User talk:82.40.107.245

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, such as the one you made on Leeroy Thornhill. I greatly appreciate your constructive edits on Wikipedia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Recent changes patrol

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but many editors recommend that you create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (82.40.107.245) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! Robvanvee 15:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

June 2017

Hello, I'm Yunshui. Your recent edit to the page Lars Ulrich appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. The reverted edit can be found here. Yunshui ^雲_水 21:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Metal Church, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

July 2017

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Anthrax (American band).

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:22, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Slayer. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

@4TheWynne: Please don't template anonymous editors with block warnings when you decide to revert their edits. If you disagree with the edits, please revert and discuss them in a civil manner without threatening to block. Your versions of the articles may be better, but this anonymous editor's edits are not "disruptive." I am posting this message here so that it is clear that these are not blatant examples of disruption for any administrator that comes along. Malinaccier (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

August 2017

Your recent editing history at Hocus Pocus (song) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 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. Binksternet (talk) 00:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Spike Wilbury (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

September 2017

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Kiss (band). - FlightTime (open channel) 02:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Floyd Rose claims

I made a talk page section if you'd like to discuss this. Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 17:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Friday the 13th

Regarding your edit summary to Friday the 13th: The Game, Jason Voorhees didn't become an undead zombie until Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives. Watch the first four films, where he is a living running killer. He didn't die until Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter, when he took a machete through his head before getting stabbed repeatedly (his "death" scenes in Part II and III were simple stabbings that were retconned by the following films). And yes, his supernatural abilities were expanded upon in Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday and Jason X, but he didn't have any of these abilities until after his resurrection. You also brought up his drowning, but it has been stated more than once throughout the series that Jason didn't actually drown. Besides - if he did, he would still be a child by the time of Part II. DarkKnight2149 16:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Umm he was clearly killed in Part 3 but came back to life at the start of Part 4. He was taken to a Hospital you really think a Hospital wouldn't know he was still alive? Jason did drown it even shows you him drowning in Part 1 very briefly. I say he was always undead therefore we shouldn't be claiming he was only undead from Part 6 onwards when he clearly miraculously comes back to life in earlier films. Also incorrect Jason died in 1957 which is confirmed by the truck driver at the start of the first film so no he wouldn't still be a child in Part 2 he'd be in his early 20's. 82.40.107.245 (talk) 16:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

He didn't die in Part III. He was stabbed in the side of the head with an axe (wearing a hockey mask no less), and he woke up in the morgue in the following film... Which isn't the emergency room. He didn't become a supernatural undead zombie until Part VI, and he displayed no superhuman feats prior to that film. He was clearly a living, running killer in the first four films. He wasn't an unstoppable killing machine until Part VI (and aside from a couple of red herrings, he only died in The Final Chapter before then). As for Part I, the ending is a confirmed hallucination; likewise, there is no evidence to suggest he truly drowned. DarkKnight2149 20:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

He didn't die because he was already undead. He was hung as well, pretty sure any man that heavy would die from being hung from that height. Exactly he wouldn't be sent to the morgue unless he was pronounced legally dead. Therefore he did come back to life. In Part 3 he clearly did show superhuman feats I mean I don't think many men could crush another man's skull making his eye pop out with his bare hands. Also how can his strength be explained? Did he have a set of weights in his cabin or something? 82.40.107.245 (talk) 22:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to spend too much time on this, but what I will say is that plenty of people have woken up in the morgue in real life (news stories of such can be a bit unnerving). The characters involved, especially the doctors at the morgue, also weren't particularly competent and Jason wasn't the only "body" at the crime scene. The implication is that Jason is just a strong man; in Part II, he is seen constantly wrestling with the male protagonist, and there is a bit of that in Part III as well. Friday the 13th has never been realistic. Crushing one mans head with brute strength is nothing compared to some of the stuff Zombie Jason has done later in the franchise. Also, if he were always "undead" as you say, why wasn't he given a more definitive "death" in The Final Chapter (which was intended to kill him off)? And how did he suddenly go from being a vulnerable, running killer in Final Chapter to being the slow moving unstoppable Hulk in Part VI and beyond? Even the makers of the films, as well as the people behind Friday the 13th: The Game have acknowledged that he was a living killer in the series' initial four films. In fact, Jason Voorhees (Derek Mears) in Friday the 13th (2009) was intended to be based on the original, living Jason and be a departure from the slow moving Jason of late (though that film wasn't very good in my opinion, that's a whole different discussion). DarkKnight2149 22:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Which is a rare occurrence i'm sure even rarer for someone who was hung from the top of a barn and axed in the head to wake up despite being pronounced dead. How can you say they're not competent? Their ability at their job had never been shown. How is it nothing compared to what he's done later in the franchise? What has he done later in the franchise that makes him appear even stronger? Idk i'm not Joseph Zito or Tom Savini you'll have to ask them that. You could also ask how did he put on so much muscle between Part 2 and 3 when Part 3 is supposed to be the next day. The amount of muscle he put on would take at least a year of intense training. The answer's simple it's a director's decision. None of the Jason's have been particularly consistent with all of them looking and appearing different, even the ones played by the same person. 82.40.107.245 (talk) 02:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

November 2017

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Metallica while logged out. Making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Long-term abuse and block evasion by multiple IPs, recently Special:Contributions/86.164.166.121. Binksternet (talk) 22:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Spike Wilbury (talk) 23:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

Unsubstantiated edits

Please avoid making edits based on original research, as you did at Freddy Krueger. Per our policies on citing sources and verifiability, "It's clearly not Robert's voice" is not a good enough reason to remove reliably sourced material. If the developer (Ed Boon) says that Robert Englund voiced the character, then that's what we are going by. If you disagree, then please find a reliable source that contradicts it. Thank you. DarkKnight2149 02:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

And in regards to this, Ed Boon's Twitter account has been verified. It would only qualify as "not a source" if it wasn't verified. DarkKnight2149 02:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Friday the 13th

There are 2 issues here. First, youtube isn't reliable not because of what is being shown, but because video links are unstable and can be deleted whenever. Then you no longer have a source. Second, videos of conventions have a history of getting deleted for copyright issues. Second, the cast section is a reflection of actual credits, not what is "true". You would need to explain the situation in prose below the cast, without changing they way they are credited in the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

In this instance the video in question is an official upload from the host seen in the video so there is no chance it will be deleted for copyright infringement. 82.40.107.245 (talk) 23:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, then you're still left with what I said before. You don't change a cast list that is based on actual crediting in the film. THat stuff is connected the actor's guilds and stunt guilds. They are credited that way on purpose. You can discuss in prose below about who was filming certain scenes as a character.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Not always, for example in Wes Craven's New Nightmare Freddy Krueger is a credited as "Himself" which is impossible because Freddy Krueger is not a real person. 82.40.107.245 (talk) 08:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Providing an exception to the situation that is clearly meant more as a joke doesn't change the fact that when it comes to actual, legal credits, we go by how the studio has them listed. There is a reason that he's not given actual credit for that scene, and that's because it wasn't significant enough to earn credit. It's the reason Joss Whedon doesn't have a co-directing credit for "Justice League", because the director's guild has a percentage requirement to earn that credit. Actors have a percentage requirement as well. That isn't even restricted to just this Friday the 13th film. It happened on other ones as well. A few of them to be more clear.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

It seems different rules apply to different articles. Plenty of times I have seen "Uncredited" sections in articles but according to you these cannot be listed because they're not "official". What about articles on films where the director has officially credited himself as "Alan Smithee", those articles still put his real name in them. 82.40.107.245 (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

February 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Symphony for the Devil (Type O Negative album). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 14:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Block evasion by User:JJ.Jarrett. Two interaction tools show similar patterns and interests: Intertwined contributions and Editor interaction. The same communication style is expressed in the edit summaries. Binksternet (talk) 15:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC) Binksternet (talk) 15:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The hell you talkin' bout? Fool! 82.40.107.245 (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

April 2018

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Beetlejuice. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 20:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hello, I'm Shellwood. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Dianetics— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Template:Pseudoscience, you may be blocked from editing. Shellwood (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Template:Pseudoscience. Shellwood (talk) 21:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for edit warring.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  5 albert square (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

May 2018

Hello, I'm FlightTime. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you unlinked one or more redlinks from Vixen (band). Often redlinks can be helpful, so we don't remove them just because they are red. They help improve Wikipedia by attracting editors to create needed articles.

In addition, clicking on the "What links here" special link (in the Wikipedia Toolbox at left) on a missing article shows how many—and which—articles depend on that article being created. This can help prioritize article creation. Redlinks are useful! Please, only remove a redlink if you are pretty sure that it is to a non-notable topic and not likely ever to be created. Thanks! - FlightTime (open channel) 18:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Friday the 13th Part III, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I removed the cast from Part 2 from the credits of Part III. They don't belong there, they were merely used in a short opening of archive footage to show viewers what happened previously. They were not a part of Part III's cast. 82.40.107.245 (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Then please use edit summaries so other editors know what you're doing. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Do you know how to fix the problem on Vixen (band)#Timeline_(Recording_Era;_1987-Present)? The lines are going off the chart and all over the place. 82.40.107.245 (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done - FlightTime (open channel) 19:00, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Hardbodies

You're welcome to seek consensus on the article's talk page. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

If that's your rational, should we add all the cast members also? No. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

It's a different situation and you know it. The entire band appeared in the film and contributed to the soundtrack. Therefore the Vixen franchise merged with the Hardbodies franchise. Also actors rarely have their own navboxes. 82.40.107.245 (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Vixen (band), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Excuse me, don't you threaten me for vandalism. I reversed the timeline to a much better state. Your edit ruined it with lines going off in the chart. An admin has already repaired this problem before you caused it again and I will be reporting this incident to him. You think just cause you're an admin you can bully non-admins? 82.40.107.245 (talk) 23:07, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Your revert of explained and correct edits was not vandalism and calling it vandalism to mask your revert is far from constructive. Feel free to report it to an admin, but watch for WP:BOOMERANGs as I added no problems. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Vixen (band). - FlightTime (open channel) 23:11, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Your actions have been reported. Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:11, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for persistently making disruptive edits.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:14, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Template:Vixen, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

So the underlying issue simple: navigation templates are not about what the subject is associated with—that can be addressed with prose in the subject's article—they are about articles that discuss the subject at length. Another rule of thumb is that the navigation template should actually appear on that other article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistently making disruptive edits.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  -- ferret (talk) 18:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

July 2018

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at 18 and Life. Binksternet (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

August 2018

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Template:Stryper. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Camp Blood 2. First, if a PROD has been reverted, you cannot prod again. Take it to AfD. Second, you might want to reconsider your behaviour, when it's immediately after your block has been lifted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

December 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dan Bradley; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 17:36, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

February 2019

You have repeatedly (5 or 6 times) changed the template Template:AC/DC over the past month. That kind of WP:Edit warring is very much against Wikipedia’s rules. You offer arguments in your edit summaries, but that is not how it works here. You must go to the talk page and GET CONSENSUS FOR THE CHANGE before you do it again. If you make this edit again without first getting agreement at the talk page, you definitely will be blocked from editing. Your edit log shows numerous previous blocks for the same kind of problem. This is your final warning. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@MelanieN: IP did it again: [1]. --woodensuperman 11:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Blocked

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

June 2019

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at ...And Justice for All (album), you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:20, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Queensrÿche (album). Binksternet (talk) 02:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Rise of the Damnation Army: United World Rebellion Chapter 2

Hello, 82.40.107.245. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Rise of the Damnation Army: United World Rebellion Chapter 2".

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 {{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! CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

---