User talk:Princehr999

Welcome!

Hi, Princehr999. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter etc.

Thank you for your edits, but per our inclusion standards, we do not add more than one official website. Therefore all excessive social networking, indirect websites, and blogs will be removed. Please see: WP:ELMINOFFICIAL/WP:NOT#REPOSITORY/WP:EL#EL11/WP:EL#EL13. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please thoroughly read the Wikipedia external links guideline. If there is an official website, we do not add further social networking sites, they are outside of the scope in those cases. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with writing a wiki page.Need your email id, regarding it.

Princehr999 (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What article do you wish to edit and what specific help to you need? Most editors here won't give out their email as there's no reason it can't be communicated on-wiki. Praxidicae (talk) 16:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I need help in writing good wiki page.Want you to help me "How the content should be written in Wiki"Princehr999 (talk) 18:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please say who or what you want to write about, specifically the subject name? Praxidicae (talk) 18:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing about the personality, who got rewarded in the UK Parliament And New York Senate for his work. ThanksPrincehr999 (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What major media outlets have written about them? Please provide the sources directly, not links to google. Praxidicae (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Media Outlets 1)New York Senate ,(USA Govt)

https://www.nysenate.gov/newsroom/articles/jack-m-martins/senator-martins-presents-proclamation-honor-spiritual-leader-india 
https://nyassembly.gov/mem/Michael-Montesano/story/42523

2)http://www.upf.org/peace-ambassadors-reports/4080-shree-kumar-swamiji-appointed-ambassador-for-peace 3) http://asianworldnews.co.uk/localnews/indias-most-influential-spiritual-leader-honoured-at-house-of-commons-2/ 4)https://www.indiapost.com/nassau-county-honors-brahmrishi-kumar-swami/ 5)https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2011/J1165 6) https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/464579-most-people-washing-hair-simultaneously?fb_comment_id=1855121777850670_1884319894930858 7)https://www.harrowtimes.co.uk/news/9377655.thousands-of-people-attend-event-with-indian-spiritual-leader-brahmrishi-shree-kumar-swamiji-in-harrow/ 8)https://indianexpress.com/article/news-archive/web/obamas-halfbrother-malik-visits-india-to-help-clean-yamuna/

10)https://www.theasiantoday.com/index.php/2011/11/16/indian-spiritual-leader-honoured-at-houses-of-commons/ 11) https://www.theasiantoday.com/index.php/2011/11/16/indian-spiritual-leader-honoured-at-houses-of-commons/ 12)https://www.businesswireindia.com/bhagwan-shree-lakshami-narayan-dham-launches-yamuna-purification-agitation-31840.html

These are significant ones And Many more...Which I had share with you

ThanksPrincehr999 (talk) 18:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some research on this famous personality, and prepared a sample page containing all the information I could find regarding him. I wanted to show it to you before uploading it on Wikipedia for review. Is it possible ? Because I don't want the page to get deleted because of not being able to satisfy Wikipedia policies. Since this is my first attempt at creating a Wiki page all by myself, I was hoping to get it personally reviewed by a Wiki expert such as you. Thanks and Regards Princehr999 (talk) 02:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Brahmrishi Shree Kumar Swami Ji (October 27)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CaptainEek was:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Brahmrishi Shree Kumar Swami Ji and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Brahmrishi Shree Kumar Swami Ji, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Princehr999! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Brahmrishi Shree Kumar Swami Ji has been accepted

Brahmrishi Shree Kumar Swami Ji, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Kumar Swami

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 Kumar Swami, 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. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 12:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019

Hello, Princehr999. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 14:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Princehr999. The nature of your edits 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 egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.

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, and if it does not, 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:Princehr999. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Princehr999|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. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 14:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Kumar Swami 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—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.— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 14:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The same rule applies to you as well Sir. Kindly discuss the problem. I don;t understand how can you simply contest for the deletion of this article ? On what grounds ? This article is well presented and reviewed by Wikipedia experts. So please keep patience and first discuss before making any changes. You may as well get yourself blocked from editing too if you are engaged in this editing war. I request you to be neutral and not behave like a person with an agenda. Thank you for your understanding. Regards !

Speedy deletion nomination of Kumar Swami

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 Kumar Swami, 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. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 14:49, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Kumar Swami. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 14:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop assuming ownership of articles as you did at Kumar Swami. Behavior such as this is regarded as disruptive, and is a violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Anyone can edit article in their own way. You’re not owner that changes need to be discussed with you. You should keep this in mind while making Wikipedia article. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 15:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the same note, I would like to remind you that you should be discussing your problems with me on the talk page first before making the edits on page. Why are you not discussing anything ? What portion in the article makes you think that it does not meet Wikipedia's standards ? And regarding why I called you a follower of some other Guru, it is because on your page I saw your interest and found you are connected with some other leader. To clarify you again on this: I am not a follower of anyone. I believe in first discussing then taking any action. Please let me know the problems that you see in this article. Thanks !

@CaptainEek and Athaenara: You can check behaviour of the user. He’s not allowing to edit the page and wants discussion before making any changes. He accuses me for being follower of some Guru while I’m more like Atheist. Is there something remaining which can prove this user has COI for Kumar Swami? — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 15:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek: Hello Captain, please look at all my responses and also at this person's responses. What makes him feel I have a conflict of interest ? You yourself went through the article and also verified it. How can this user claim that I have a conflict of interest. And I did not commit any crime by saying that he is a follower of other Guru. I went through his page and found that he is spiritually inclined towards some leader other than the subject of my article. I am surprised by his behavior because he is trying to purposely bring down the article. Why is he behaving like a child and trying to point towards unnecessary things. I have said him multiple times to at least discuss the problems he is having regarding the article with me. It will help me improve the article. But he is not ready to discuss but wants to just complain and forcibly edit the page.

Is this the policy of Wikipedia to randomly edit pages because of some personal hatred or problem, rather than discussing them first ? I am ready to discuss the problems ::@Harshil169: is having with the article, but his arrogant way of talking and threatening to block my account itself shows that he doesn't want the page to stay on Wikipedia for reasons I am unaware of. Please ask this user to resolve the issues through discussion rather than spoiling the article. At least start the discussion somewhere rather than just complaining.

Thanks and regards ! Princehr999 (talk) 15:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:AGF and WP:Civility before claiming someone as Guru of someone and starting allegations like trace passer. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 16:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Threatening to block my account just because I am trying to defend an article from spam edits ? Is that what you call civility ? Please have the decency to talk on Wikipedia forum. I am still waiting to hear at least one logical argument from your side why you want the page to be deleted. If you have some problem with my language, may be you are right because my language is not polished like yours. I don't pretend. But I do have the decency to talk at least. I repeat: Calling someone a follower is not a crime. I just reported what I saw, just like you reported what you saw. So how am I the violator here ?17:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Princehr999 (talk)

Nominating this page straight up for deletion itself shows that you have some personal problem. I am defending this page not because I have some association with the subject of the article, but because I want to know the shortcomings in this article and why it should be deleted in the first place. Everyone is here to learn and improve, including me and you. So why not be polite in our discussion and rather discuss the main thing here. Please let me know your point of view in detail so I can improve the article content. You are constantly trying to teach me Wikipedia policies but you happen to forget the very basic one: DO TRY TO SORT THE ISSUE THROUGH DISCUSSION BEFORE ENGAGING IN EDIT WARS. I have tried my best to ask you for discussing the matter. But you seem to have some predefined motives and are avoiding discussion at all levels. Princehr999 (talk) 17:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Kumar Swami. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 17:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am glad that you are ready to begin the discussion. And I never attacked you. I have full rights to put my point of view. Talking about attacking other editors: You are making false accusations against me saying I have a COI. I guess you are the one who is attacking someone here. Don't you think it would have been appropriate to support your accusation with at least one valid proof ? You hurry to make false accusations but fail to give proof when asked. Is that what you expect me to do as well ? I can't have that attitude like yours, I believe in talking with facts and proofs. I am talking with a cool mind, but getting confused by looking at your mixed responses. Some times you accuse me, sometimes you display your personal hatred towards the subject of the article, and are trying to avoid fact-based discussion. Please take initiative to start a mature discussion. Thanks and regards Princehr999 (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Princehr999, Harshil is being most chill here. You should also remember to be chill. Harshil has some good points, that I'll be honest, I missed. I am not familiar with Indian issues, and thus assumed that the original title was his name, like a western name would be. That was an enlightening error on my part, as it turns out that was in fact not neutral at all. I did not see the forest through the trees, and in hindsight should not have accepted the article. It still has serious POV issues, and is overly promotional of the subject. Please be civil, and talk only about the content issues that Harshil has raised. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:56, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I apologize for being impatient and will be chill from now. What should I do in improving this article ? Princehr999 (talk) 19:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Kumar Swami, you may be blocked from editing. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 08:05, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:CaptainEek. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Accusing someone for their religious beliefs can be considered as violation of WP:NPA. Keep this in mind— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 08:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kumar Swami moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Kumar Swami, does not have enough reliable and independent sources 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 "Draft:" 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. ∯WBG^converse 04:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Off-wiki evidence

indicates that you are being paid for your editorial activities. Please provide relevant disclosure, pursuant to the format mentioned by Harshil in one of his previous messages. ∯WBG^converse 06:01, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not being paid for anything on Wikipedia. The discussion with Harshil got heated because he was trying to dictate the tone of the article without discussing any details. I wrote this article passionately since it's my first article on Wikipedia. But to be clear once again, I have no association with the subject of the article. I already told in my discussion that I am ready to improve the article if someone guides me to. I will still improve the article to meet Wikipedia's standards.

Regarding the reliability of sources, why do you think that sources are not reliable ? They are from well reputed newspapers and official government websites. I would appreciate if you will guide me which references are unreliable in your view.

What else this draft needs in order to be able to be included in article space ??

I have seen many articles on Wikipedia which are much shorter than mine, have much less references and have lesser quality of references than the ones I have used.

I guess the reason that you have moved the article to draft is because of my heated discussion with Harshil, for which I have already apologized.

I find it unfair that such a well researched article which was earlier accepted has now been moved to draft.

Please reconsider your decision of reverting the article to draft. The references are indeed reliable and independent. I request you to again have a thorough look. I will keep working on improving the quality of the content but I feel it should be in the article space.

AN Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. It regards Kumar Swami and some longstanding issues around it. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Kumar Swami

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 Kumar Swami, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Jikaoli Kol (talk) 19:11, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noida

Hello. Your recent edit to Noida appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Kumar Swami for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kumar Swami is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kumar Swami 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.

PabloMartinez (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]