User talk:Kakadesi

Welcome!

Hello, Kakadesi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! --TommyBoy (talk) 23:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 2012

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 19:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale. Thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 19:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Ms bitta.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ms bitta.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. The Determinator p t c 22:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INCOTMNOM

Hi there! Thanks for voting in WP:INCOTM's GA of the month section. Please give your vote for the Collaboration section as well. Cheers! :)
BPositive (talk) 13:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block.
Please discuss this on the article's talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 12:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale has now been locked from editing. Please discuss the issue at Talk:Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, demonstrating where possible how Wikipedia's policies support your position. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted half of your edit please see the article's talk page Talk:Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale. Also note that carrying on an edit war straight after page protected has expired without attempting to discuss is not appropriate behaviour and may lead to an eventual block. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Collaboration of the Month - Red Fort

Indian Collaboration of the Month

Hi there! Thanks for being associated with the nomination cum voting process of the WikiProject Indian Collaboration of the Month under WikiProject India. As per the voting, the article selected for collaboration for the month of August 2012 is Red Fort. Let's improve this article over the course of the month. I look forward to your contributions on the article. BPositive (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: If you are seeing this message on someone's talk page and wish to be a part of the collaboration, add yourself in the members list.

INCOTM

Hi, you are receiving this message because your name is listed at Wikipedia:INCOTM/Members, where people indicate their interest in the India Project Collaboration of the Month (INCOTM).

INCOTM is restarting and you are welcome to nominate articles for collaborative improvement during July 2013. - Sitush (talk) 12:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Devyani Khobragade

The page was not being "removed". It was retitled. Indeed your incomplete reversion of the redirect left the talk page still pointing to the new title (which is why I am replying here). The issue is being discussed in the deletion discussion. Your actions are undermining focused discussion at the deletion page. Paul B (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kakadesi, please do not recreate the article at Devyani Khobragade until the AfD discussion, presently at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devyani Khobragade closes and consensus develops about where the article should be and what it should be titled, if it isn't deleted. There are also issues with copy and paste moves, the content on the page at present lacks attribution and the page should not have been created in such a manner, such behaviour can cause issues that may in future require the pages to be merged to ensure each editor is correctly attributed. Finally, please familiarise yourself with WP:3RR and WP:EW policies - further reverts to Devyani Khobragade will result in you being blocked from editing. Nick (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the image you have uploaded is clearly copyrighted, so cannot be uploaded with that license. Paul B (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we were discussing about the page "Devyani Khobragade" not "Devyani Khobragade incident" for which discussion is going on. Also, there is absolutely enough content for creation of individual page for "Devyani Khobragade" and it should not depend on keeping/deleting of "Devyani Khobragade incident".--KakaDesi 17:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

And the file i uploaded is being used by all the news agencies and if it is copyrighted, then please mention who holds its copyrights --KakaDesi 17:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Kakadesi, I created both pages Devyani Khobragade & Devyani Khobragade incident and I moved Devyani Khobragade to the other page since there is an on-going discussion for AfD. Even though I created the article, I don't hold a right to just go and restore it like that so all I am requesting you is please be patient. Moreover, there are specific guidelines for new pages and it is NOT upto me or you to decide if an article should be on Wikipedia or not. Lastly, it is the users responsibility to take notice of copyright, know about it and use it appropriately. Please update yourself on the same. Apologies if I spoke out of turn. Cheers AKS

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Devtani Khobragade.jpeg

[[

Image:Copyright-problem.svg|48px|left|alt=|link=]]

A tag has been placed on File:Devtani Khobragade.jpeg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Shreevatsa (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to know who holds the copyright. That's not how it works. We have to give evidence that it is not in copyright (which is very unlikely). The article changed its title, which is why your incompetent cut-and-paste recreation left the talk page pointing to the new title. The AFC discussion includes debate about whether a stand alone article is legitimate, which, IMO is unlikely per standard notability criteria. Paul B (talk) 17:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you should give your humble opinion only when asked, i agree it is a copy paste work. If she was arrested then whats wrong in taking the arrest paragraph from the incident page with references? Wikipedia is completely based on references, so according to you everything written in wikipedia is a work of copy paste ?--KakaDesi 17:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The copyright is owned by the UK Government under Crown Copyright, as stated on the page the image was taken from (and attributed to) by the newspaper you took the image from. If you care to visit http://www.chevening.org/ you will see it quite clearly states Crown Copyright. It doesn't state Creative Commons there, nor on the newspaper website you lifted the image from. You need to slow down and listen to what you're being told, Kakadesi, there are processes and policies to be followed, ignoring them all is only going to result in you being blocked, I'm afraid.Nick (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, don't give be threats of being blocked, i am using wikipedia maybe since you were not even born. I know how community based projects work. You are a community volunteer and you better know your limits.--KakaDesi 17:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't a threat. He's just pointing out policies. I guess Nick must be just be approaching his teens if you have been using Wikipedia since before he was born. He's a remarkable confident writer for one so young Paul B (talk) 17:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kakadesi, If I were you, I would be more subtle in my approach, esp when you have only 146 total edits and Nick has over 18,000 edits. Take it easy else for sure one day some admin will block you. Wikipedia is open for all but that does not mean it does not have any rules. I have over 7,500 edits myself but even today my edits get reverted. We should not take it personally, just an advice. Cheers AKS

Kapil Sibal

Hello user, I appreciate all your edit efforts. Your recent edit on Kapil Sibal does not depict anything about him. I think you're putting about Kapil Sibal not incidents. Controversy section you've added have nothing to do with person also it seems like an incident. Since it's encyclopedia you need to add proved things only. Thanks again, well wishes --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣ 08:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 25 Cents FC, last time i checked, wikipedia was a platform for encouraging free voice and it shall remain the same. All edits i made are backed with solid references, so there is no chance of ambiguity. Also i want to clarify i do not belong to/endorse any political party, as a wikipedia volunteer its my job is to let the readers know all the facts and decide by themselves.

Don't be in any misconception that wikipedia is/was a platform for encouraging free voice. It's an encyclopedia and no place for personal views(you've to prove what you claim through reliable sources. I'm no to against your edits and don't get offended if it's reverted. It's just that add those things which are completely real than just allegations. For example, a lot of things happens to person's life everyday but we can't add them all here at wikipedia. I'm listing few flaws on Controversies section.

25 Cents FC:These are not about his personal life, all these allegations were made on the actions he did while holding his office of telecom minister and hr minister. Every public servant is accountable for his actions which he performs using power given to him by democracy. I wish you had known that. --KakaDesi 20:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Swami Agnivesh Controversy

It says "Swami Agnivesh was seen in a phone conversation with Sibal and told something in context to activist Anna Hazare".. now this line need to be added on Swami Agnivesh article in Controversy part. It depicts nothing about Kapil Sibal (it was if it's Sibal who called Swami Agnivesh and told something in context to activist Anna Hazare) I hope you are getting what I'm trying to describe.
Neither of your reference proves what you've mentioned.

25 Cents FC :Please read the 4th paragraph of http://www.firstpost.com/politics/expose-did-swami-agnivesh-betray-team-anna-71576.html . I used the exact words --KakaDesi 20:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Internet Censorship

You wrote "His move to regulate internet content was strongly criticized across many social networking sites like Facebook, Twitter and Google+." But reference says "The Indian government has asked Internet companies and social media sites like Facebook to prescreen user content from India and to remove disparaging, inflammatory or defamatory content before it goes online."
You've added exactly opposite of what your reference says.

25 Cents FC: Please read http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/india-asks-google-facebook-others-to-screen-user-content/ and http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/social-media/Kapil-Sibal-under-attack-Twitter-Facebook-users-target-him/articleshow/11018300.cms?referral=PM and tell me what it summarises.--KakaDesi 20:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

In 2G spectrum scam

"During his tenure as Telecom Minister his comment about the loss in the 2G spectrum scam being only notional and causing "zero loss" created a public outcry and he had to clarify it later" how it become a controversy if he clarified ?
Also there is no mention of 2G scam in source.

25 Cents FC : I didn't even write it, you are trying to be smart and making this article an advert for kapil sibal. Please check the history of article and see who wrote it. But whoever has written it, its true and has references.--KakaDesi 20:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I again request you to add only those content which are truthful and proved. You are adding exact opposite. As of now, I'm going to revert, you can revert it back only with the help true sources. Thanks and well wishes.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣ 19:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yashpal

I've amended your edit at Yashpal. I think that the phrase is "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" but, regardless, "revolutionism" is an awkward word and one that isn't much used. Hopefully, "acts of violence against the state" does the job in the specific context. I'm still developing the article, so there will be rough spots for a week or two. As always, it'll never actually be finished! - Sitush (talk) 18:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy sections

I find it interesting that you seem to be targeting Congress politics articles with muck-raking controversy sections, mostly based on press-reported allegations (which are two-a-penny in India and generally never end up as a court case etc). Kapil Sibal and Pratibha Patil are the obvious ones. You clearly do not understand how we deal with these issues in relation to living people, so I suggest that you discuss more and edit less in this sphere until you have a better handle on things. In any event, you are edit warring at the latter of those linked articles and you'll likely be blocked from contributing if you continue in the same vein. - Sitush (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush, if you would have read the whole thing on this page then you must have know that i clearly specified in one of my comments that i do not endorse any political party. The point is congress in currently in power and is misusing power for corrupt/controversial practices. I am no fan of narendra modi or BJP, just give me references to modi's controversial things and i'll love to add them to his page. Please don't divert the discussion from why are you reverting a genune edit(with reference to each claim) again and again to a Modi-Congress fight. --KakaDesi 05:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. - Sitush (talk) 10:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

Your recent editing history at Pratibha Patil shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Sitush (talk) 13:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are also doing much the same thing at Kapil Sibal. Just stop with this nonsense, please. for example, see here. - Sitush (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring on both Pratibha Patil and Kapil Sibal to introduce non-WP:BLP compliant material. This frivolous revenge templating[1] was also a poor idea. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | talk 13:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I don't know why user Sitush is more than interested in reverting each of my edits on pages Pratibha Patil, Kapil Sibal,Lakhwinder Lucky and Yashpal. I am editing wikipedia for a while now and i know if you have enough references to prove what you are writing, then your edits generally don't get reverted but seems like Sitush has taken it too personally. I am in no intention to defame persons belonging to a particular party, i am just a liberal citizen of india who thinks if any wikipedia reader browses wiki page about any of the politicaians involved in scams and controversial practices, then he should get the "whole" content belonging to them not just userinfo. Every single edit i made, has references and i quoted the text written in references only, not a single word i have added by myself. Now its upto you to decide whether genune and referenced edits made my normal users like me will get reverted just because some other more active user has taken it too personally or not. KakaDesi 13:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC). Bishonen: While blocking me, you have given reasons "3RR vio on one BLP, edit warring on another, BLP violations, disruption". All these things were done by user Sitush too while edit warring with me, then why have you just blocked me not both of us ?

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I referred you to the AN3 report and twice referred you to the opinion of someone who is pretty good on WP:BLP stuff (here and here). I also raised the issue here and in some sections above on this talk page. In addition to me, you were reverted by Johnuniq. and,. on top of all that, you've had templated warnings regarding edit warring and the three-revert rule. Yet still you went on your merry way. As Bishonen (talk · contribs) indicates, a 48-hour block is really quite lenient and blaming others will achieve nothing (see WP:NOTTHEM and the guidance in the block notice). - Sitush (talk) 14:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the information of the reviewing admin: here's the AN3 report. Bishonen | talk 14:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

DS alert

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

$Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: talkpage access removed

I've reblocked with talkpage access removed, as it was being abused. Bishonen | talk 15:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Also, you need to fix your signature, because it doesn't appear to link to either your userpage or your talkpage, which violates WP:SIG. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 16:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Lakhwinder Lucky

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Lakhwinder Lucky requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. SITH (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Daku of punjab.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Daku of punjab.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 04:51, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Anti-Terrorist Front India for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Anti-Terrorist Front India 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/Anti-Terrorist Front India 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. Ifnord (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Anti-Terrorist Front India

Hello, Kakadesi. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Anti-Terrorist Front India".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Anti-Terrorist Front India

Hello, Kakadesi. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Anti-Terrorist Front India".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]