaining the relationship between the two or crediting a source that goes into detail about artistic influence on modern magazines like The New Yorker. Dsakey1978 (talk) 05:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dsakey1978: The relationship is very clear, Jacobin's own creative director said that they took inspiration from those publications. His claim about The New Yorker is an opinion, and the way the edits were worded makes that clear.

Who was the source?

• Jacobin's own Creative Director

What was the source?

• A lecture given at the Rhode Island School of Design, about Jacobin's history

Your reasoning as always is vacuous. You guys clearly just have a problem with me. Every edit I make, that is related to Jacobin, is a problem. Very suspicious!

Quit playing with me man. Like I said, I will never go away. Revert your edits. If you don't I'm just gonna be forced to launch an Rfc, yet again.

P.S. <Redacted> Is Asoka gonna jump in here talking about why they also don't like the edit? BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm once again summoned into your bizarre troll war – I don't think the same paragraph should be cut and pasted into three separate articles. Use better sourcing: use a book, for instance, on one of those publications and its legacy, a reported article.... anything. Don't harass people about what they edit and why. It seems like lots of people have given you resources on what to do, and an incredibly long leash. But it doesn't seem like you want to respond to that good faith in turn. @Dsakey1978 and JesseRafe: advice on how to proceed? Note, the last time I chimed in about his edits he responded with similar strange language and an investigation request. Which is one reason why I dropped off. Asoka89 (talk) 02:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Summoned? You weren't even pinged, and yet still showed up. Interesting. I have responded in good faith to what was said, look at the everything said before the post script. Is that bad faith? Who has been harassed? Is asking whether you disagree harassment? You are just trying to play on the emotions of other editors so that they can view me as a troll. Were you patrolling my talk page? How did you know that you were mentioned? BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 04:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You literally pinged me on your page and now you're saying that I'm harassing you mate? I've been nothing but polite in my interactions. Asoka89 (talk) 05:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about this section that dsakey created, nobody pinged you. Also nobody said you are harassing me. What was said is that you are trying to manipulate other editors. Yet again, you have ignored what I said about dsa's edits! For the record, you are not polite. You're passive aggressive. Mate BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 06:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't bludgeon Talk:Jacobin (magazine), BuilderJustLikeBob, and listen better to experienced editors. Your claim that an utterly unencyclopedic addition such as "pathbreaking scholars" is "fair" because "these scholars have either birthed entire fields, or made significant contributions to them"[1] is quite alarming; it shows a lack of understanding of encyclopedic style and use of sources, I'm afraid. We don't draw our own praiseful conclusions from what people have done; that's original research, which is forbidden. Also please don't open interminable RfCs to push your own version. You are expecting too much time and patience from other people. When one person, User:JzG, replied to your RfC of 18 June (it seems everybody else is exhausted, which I can understand), you showered him with new questions instead of learning from his response. Worse, I see you actually threatening to open another RfC above: "Quit playing with me man. Like I said, I will never go away. Revert your edits. If you don't I'm just gonna be forced to launch an Rfc, yet again." That sounds very much like you realize opening RfC's the way you're doing it is an aggressive move. Don't open another one, or I will block you for trolling and timewasting. Let people answer the RfC that's up now without pestering them; try to figure out what they're talking about instead. It can't be that hard, compare [2]. And never ask personal questions like <redacted> What business is it of yours? It's the kind of thing you may just possibly ask a good friend you're on confidential terms with; not an editor you have just, in the same post, been assuming bad faith of. This is my second and final warning. Bishonen | tålk 06:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: some of what you have said here is just a relitigation of what has been discussed, or a misunderstanding of what is going on.

"Pathbreaking"

• I clearly said to the editor who raised the issue that the term can be removed as a compromise. You have ignored that.

18 June Rfc

• That Rfc is brand new, and I did not publicize it like the other. Please don't assume that these other editors are exhausted, we don't know. We can only know what they think if they tell us.
• The questions asked in response to JzG were clarifying questions, because I am trying to understand what is being said. I don't want to make assumptions. I want to be able to point to an editor's words as proof of what they think.
• It's like you said: "try to figure out what they're talking about". I agree. This is why I ask questions. If an editor is not specific in their use of language, how else can I figure out what is being said without asking questions that seek to draw out that specificity and clarity?
• Of the questions I have asked on the two Rfcs, would you characterize any as not seeking to do what I said above?

Threatening Rfcs

• Please go look at what these editors have done in the past. They just revert edits, and never provide evidence for their reasoning.
• Following this they start playing manipulative games. They derail conversations by avoiding reasonable questions, and slowly start to try and portray the other party as unreasonable. This is called an ad hominem.
• Why is it that they can remove edits at will, with vacuous reasoning, but I cannot ask other disinterested editors to comment? Is that not democratic, to ask everyone what they think?
• Please do read the Praise, Criticism & Controversy section of the Jacobin talk page. I have always assumed good faith. But these editors have SHOWN me that they do not operate in good faith when it comes to my edits that involve Jacobin. I invite you to show me that I'm wrong about this, I believe I can prove otherwise. If not I'll shut up.

Pestering

• "sometimes what is obvious to one person is obscure to another"
• "Of all the kinds of trolling, this is the most important kind not to get bent out of shape about"
• Can you show me any examples of any editor being asked a question by me, after they have already answered the question?
• I can show you at least a dozen examples of me asking a question, AFTER that same question has been completely ignored.

These editors are just tying to manipulate you. BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 08:54, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have had no contact in any form with any of those users, so they're definitely not 'trying to manipulate me'. I notice you didn't care to respond to my most important point, the one that was private to another user. Are you trying to threaten the user with outing? I've redacted it and blocked you for 48 hours. If you have an innocent, non-evasive, explanation for why you said what you said (=the bits that I've redacted above), I'm willing to hear it and possibly unblock. Provided your explanation doesn't contain further outing of the user. If that's impossible to avoid, get yourself a wikipedia e-mail in your Preferences, and then you'll be able to e-mail me the explanation privately. There's a link to your Preferences top right, next to your sandbox link. Bishonen | tålk 12:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: You are misunderstanding how the manipulation occurs. They don't contact you and say do this or do that. They portray the person they have disagreed with as tendentious, and then repeat old problems and seek advice. See above when Asoka asked Jesse for advice, see the talk page when they did similar things with other editors. They appeal to emotions, probably because they have no real arguments.

<Outing attempts removed> BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 20:19, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I wonder if you ever followed my link to Wikipedia:Outing? You seem quite clueless about how seriously Wikipedia takes it. I have redacted your post above and asked an oversighter to remove it from the page history. So you were simply doing research into some fellow editors' private lives and trying to scare them with hints? And a user who accidentally reveals their IP have only themselves to blame, is that it? You have been blocked indefinitely with talkpage access removed. Please see the template below for how to appeal this block. Bishonen | tålk 21:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for attempted outing. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  Bishonen | tålk 21:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BuilderJustLikeBob. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Catalyst (journal), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]