A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Inertial Labs Corporate Logo.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Streetlampguy301 ( talk) 23:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions to Inertial Labs. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it is promotional and reads like an advertisement and it appears to be undisclosed paid editing, submit through WP:AFC after making proper disclosure. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.
Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 21:48, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello UCLAPhdCandidate. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Artlist, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.
Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.
Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the
Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at
User:UCLAPhdCandidate. The template {{
Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=UCLAPhdCandidate|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}
. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. I should have left this here earlier.
Justlettersandnumbers (
talk) 10:08, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Justlettersandnumbers (
talk) 22:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC)UCLAPhdCandidate ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I am having an issue with a harassing admin and I need help. I created a page called Draft:Inertial Labs and published the page. I have a paid editor disclosure on my page.. After it was published for about 4 days and several experienced editors worked on the page, removing thousands of characters of advertorial language, Justlettersandnumbers move the page back to draft and in the notes he put that it was because it was undisclosed paid editing and that the article was advertorial. I replied to his message asking why he labeled it undisclosed paid when I had a disclosure on my page and I asked what about the article was still advertorial that he felt the need to draft the article after several editors had already worked on it. Ive complied with everything he has asked and he won't tell me how to fix the article or what he found advertorial... Somehow this has de-escalated to the point where he is blocking me for undisclosed paid editing when that isn't the case ... I don't know how admins can use the wrong reasons they admit didnt happen as an excuse to block editors..? Any help or contact or a resolution would be appreciated.
Decline reason:
You are only blocked from Article space. If you have grievances with user conduct/admin behavior, you should bring them to WP:ANI. I would advise you against doing so, but you may. An unblock request should only address the block itself. 331dot ( talk) 07:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
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.
Outside of an unblock request I am kinda curious who told you that you need "advanced Wikipedia skills" for your field- Wikipedia is not a place to do academic/scholarly publishing. See WP:EXPERT. 331dot ( talk) 07:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
UCLAPhdCandidate ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
There never was a problem with paid editing disclosure. I had made one page and I had a tag on my user page. All this is in the notes. This admin just has disdain for paid editing even if it is done appropriately within the tos. He blatantly says so in his comments which is extremely prejudicial for an admin.
Decline reason:
The disclosure you posted on your user page was incomplete and you published the article without going through WP:AFC as required. Apart from that, you have been casting aspersions against the blocking admin and violating WP:CIV. I see little benefit in unblocking you, considering this is just a partial block. Salvio giuliano 09:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
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.
you published the article without going through WP:AFC as required.The TOU are silent on this point and WP:COI says that articles should be submitted to WP:AFC. Maybe it should be compulsory, but as far as I can tell it is not.
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The thread is
here.
Justlettersandnumbers (
talk) 09:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
At ANI, you wrote "It is funny that you see a new wikipedia account an assume that is the total amount of my entire wikipedia experience." Will you please disclose your previous accounts, if any? Cullen328 ( talk) 19:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Inertial Labs Corporate Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Johnj1995 ( talk) 21:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Star
Mississippi 02:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)I think everyone has grown weary of this. I am upgrading the block to a full, indefinite, site-wide block. -- Jayron 32 10:58, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Jayron
32 10:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)UCLAPhdCandidate ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
You can actually see these editors goat me into an argument on several fronts so they can call me a trouble maker. This is ridiculous. I was even actually fixing the article which no one check. He asked me for an entire list of references last night so I posted them for him to look at. You cannot point to one disruptive edit in the main space. All this gibberish about lawyering in the chat is how exactly I was goated into this. Just tyring to shut me up by saying WP:other is nothing more than bullying someone. Everyone the first day said any block was excessive. Now I got WP:lawyered into fighting about a COI move that I never even challenged. You should all be suspended from wikipedia for WP:Gangup!! This platform is atrocious when it pretends it doesn't have paid editors and people collaborate. If it was so collaborative why the original admin got into a fight and suspended a new account for false reasons against the TOS?????? I am so sick of fighting people who can't read the rules and only manipulate them into their own vision. How is that collaborative if you cannot win an argument without ganging up on someone and addressing the wikipedia TOS? If I cannot get satisfaction here I will email the appropriate channels and note that there has not been one main space harmful edit, there has not been one attempt to mis edit on someones page and I have not done one harmful thing at all. I have a list of admins who I feel are responsible and who have thrown hate speech at me. I will also show I didnt violate the TOS and that suspending someone site wide for wp:lawyering is an unacceptable abuse of power by admins as there no place in the TOS when explaining bans where it justifies such actions against someone reporting an issue on an admin. Essentially I was banned for arguing a case editors agreed with was abusive excessive behavior by an admin.
Decline reason:
WP:GAB explains how to contest a block. Please read it before making another request. Yamla ( talk) 15:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
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.
UCLAPhdCandidate ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
"A block is not intended as punishment; it's meant to prevent you from making disruptive edits, either in good faith or as vandalism" as this wasn't the case and I was actually inappropriately blocked which caused the accusations lawyering which is not disruptive or vandalism to answer peoples comments In a discussion forum. If you remove the block there is nothing to lawyer. This is gaslighting by admins grouping together, the original comments agreed the original ban was excessive. Thanks for your help.
Decline reason:
To say your block request is not persuasive would be an understatement. You will almost certainly not be unblocked while you persist in this approach. You need to grasp that continuously arguing, and making complaints, is wasting volunteers time. You will be unblocked when it appears that you will be a productive editor, which is not now. PhilKnight ( talk) 17:06, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
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.
UCLAPhdCandidate ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I did nothing wrong WP:blocking is not for silencing as per WP:nothere which everyone keeps quoting. There is no TOS which permits a block without disruptive editing per TOS "A block is not intended as punishment; it's meant to prevent you from making disruptive edits, either in good faith or as vandalism". I appreciate your help. PS. Let me add WP: Dont chase away productive editors!!Let me say one more thing, as a student of the law, being discriminatory to a class of people who are legally required to disclose to do their jobs and earn a living, creates a liability for the wikipedia foundation and could be considered a hate crime in many states across the country and possibly other countries. Using hate speech on editors that are legally required to disclose due to advertising laws would be considered blocking someone from dutifully obeying the law and as I said before could be considered a hate crime since paid editors seem to be a discriminated class on this platform. Someone should contact arbitration.
Decline reason:
A "hate crime" to be blocked? Talk page access revoked. RickinBaltimore ( talk) 18:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
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 incredibly strongly suggest you remove your open unblock request. Leaving it up will almost certainly result in you losing talk page access. -- Yamla ( talk) 18:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
-- Yamla ( talk) 18:52, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
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 Draft:Inertial Labs, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
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. CNMall41 ( talk) 20:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Inertial Labs Corporate Logo.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Streetlampguy301 ( talk) 23:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions to Inertial Labs. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it is promotional and reads like an advertisement and it appears to be undisclosed paid editing, submit through WP:AFC after making proper disclosure. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.
Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 21:48, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello UCLAPhdCandidate. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Artlist, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.
Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.
Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the
Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at
User:UCLAPhdCandidate. The template {{
Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=UCLAPhdCandidate|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}
. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. I should have left this here earlier.
Justlettersandnumbers (
talk) 10:08, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Justlettersandnumbers (
talk) 22:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC)UCLAPhdCandidate ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I am having an issue with a harassing admin and I need help. I created a page called Draft:Inertial Labs and published the page. I have a paid editor disclosure on my page.. After it was published for about 4 days and several experienced editors worked on the page, removing thousands of characters of advertorial language, Justlettersandnumbers move the page back to draft and in the notes he put that it was because it was undisclosed paid editing and that the article was advertorial. I replied to his message asking why he labeled it undisclosed paid when I had a disclosure on my page and I asked what about the article was still advertorial that he felt the need to draft the article after several editors had already worked on it. Ive complied with everything he has asked and he won't tell me how to fix the article or what he found advertorial... Somehow this has de-escalated to the point where he is blocking me for undisclosed paid editing when that isn't the case ... I don't know how admins can use the wrong reasons they admit didnt happen as an excuse to block editors..? Any help or contact or a resolution would be appreciated.
Decline reason:
You are only blocked from Article space. If you have grievances with user conduct/admin behavior, you should bring them to WP:ANI. I would advise you against doing so, but you may. An unblock request should only address the block itself. 331dot ( talk) 07:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
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.
Outside of an unblock request I am kinda curious who told you that you need "advanced Wikipedia skills" for your field- Wikipedia is not a place to do academic/scholarly publishing. See WP:EXPERT. 331dot ( talk) 07:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
UCLAPhdCandidate ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
There never was a problem with paid editing disclosure. I had made one page and I had a tag on my user page. All this is in the notes. This admin just has disdain for paid editing even if it is done appropriately within the tos. He blatantly says so in his comments which is extremely prejudicial for an admin.
Decline reason:
The disclosure you posted on your user page was incomplete and you published the article without going through WP:AFC as required. Apart from that, you have been casting aspersions against the blocking admin and violating WP:CIV. I see little benefit in unblocking you, considering this is just a partial block. Salvio giuliano 09:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
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.
you published the article without going through WP:AFC as required.The TOU are silent on this point and WP:COI says that articles should be submitted to WP:AFC. Maybe it should be compulsory, but as far as I can tell it is not.
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The thread is
here.
Justlettersandnumbers (
talk) 09:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
At ANI, you wrote "It is funny that you see a new wikipedia account an assume that is the total amount of my entire wikipedia experience." Will you please disclose your previous accounts, if any? Cullen328 ( talk) 19:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Inertial Labs Corporate Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Johnj1995 ( talk) 21:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Star
Mississippi 02:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)I think everyone has grown weary of this. I am upgrading the block to a full, indefinite, site-wide block. -- Jayron 32 10:58, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Jayron
32 10:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)UCLAPhdCandidate ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
You can actually see these editors goat me into an argument on several fronts so they can call me a trouble maker. This is ridiculous. I was even actually fixing the article which no one check. He asked me for an entire list of references last night so I posted them for him to look at. You cannot point to one disruptive edit in the main space. All this gibberish about lawyering in the chat is how exactly I was goated into this. Just tyring to shut me up by saying WP:other is nothing more than bullying someone. Everyone the first day said any block was excessive. Now I got WP:lawyered into fighting about a COI move that I never even challenged. You should all be suspended from wikipedia for WP:Gangup!! This platform is atrocious when it pretends it doesn't have paid editors and people collaborate. If it was so collaborative why the original admin got into a fight and suspended a new account for false reasons against the TOS?????? I am so sick of fighting people who can't read the rules and only manipulate them into their own vision. How is that collaborative if you cannot win an argument without ganging up on someone and addressing the wikipedia TOS? If I cannot get satisfaction here I will email the appropriate channels and note that there has not been one main space harmful edit, there has not been one attempt to mis edit on someones page and I have not done one harmful thing at all. I have a list of admins who I feel are responsible and who have thrown hate speech at me. I will also show I didnt violate the TOS and that suspending someone site wide for wp:lawyering is an unacceptable abuse of power by admins as there no place in the TOS when explaining bans where it justifies such actions against someone reporting an issue on an admin. Essentially I was banned for arguing a case editors agreed with was abusive excessive behavior by an admin.
Decline reason:
WP:GAB explains how to contest a block. Please read it before making another request. Yamla ( talk) 15:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
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.
UCLAPhdCandidate ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
"A block is not intended as punishment; it's meant to prevent you from making disruptive edits, either in good faith or as vandalism" as this wasn't the case and I was actually inappropriately blocked which caused the accusations lawyering which is not disruptive or vandalism to answer peoples comments In a discussion forum. If you remove the block there is nothing to lawyer. This is gaslighting by admins grouping together, the original comments agreed the original ban was excessive. Thanks for your help.
Decline reason:
To say your block request is not persuasive would be an understatement. You will almost certainly not be unblocked while you persist in this approach. You need to grasp that continuously arguing, and making complaints, is wasting volunteers time. You will be unblocked when it appears that you will be a productive editor, which is not now. PhilKnight ( talk) 17:06, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
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.
UCLAPhdCandidate ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I did nothing wrong WP:blocking is not for silencing as per WP:nothere which everyone keeps quoting. There is no TOS which permits a block without disruptive editing per TOS "A block is not intended as punishment; it's meant to prevent you from making disruptive edits, either in good faith or as vandalism". I appreciate your help. PS. Let me add WP: Dont chase away productive editors!!Let me say one more thing, as a student of the law, being discriminatory to a class of people who are legally required to disclose to do their jobs and earn a living, creates a liability for the wikipedia foundation and could be considered a hate crime in many states across the country and possibly other countries. Using hate speech on editors that are legally required to disclose due to advertising laws would be considered blocking someone from dutifully obeying the law and as I said before could be considered a hate crime since paid editors seem to be a discriminated class on this platform. Someone should contact arbitration.
Decline reason:
A "hate crime" to be blocked? Talk page access revoked. RickinBaltimore ( talk) 18:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
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 incredibly strongly suggest you remove your open unblock request. Leaving it up will almost certainly result in you losing talk page access. -- Yamla ( talk) 18:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
-- Yamla ( talk) 18:52, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
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 Draft:Inertial Labs, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
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. CNMall41 ( talk) 20:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)