User talk:CutePeach/Archive 3

WP:HOUND
I would urge you to be very cautious of your actions regarding new disputes in which you have no previous involvement, where the sole connection appears to be me.

Such actions could be grounds for a WP:HOUND complaint moving forwards. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 19:27, 25 December 2021 (UTC)


 * , I had a serious WP:HOUND concern with you when you jumped in on the Talk:Dewayne "Lee" Johnson discussion while we were in dispute on Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory and Talk:Alina Chan. I see also that you tagged one of CP's drafts for deletion without attempting to improve it, which you then claimed you had an academic interest in. Perhaps you should watch yourself more carefully. LondonIP (talk) 02:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm actually very interested in the GMO criticism space and found your article via the AfD. I comment on AfDs all the time, especially science-related ones. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 13:14, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Belated explanation of block
Hello CutePeach!

You may have noticed that I blocked you briefly what what I mistakenly thought was a topic-ban violation. I thought your topic-ban was a general COVID-19 ban (broadly construed) and that you had unambiguously and flagrantly violated that ban. To be clear, I was wrong and should have read the topic-ban notification more closely. I unblocked you as soon as I realized my error. For the record, you have done nothing wrong and your RfC on RSN is not, in my view, a violation of that topic ban. Please accept my apology for my error. (I know this all sounds formal and tone is hard to infer from text. I am legit sorry about this).  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * thank you for letting me know. I slept through all of it. 😊 CutePeach (talk) 14:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Gabriella Stern


Hello, CutePeach. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Gabriella Stern".

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! 02:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

World Health Organization Secretariat moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, World Health Organization Secretariat, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.  Onel 5969  TT me 18:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


 * , I see you are moving articles to draftspace on a mass scale. Was this move really necessary? United Nations Secretariat cites primarily primary sources because there are a limited number of secondary sources covering the structure of international organizations. Please can you move the WHO Secretariat article back to mainspace and tag it like the Dengvaxia controversy article? CutePeach (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of World Health Organization Secretariat for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article World Health Organization Secretariat 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 Articles for deletion/World Health Organization Secretariat 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. Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 13:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Ksenia Coffman for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ksenia Coffman 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 Articles for deletion/Ksenia Coffman 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. OcarinaOfTime (talk) 16:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Getting very close to your TBAN....
This edit is really really close to the substance of your TBAN, CP. I would be more cautious if I were you... Especially given that the TBANing admin cautioned you against trying to edit the area around your TBAN and to just avoid the area altogether. As far as I can tell, you're basically doing exactly what he advised against. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

It looks like a violation to me, especially that the thread seems to be part of a parallel political activism campaign. If gaming about this happens, it may be necessary to request for a broadly construed COVID-19 ban amendment... — Paleo Neonate  – 14:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

the story about Zhang Yongzhen and the question of how the sequence was first published has absolutely nothing to do with the COVID-19 lab leak theory or COVID-19 origins. I was banned from those topics due to a list of diffs which most AE participants said were entirely spurious and will not be reviewed. Your attempt to ban at a recent WP:ANI using the same schtick earned you a warning from an administrator, and your cynical breakdown of ANI vs AE  shows how you are far gone down the WP:ADVOCACY track. I recently warned you about WP:HOUNDING when you tried to delete a draft of mine, and you said it is a topic you're interests in, but you have yet to contribute anything to it. Your behaviour is starting to creep me out and I will have to request an interaction ban if you keep on hounding me like this. CutePeach (talk) 13:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi CutePeach, and thank you for your comment at the RfD about 'CCP virus'. While I'm still a Keep !voter, I think your proposal is a fine second choice, and I'm about to comment there to say the same. I believe your participation in a discussion about retargeting a redirect away from COVID-19 misinformation is a violation of your TBAN from "the Origins of COVID-19, broadly construed". On the positive side, your !vote rationale and proposed target have nothing to do with COVID origins, and I think any reasonable observer would say it was non-disruptive. That said, "banned means banned". I encourage you to strike your !vote comment, since it was replied to, and either strike or delete your reply to Place Clichy. Firefangledfeathers 13:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Not trying to be a jerk here. But I've seen people try to edit around the edges of their TBAN before. They tend to end up with a long block, and a TBAN that won't go away. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I didn't realize my TBAN means I can't vote about a redirect that is going to misinformation about origins but I will strike it anyway. , I sent you an email after you reached out but you never replied. CutePeach (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Appreciated! Firefangledfeathers 16:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

POV tag at COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China
Hi CP, please clarify what you specifically mean with the POV tag you added here. See: WP:TC--

"Don't do "drive-by" tagging. Tags must either be accompanied by a comment on the article's talk page explaining the problem and beginning a discussion on how to fix it or, for simpler and more obvious problems, a remark using the reason parameter (available in some templates) as shown below. At the very least, tagging editors must be willing to follow through with substantive discussion." — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 01:57, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi CP, if the tag remains unexplained after a week or so, I will likely remove it per the above guideline. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 22:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi the dispute is on the talk pages of two articles and a community noticeboard, and this analysis I posted cuts through all of the gish galloping . We can debate whether the deliberate under-reporting should be covered as allegations or as matter of fact, but either way they are WP:DUE in the article. Since this is my talk page, let me tell you there were hundreds of millions of infections in China, just in the last few months. There was never any "end of the first outbreak", but an end to reporting cases, deaths and cremations. Its all a mianzi thing you might not understand. CutePeach (talk) 13:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Since this is my talk page, let me tell you there were hundreds of millions of infections in China, just in the last few months Do you have any evidence to support this assertion? — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 13:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes but it is not usable in Wikipedia mainspace. I have many FHW friends in mainland and HK and some of them have stashed samples and documents. This has been common knowledge for a while and even SCMP has started reporting on the wider provincial outbreaks and NHC is already blaming the mail . Zeng Guang is already preparing the way for a pivot to Living with COVID . The truth will out. CutePeach (talk) 14:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * They have just been waiting for the development of their mRNA vaccines to make the pivot . CutePeach (talk) 14:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Wikipedia coverage of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wikipedia coverage of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine 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 Articles for deletion/Wikipedia coverage of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine 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. Grnrchst (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/CutePeach
Notifying you as an interested party.— Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 21:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ukraine biolabs conspiracy theory


The article Ukraine biolabs conspiracy theory has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "It is just one of the conspiracy theories which are already described in the Disinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis article. This article has a duplicate text and the conspiracy is currently not notable enough to have an article of its own."

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 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 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.

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you please enlarge the article Ukraine biolabs conspiracy theory? It is an important topic, but it is too short now. Wikisaurus (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

March 2022
Hi CutePeach! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor&#32;at Chinese government response to COVID-19‎ that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. ''a revert restoring 9,000 characters is not a minor edit. '' —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi CutePeach! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor&#32;at Chinese government response to COVID-19‎ that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Please be more careful about this, it's at least the 2nd time I've told you about it.. —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 19:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit Warring
Your recent editing history at Chinese government response to COVID-19 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.'' Corinal (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2022 (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 Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corinal (talk • contribs) 16:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Please be careful about canvassing
It appears that you may have been canvassing—notifying a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote, either accidentally or intentionally. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. ''I saw you forgot to include @Firefangledfeathers on your recent list of notified users. Please be more careful about including every user from a thread when pinging like this. Biased selection of users is never a good idea! I figure this was probably an accident, but I just wanted to give you a warning nonetheless, so this doesn't become a pattern.'' — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, Firefangledfeathers was already active in the discussion so didn't need tagging. Please stop hounding me and littering my page with these templates. CutePeach (talk) 17:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit Warring 2
Your recent editing history at Chinese government response to COVID-19 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.'' Corinal (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I will put a new notice, just so you cannot lawyer your way out of it by claiming my notice is old. Corinal (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Casting Aspersions
You have implied that I am sockpuppet/have sockpuppets here, if you truly believe this make an SPI, if you do not then do not cast aspersions by implying it. Corinal (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

March 2022
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Chinese government response to COVID-19. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Global Virome Project


Hello, CutePeach. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Global Virome Project".

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! 17:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Chinnoy


A tag has been placed on Chinnoy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

"Misspelling of the term. It's 'Chinoy' with one n"

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:30, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Warning
From your response at BLPN, it seems clear my warning on BLPN is insufficient. I've responded to you there, but will give a clearer warning here. BLP applies to every living person. It does not matter what you think of the person, or what anyone else thinks of this person. If you wish to change policy so that there are certain people to which BLP does not apply, you can open discussion at WT:BLP. IMO your chances of succeeding are close to zero. Until you do so, BLP applies to all living persons, no matter your wish it does not. Until you've succeeded in changing policy, if you suggest again that there are people to which BLP does not apply then I will bring you to ANI and ask for you to be topic banned from all BLPs. Such an attitude is complete unacceptable to anyone who wants to edit BLPs, consider this your final warning. Nil Einne (talk) 12:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of COVID-19 vaccine side effects for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article COVID-19 vaccine side effects 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 Articles for deletion/COVID-19 vaccine side effects 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. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 14:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

June 2022
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia:What MEDRS is not


A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:What MEDRS is not requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

"WP:G5 - Editor is 'indefinitely topic banned from the Origins of COVID-19, broadly construed'; this essay is skirting very close on the edge of that by mentioning other 'topics where there is scientific uncertainty', and seems very much like WP:GAMING to me"

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:What MEDRS is not
Wikipedia:What MEDRS is not, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:What MEDRS is not and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:What MEDRS is not during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:15, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Notice of broadening of your TBAN's scope
Please note that, per Special:Diff/1090271056, I have broadened your topic ban to cover all of COVID-19, broadly construed, for the reasons explained in my comment and by others in that thread. If you would like to appeal this decision, please see. But I hope that you will rather take this as an opportunity to get a clean break from a topic that has brought you into conflict with other editors, and take some time to focus on other, hopefully less controversial quarters of the encyclopedia. -- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 14:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

June 2022
It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. I refer especially to this edit on 's talk page. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Banned by the community
Regretfully, I wish to inform you that you have been banned from editing on Wikipedia by the community per the discussion here at ANI: ANI discussion. Please note that any appeal must be made to the community, by placing an unblock request here, or at WP:UTRS. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, CutePeach

Thank you for creating Ding Jiaxi.

User:FormalDude, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. Please remember to sign your reply with ~.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

–– FormalDude   talk   03:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Philippine Society of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology


Hello, CutePeach. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Philippine Society of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology".

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 and remove the, , or  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! CptViraj (talk) 09:13, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:NATIONALISTPOV
Hello, CutePeach. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:NATIONALISTPOV, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:World Health Organization Executive Board
Hello, CutePeach. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:World Health Organization Executive Board, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)