User talk:Opjack271
Welcome
[edit]Jim: Thanks for reading my materials and I note your suggestion to get an "independent, reliable source." That is the National Press Club, the most prestigious journalistic group in the world. It has issued a formal statement on this matter. No one can be more objective. This is an extremely important topic because the NPC does not want anyone and especially PR people thinking that there is anything correct about a press boycott. It interferes with the free flow of information which is the main goal of Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is making a big mistake in rejecting what the National Press Club has to say. Its credibility is as high as that of any news organization or other organization in the world.
Cordially,
Jack Opjack271 (talk) 14:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Opjack271. Welcome to Wikipedia!
I hope you like it here and decide to stick around. If you see something on Wikipedia that you want to change, just press the edit button and change it!
For the basic principles, see the five pillars of Wikipedia. And if you're ready to make some edits, this Wikipedia cheatsheet may come in handy.
Cheers, ChzzBot IV (talk) 00:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation
[edit]
I noticed your submission in Articles for creation, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Public Relations Society of America. Thanks! It will be reviewed by a volunteer soon.
Before it can be added to Wikipedia, your submission should have references. All articles on Wikipedia should have inline, numbered references after facts, showing the 'reliable source' (a newspaper, book, etc.) where the information can be checked, so that all information is verifiable.
Here's an example of how to add references:
He likes tea.<ref> Smith, John. "[http://foonews.com/Article42 Interview with Chzz]", Foo News, 1 April 2010. Retrieved 2011-05-22. </ref>
== References ==
{{reflist}}
That makes the references automatically display as small numbers[1] which will link to the details in the section titled == References == at the end. You can see that example in action here.
Please add references to your submission, which will be reviewed as soon as possible. See also, Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. If you need any help, just put {{helpme}} at the end of this page, followed by a question or get into our live help chat chanel at #wikipedia-en-help connect.
Best, ChzzBot IV (talk) 00:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation
[edit]
{{subst:submit}} to the top of the article.)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Public Relations Society of America.
- To edit the submission, you can use the edit button at the top of the article, near the search bar
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Help desk or the reviewer's talk page. Alternatively you can ask a reviewer questions via live help
- Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Anjwalker Talk 02:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Your addition to Public Relations Society of America has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello Phil: what if I re-write this and don't provide the complete documents? The National Press Club's criticism of the press boycott by PRSA should be part of the Wikipedia page about PRSA. How else can I get this important news on the PRSA Wikipedia write-up?
Cordially,
Jack O'Dwyer Opjack271 (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for airing grievances. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Chicago Tylenol murders
[edit]
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Chicago Tylenol murders, you may be blocked from editing. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Please stick to one user id
[edit]
Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please remember to disclose these connections. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello Phil: Thanks for your time in examining my submissions. However, I find it hard to believe that Wikipedia is completely ignoring "The Tylenol Mafia," which is one of the most thorough pieces of investigation I have ever seen. How can I get this book mentioned on Wikipedia? You note I am breaking rules about copyright and using multiple accounts (I don't know what that means since I only use my own opjack271 account). I would like you to tell me how I can present important information on two of your subjects that plead with users to send in materials? Cordially, Jack O'Dwyer Opjack271 (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
New Texas article dissolution
[edit]I'd suggest deleting your article which you've recently submitted for creation. It seems to be more of a news article than an encyclopedia entry. Things like ese tend to slow down the reviewing process, and I think it would help your standing and help keep the approval/declination process efficient if you deleted your article, or at least took it off the list.
Jack's response: This is far more than a news article but an example of how the internet and other forces are destroying PR groups that held in-person meetings. The article notes the demise of at least a dozen other groups. PR people and others will read this and come to understand the forces impacting on in-person, paid-for PR groups when there are in LinkedIn alone 58 PR/marketing/communications groups. PR people and newcomers to the field are struggling to understand these forces and decide what groups they should join.
The failure of a 58-year-old group is highly significant. Those editing my submission may not know much about the PR/communications field which now includes large numbers of journalists who have lost their jobs. I'm sure Wikipedia wants people to understand powerful forces at work today. Opjack271 (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
--Jack O'Dwyer
Your submission at Articles for creation
[edit]- If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Texas PR Association dissolves after 58 years.
- To edit the submission, you can use the edit button at the top of the article, near the search bar
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Help desk or the reviewer's talk page. Alternatively you can ask a reviewer questions via live help
- Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! sonia♫ 03:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- I assume you are the author of the blog post which this submission appears to be directly lifted from. Nevertheless, we cannot permit copyrighted content on Wikipedia: where authors contribute content published elsewhere, they have to explicitly give permission. In this case, though, the text as it stands is also not suitable for Wikipedia for a number of other reasons, so this process of obtaining permission would be a tedious task with no purpose.
- In short, your submission is written like a (rather disjointed) news article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; we are not a site for press releases or similar. All submissions must be written in an encyclopedic style, and referenced thoroughly to third-party, reliable sources. (see this page.)
- I would recommend simply rewriting the submission to be about the association in general, as well, since "death of " or "dissolution of" articles are not suitable unless the event in question was notable and received significant coverage all of its own.
- It must be made absolutely clear, though, how the organization meets our notability guidelines for organizations, in order for the submission to be accepted.
- If you have any further questions, do feel free to respond here, or contact me on my talk page or by email. Cheers. sonia♫ 03:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Sonia:
Thanks for your critique of my article although, naturally, I don't agree with it. I have been a reporter 54 years including four years at the Chicago Tribune and six at the former NY Journal-American as a financial writer. Since 1968 I have had my own company and we generate 30,000 to 40,000 unique visitors a month to our website, www.odwyerpr.com. We also publish a weekly NL and monthly magazine.
We are known as the "gold standard" in PR coverage since for 40 years we have ranked PR firms based on government documents such as top pages of income tax returns and W-3s showing payroll, lists of accounts, personnel, etc. Our Directory of PR Firms lists 1,700 firms. If you Google any PR specialty such as healthcare or financial PR, our rankings will be at or near the top.
So far four of my submissions to Wikipedia have been rejected or removed.
I have attempted to place materials on Wikipedia partly because it asks for more materials.
Your pages on PR Society of America, Accreditation in PR and the Chicago Tylenol murders are hugely deficient if not actually false and misleading.
I can't understand, either, your refusal to carry my story about the dissolution of the Texas PR Assn. after 58 years. This is a highly significant story, part of the trend for PR people to lose their in-person groups. You said I violate copyright but I don't know what you're referring to.
The page on PRSA has only 298 words, a bare bones description that does not begin to give the character of this 21,000 member organization that has a lot of influence on the flow of information in America. This country is in bad because of lack of information from the federal government and its regulatory bodies, Wall Street, bankers, real estate firms, etc. PR people are supposed to be providing information, not blocking it.
Wikipedia stands for more information so I'm perplexed at how you can block information.
There are at least 20 wrongful practices and policies of PRSA that are fully documented. It seems that Wikipedia editors do no research on their own but only rely on sources your editors deem acceptable or credible. The easiest way to check what I say below is to call Arthur Yann, VP-PR of PRSA at 212/450-1452 or e-mail him at arthur.yann@prsa.org.
I realize it's a holiday weekend but press works 24/7/365. I have to work all weekend for publication on Tuesday a.m. on our website.
The main abuse at PRSA is its domination since the mid-1970s by "accredited" members, meaning those who provide written answers to a series of questions about PR, provide materials they have allegedly worked on, and take a multiple-choice test, paying a total of $410. Only "APR" members can serve on the national board or as officers or serve on the Ethics Board. APRs dominate the nominating committee, holding 14 of the 19 positions in 2011.
The initial abuse is that prospective members are not told they cannot hold national office until they are APR. This is evident by studying the materials given to prospective members on the PRSA website (www.prsa.org).
One story among many that should be on Wikipedia is the struggle in 2010 by the Committee for a Democratic PRSA for the right of non-APRs to run for the board. Prominent members and leaders of the PR community headed this Committee including Richard Edelman CEO of the world's largest PR firm, Edelman. He has proven this by submitting extensive documentation of the firm's business in more than 20 countries. Edelman's volume in 2010 was $520 million. Also on the Committee was Arthur Stevens, former national treasurer of PRSA.
National leadership would not let the Committee e-mail this proposal to the 21,000 members although PRSA usually e-mails twice a day to that list (minus some opt-outs). Nevertheless, it obtained 450 signatures on its petition.
Although the Committee announced its intentions in April of 2010, the story was never covered in the online Tactics of PRSA and only made an inside story in October of that year. That was bald suppression of information in spite of the PRSA Code that says it champions the "free flow of truthful and accurate information." That is a weasel statement because it allows someone to say certain information is not "truthful and accurate." Information, ipso facto, is truthful or it wouldn't be information.
Also, truth in democracies is determined by vigorous public debate as in the 12 debates that Republican Presidential candidates just endured.
The bid to end the stranglehold that APRs have on PRSA leadership failed by a huge margin in October 2010. The 270-member Assembly that considered it is 75% APR by PRSA's own measurement. Since only 18% of current members are APR, the Assembly is not representative of the membership.
Up until 2005, members and the press could get a transcript of the all-day proceedings of the Assembly. Transcripts have been withheld since 2005 which keeps members in the dark about their own Assembly.
There is also no published national list of the Assembly delegates. Members don't know who the delegate are, what they say, or how individual members vote.
The Assembly, breaking one of the main rules in Robert's Rules, voted in 2009 to allow proxy votes and used 56 proxy votes to do that.
PRSA leadership put into effect draconian anti-press rules starting with the 2010 Assembly, forbidding reporters from taking pictures of the Assembly or recording any portion of it. There had been no such previous policy.
They went a step further in 2011 by forbidding all press coverage of the Assembly. I was barred and so were any other PR reporters. The minutes of this meeting have yet to be published although it took place Oct. 15, 2011.
PRSA's information-blocking includes refusing to let reporters join. We are not allowed to see any financial reports or the audit of the Society since they are available only to members. How can reporters cover PRSA if they are not allowed to see the quarterly and annual financial reports? The only time financials are publicly available is in Form 990 of the IRS which PRSA does not release until the end of the following year. So it takes nearly two years for them to get financial results.
Your pages on the Tylenol murders (the Bartz book presents evidence that the poisonings took place during the multi-stage distribution process), PRSA and Accreditation need extensive expansions to mirror reality. Wikipedia says it wants entries that are "encyclopedic" but the definition of that word is "in-depth," "exhaustive," "all-inclusive," "full," "vast," "thorough" and "all-embracing." Judging from your pages on Tylenol, PRSA and Accreditation, Wikipedia is anything but that.
All assertions by Scott Bartz or me can be easily checked with J&J or PRSA itself. That would be the quickest route. Your instructions say go to the "horse's mouth." That's where any opposition should come from. Double-checking what Scott Bartz or I say would not be an arduous task.
The experience of Bartz and myself is that such sources refuse to answer or even acknowledge receiving the questions. Maybe they will stonewall you also.
PRSA leaders in recent years have isolated themselves from the rank and file membership. 2011 chair Rosanna Fiske only visted two of the 110 chapter memberships, her own Miami chapter and Georgia. That was a record low. The 2010 chair, Gary McCormick, visted seven chapters. No elected chair of PRSA has addressed the New York chapter in more than 20 years. That is the biggest single-city chapter. Georgia is bigger but that is statewide and so is D.C. but that includes Northern Va. and Md.
As of July 28, Fiske blocked participants in PRSA "teleconferences" from asking any "live" questions. Participants were put in "listen-only" mode. This fact is easily checked. I did a blog on it in www.odwyerpr.com
Blatant anti-New York policies include evicting the NY chapter offices from h.q. in 1992 and moving h.q. to downtown New York in 2004 where it is unusable by New York members because of the nearly one-hour round-trip from midtown where almost all PR firms and many companies are based.
Although a New York location pulls the most attendees to a national conference, there has only been one New York national conference since 1990--the one in 2004. Next year's conference is in San Francisco and 2014 will be in Philadelphia (where it was in 2007). So there is one PRSA conference in New York in 23 years. PRSA staff refuses to say what cities have been picked for the future.
In a new instance of information-withholding, PRSA has yet to post the minutes of any of its four board meetings in 2011 nor any minutes of the 2011 Assembly.
Checking the facts listed above would be easy. Just forward this e-mail to william.murray@prsa.org, the full-time president and COO, or Mr. Yann at arthur.yann@prsa.org.
Cordially,
Jack O'Dwyer Opjack271 (talk) 20:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Welcome
[edit]
|
Hello Wikipedia and especially my editor here, Phil Bridger: I'm being falsely accused of trying to put copyrighted material on Wikipedia. I don't think the Wikipedia editors understand copyright. Writers retain copyright even though they give it to media that are copyrighted. The writer can always sell or publish his or her article in any other media unless he or she has given exclusivity to the medium that published the article. In my case, I have the right to publish articles I wrote for www.odwyerpr.com anywhere else. Copyright laws do not prevent me from doing this. The issue here is that Wikipedia entries for Public Relations Society of America, Accreditation in Public Relations and the Chicago Tylenol murders are misleading if not false in many respects. The 298-word description of itself by PRSA only scratches the surface of what is going on at this hugely influential organization. Its members influence the flow of information in America. Also, your guidelines prohibit organizations from describing themselves and you plead for someone to add copy to this entry. My attempts to do so have been rebuffed for what I feel are improper reasons. Am I correct in thinking that Wikipedia does no independent research of its own? You would not call PRSA VP-PR Arthur Yann or e-mail him (arthur.yann@prsa.org) for his statements on what I bring up? Wikipedia requires "notability" and "reliable" sources but those two terms are highly subjective. Truth and accuracy are often hammered out in public debate. Also, quite often the different parties involved will never agree on what is the truth. Different sides have to give it their best and let the public decide. Cordially,
Jack O'Dwyer Opjack271 (talk) 16:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello Wikipedia:
The Tylenol Mafia today (Jan. 16, 2012) is listed as No. 1 in terms of sales on "Best Sellers in Law Ethics and Professional Responsibility" on amazon.com. It gets five stars. This is not a client of mine. It shouldn't matter. Someone from WP should get this marvelous piece of research (619 pages) and read it. It's only $9.99 via Kindle. Author Scott Bartz has prepared materials for WP but has not placed anything so far. This is a controversial subject but so are a lot of important subjects. Opjack271 (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation
[edit]{{subst:submit}} to the top of the article.)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Council of Public Relations Firms.
- To edit the submission, you can use the edit button at the top of the article, near the search bar
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Help desk or the reviewer's talk page. Alternatively you can ask a reviewer questions via live help
- Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Feinoha Talk, My master 18:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello Jack
[edit]Thanks for the material you left on my talk page, but I am unconvinced that it is appropriate for Wikipedia. I understand that you are in a dispute with a PR organization, but we would need significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to cover this matter in Wikipedia. Perhaps it might be more appropriate for Wikinews? At first glance, I do not see encyclopedic material here, although you may well be correct in the dispute. However, it seems clear to me that you are heavily involved and have a stake in the matter. The success of Wikipedia is built on the editorial judgment of independent reliable sources and uninvolved neutral editors. Please feel free to bring links to independent sources to my attention. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Copyright
[edit]Hello Jack,
One of your comments above leads me to believe that you may not understand Wikipedia's well-established policies on copyright. Other than brief "fair use" excerpts, copyrighted material can't be used in Wikipedia unless it is released under an acceptable Creative Commons license freely allowing re-use by others. You can't put it on Wikipedia and retain a more stringent copyright elsewhere. You have to formally and legally release it under Creative Commons. This is a 100% free encyclopedia with very limited "fair use" exceptions. Long blocks of copyrighted text won't fly. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
O'Dwyer login
[edit]Hi O'Dwyer. By email you provided a login information for O'Dwyers. I'm currently working on the Wikipedia article on Waggener Edstrom Worldwide and wanted to know if you were comfortable with me using the login in order to get information and citations for the Waggener article. Corporate 14:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Council of Public Relations Firms, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. 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 at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 15:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Your article submission Council of Public Relations Firms
[edit]
Hello Opjack271. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Council of Public Relations Firms.
The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note, however, that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Council of Public Relations Firms}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 22:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Council of Public Relations Firms, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. 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 at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Public Relations Society of America, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. 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 at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Public Relations Society of America
[edit]
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 Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Public Relations Society of America requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/national-press-club-disappointed-to-learn-prsa-banned-reporter-from-meeting-132148998.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
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. Rankersbo (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Hi it appears that this is a straight copy and paste of a press release. Rankersbo (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Council of Public Relations Firms, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. 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 at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Council of Public Relations Firms, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. 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 at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Council of Public Relations Firms, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. 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 at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Council of Public Relations Firms
[edit]Hello, Opjack271. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Council of Public Relations Firms".
In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation 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 and remove the {{db-afc}} 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.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 04:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC)