Pompeiopolis

Wow, user teichobat!!! How much chalk have you eaten to overtone your cattish voice? This last post sounds much milder in ductus, but conceals the issue rather than providing a clarification. In your previous post you nullified all the hitherto published studies on Pompeiopolis and claimed the validity of your own private research. Is this no longer valid after your adversary has thrown in the towel? I followed up the discussion and found it devasting but also somehow interesting.

After having read the whole editing history and posts, I still fail to understand a couple of things: You are paid by someone to edit this Pompeiopolis article to meet the requirements of some local authorities. On the other hand, I am quite confused with your last statement about your innocent intention to add only some information about a part-project on domus. But the way how detailed this part-project is described including the research history, funding, names and affiliations raise doubts whether this insertion was only scientifically motivated.

It is incomprehensible for me why you repeatedly tried to insert outdated and false historical information a alongside with your newish but unfounded hypothesis about the supposedly wrong localization of city and the wrong euergetes of the theater. Your indirect statement the conservation-oriented present activities would aim a shift the previous management sounds like a cruel joke considering the reports on hasty undocumented excavations at the theater und the dismantled protection roofs on the fragile mosaic on the hill slopes in 2017. The officially declared aim of the activities is touristic development of the site. But the archaeological community is well aware that it is only vengeance that matters in Pompeiopolis now.

You complain that your editings were” anonymously and brutally” delated but you failed to answer the question why you avoided a road of direct communication on this issue.

Honestly user teichobat, what is the reason that prevents you from personal communication with other researchers in the same area? Do you really think that you can produce reliable scientific information on Pompeiopolis by sidelining the project and researchers who spent more than a decade on the site? Is it really the scientific approach that matters or other political interests or opportunistic ambitions? The discussion on the historical sources and research history shows that a break-off with the project that was established in 2006 cannot lead to reliable research results.

I think it is not appropriate to keep the remaining personal names in the text which do not contribute to historical information on Pompeiopolis at all.

Wikipedia is surely no good communication channel, but as long as direct communication attempts are denied there will be no other choice than to continue this public discussion.

Hoping to opening up a fair and appropriate discussion on a scientific level with this post I remain with best wishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.182.214.89 (talk) 17:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Good morning User Pompeiopolis, thank you for your message! I am sorry to hear you so bitter! This is just to say that we don't feel winners at all: the current text is almost totally yours! As said many times, last May we just tried to add a preliminary information about the domus and that was brutally and anonymously deleted without any (right or wrong) explanation! That started a shoot-out of paste and copy which has objectively gone out of control! There is so much of the publications that should be discussed, but, as you rightly say, the Wikipedia entry is not the appropriate venue. If this status quo satisfies you, let's leave it like this, as long as a third party will decide to change everything again... Stay well!

Greetings teichobate! I appreciate your move towards direct communication rather than keeping misuse Wikipedia for personal communication. But this sudden and surprising readiness for communication is simply hypocrisy. Exactly on this very issue, I contacted the person who is paying you some time ago and proposed her to agree on a text for Wikipedia. If she would have answered this embarrassing editing war would have never begun. Unfortunately, she prefers to stay in the background pulling the strips. Your statement of editing this Wikipedia article to meet the requirements of “local authorities” puts doubts in mind what privileges you may have been offered for this service. You were first bitterly defending the evidently wrong historical information by replacing my corrections, like Sebaste, Neoclaudiopolis etc. etc.) and you say now you didn´t author them. It was me who inserted all footnotes and quotations to prove or disprove the information that I changed or deleted. Due to lack of experience and stable internet, I might have made a couple of mistakes in online editing. But your approach to spreading anonymously unsourced information by disregarding the published scholarly opinion is unacceptable. As for Plinius, he has been long discarded as a historical source relevant to Pompeiopolis and revealed as an obvious confusion between Eupatoria and Amisus situated on the Black Sea coast 500km away on which much ink has been spilled. But you can of course revisit this communis opinio and change the state of the art by publishing an article on it. Otherwise, it is only misleading to cite it here anonymously. You seem to be not aware of the research history of Pompeiopolis. The one-week salvage excavation of 1984 by the Kastamonu Museums that you mention was never a scientific project. Whatever they have then excavated there could be posthumously and only partly reconstructed thanks to the notes and photos. I was thinking the initiator and creator of a scientific project would deserve to be named. Nevertheless, I have no problem to remove all the names of course with the exception of Prof. Luisa Musso who really merits to be named for spending so much money, and not only your salary. As for the earthquake, several observations in different excavations trenches led us to review the available historical sources and to interesting conclusions. A detailed article is being written on this topic. Once it is published you can bring all your contra-arguments against it. Coins do not walk across the bridge and climb on the top of the hill; therefore, they are considered as indicators for contemporaneous architectural phases. Nevertheless, new archaeological discoveries can of course change our preliminary results and views. It might be also interesting whatever you have observed. But I suggest you first publish this new discovery in a scholarly manner, which may then urge to review the current location of Pompeiopolis, instead of to put it anonymously as a rumor in circulation. As the confusion Sebaste shows, once unsourced information is shared publicly, it is impossible to eliminate it even if it is afterward hundred times proven as false. I do not comment on your insulting remarks which actually say much more about your level of hatred rather than about my academic qualification. We are always open to argumentatively and factual based discussions and sent several emails to my counterpart who is your boss to continue the scholarly communication. While she cloaks herself in silence for whatever reason, at least a part of your “local authorities” keeps to inform us unasked what is going on the site. We are actually impressed by the pictures of the paved road passing by the villa which contributes to the understanding of the city plan. Howsoever, I retreat myself from this tiring war of editing for lack of time and money to pay someone who could do this job for me. Thus, you won! Congratulations! But it is only a Pyrhhic victory. This discussion will remain a good source to understand all intrigues, denounces, retributions around Pompeiopolis which go far beyond the scientific ends. Let us give up this time- and nerve consuming abstruse editing war and take an easier route for a civilized scholarly discussion. I am still waiting for a reply to my email. All the best

To Whom It May Concern

To Whom It May Concern (that is User Pompeiopolis and previous anonymous German IP), This page has been updated in May 2020 on request of the local Antiquities' officials. Please stop vandalizing it replacing the text! If you have any objection, write it down in the comments to start a discussion and possible modifications! This is the policy of Wikipedia! Removing others' text as you are doing since last June is simply barbarian and unacceptable! We are going to report that. Last May, most of the content of this page was left in its original form simply adding some information, some bibliography and updating the archaeological finds. You have abruptly deleted the new lines as you was the owner of the page or, even worse, the owner of the knowledge about Pompeiopolis. The definition of Wikipedia is 'THE FREE ENCYCLOPEDIA', if you do not like it, please leave it and use other media. Concerning your last comments: "mainly wrong historical information corrected and verified with scientific. In contrary to the information in the previous text: For example 1) The city Pompeiopolis never bore the name Sebaste" - The fact that the name Sebaste coined on some coins does not refer to Pompeiopolis is still debated. It is therefore correct to mention it as possible honorific title got during the acme of the city and its most important families, as well as suggested by the authors of the German version of the entry Pompeiopolis (that I hope you won't delete as well!) "2)The begin the era of the city was 5BC." - So what? It is information that can be added but has nothing to do with the content of the removed text! "3) There are no published excavation reports since 2017" - One more reason to provide preliminary information through a popular medium and not removing it as been done!

I have instead at least three observations about the 'imposed' text: - the Pompeiopolis mentioned by Malalas about the earthquake in 6th century is for the most identified with the Pompeiopolis of Cilicia. Apart from the problem of identification, the few structural damage possibly due to earthquakes is recorded in Pompeiopolis in earlier building phases and there is no archaeological evidence of a violent seismic destruction in the 6th century. - there is no chance that the city founded by Pompey could have not left any archaeological record in terms of structures and/or stratigraphic contexts. Trial trenches have been dug all over Zimbilli Tepe in the last fifteen years and nothing came to light dating to 1st century BC so far. Persisting in thinking that Zimbilli Tepe is the place of the Pompey's foundation makes no sense. - looking forward to the final publication of the 'macellum' excavation, the presence of two and a half pit tombs do not prove that the hectagon was a church.

Any further comment and/or proposal of modification is welcome! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toichobate (talk • contribs) 00:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

To whom it may concern: I don´t have much experience in editing wikipedia articles. If I might have done something technically wrong, I apologize. I was actually much concerned to find so much wrong information on an ancient site which I am researching for 14 years and on which I published two books and several articles I was repeatedly but vainly trying to correct them, obviously in the wrong way. The text is apparently complied with diffuse sources on the web and did not consider the scientific published work.

OUR FIRST EDITING DIDN'T INCLUDE ANY QUOTATIONS! THAT WAS PRE-EXISTING IN THE PAGE OF POMPEIOPOLIS! WE DIDN'T TOUCH IT BUT SIMPLY ADDED NEW INFORMATION DERIVED FROM THE LATEST INVESTIGATION! WHAT WE COMPLAIN ABOUT IS THAT OUR INFORMATION IN MAY 2020 WAS TOTALLY DELETED WITHOUT ANY REASON BUT PERSONAL RESENTMENT! THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE, THE SCIENTIFIC EXCUSE DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH A SHAMEFUL WAY OF OPERATING!

I am surprised to read that Wikipedia relies on the information of the "local authorities" rather than the published scientific work. Actually, Turkey generally dislikes Wikipedia and she even blocked it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_of_Wikipedia_in_Turkey Secondly, “local authorities” usually get their information from the published excavation reports which I authored.

I think there is a radical misunderstanding between the use and utility of 'scientific publications' and Wikipedia. Please read about Wikipedia in the menu on the left. I just want to point out that many publications quoted in this page are not peer-reviewed, that means that their authority derives only from being printed on paper, i.e. null! On the other hand, trying to resume the original text that you deleted, we also included, in a second instance, three peer-reviewed articles and you deleted them too!! That's your consideration of the 'scientific publications'!!!

Howsoever, my objections are the following: 1) The statement “Pompeiopolis was established together with Neoclaudiopolis as one of a number of cities founded by the Roman general and politician Pompey (Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus) and integrated into the new Roman double province of Bithynia and Pontus in the year 64 BC” contains errors. It was founded between the years 67 and 64 BC within his urbanization project of the former Pontic Kingdom together with seven other cities Megalopolis, Zela, Diospolis, Nikopolis, Magnopolis, Neapolis. Pompeiopolis was named after his founder “the city of Pompeius”. On the other hand, Neoclaudiopolis that you mention received its name from the emperor Claudius 100 years after the city foundations of Pompey the Great. Its predecessor was Neapolis.

User Pompeiopolis, these sentences were in the text before our edition!! Check the history of the page, find their authors and discuss it with them!!

2) Pompeiopolis never bore the title “Sebaste”! There was just an error in the reading of a coin. Receuil 1904 wrongly read CΕΒΑCΤΗ ΜΗΤΡ ΠΑΦΛ on a coin, but it was proved on other specimens that it should be read CEΒΑCΤΗ ΜΗΤΡ ΠΑΡΑ(ΛΙΟΥ) as was published in many publications, lastly by J. Dalaison, "L'atelier monétaire de Pompeiopolis en Paphlagonie", in Delrieux (F.) et Kayser (Fr.), éd., Hommages offerts à François Bertrandy, Tome 1: Des déserts d'Afrique au pays des Allobroges, Laboratoire Langages, Littératures, Sociétés, Collection Sociétés, Religions, Politiques, n° 16, Chambéry, 2010, p. 45-88. Today there is no serious scholar who doubts this. Nevertheless, this error still wanders like a ghost in the web. Please stop to disseminate it any further at least in this Wikipedia article! It is just misleading.

Again, this is information pre-existing May 2020! Please discuss it with the authors!!

2) Pompeiopolis was only mentioned by Strabo and never by Pilinus or any other ancient author.

Cimmerio aut, ut aliqui maluere, fuit et oppidum eodem nomine et aliud inde Armine; nunc est colonia Sinope a Cytoro; flumen Evarchum, gens Cappadocum, oppidum Caturia Zaceplum, amnis Halys a radicibus Tauri per Cataoniam Cappadociamque 7decurrens; oppida Gamge, Carusa, Amisum liberum a Sinope, eiusdemque nominis sinus tanti recessus ut Asiam paene insulam faciat, haut amplius per continentem ad Issicum Ciliciae sinum. quo in omni tractu proditur tres tantum gentes Graecas iure dici, Doricam Ionicam Aeolicam, ceteras barbarorum esse. Amiso iunctum fuit oppidum Eupatoria a Mithridate conditum; victo eo utrumque Pompeiopolis appellatum est. Well, we are surprised that such a connoisseur of Pompeiopolis does not know one of the TWO ancient sources talking about the city!

3) The information on the era 6/5 BC (5 BC is not correct!) preserved on inscriptions, but not on coins, is only indirectly connected with the “death of Deiotaros Philadelphos” which is rather controversial than being a historical fact: Ch. Marek, Stadt, Ära und Territorium in Pontus-Bithynia und Nord-Galatia. Beiheft IstForsch (Tübingen 1993) 71.

??? Again, we can't really understand why you are talking about this here!

4) The information on “ ..by the evergetism of Gnaeus Claudius Severus, Marcus Aurelius' son-in-law and patron of the city” is simply wrong and I don´t know where from you have picked it out. I excavated this inscription myself and my colleague epigraphist Prof. Christian Marek read and interpreted it. The inscription does evidently not mention the son-in-law of Marcus Aurelius as you write but records only titles which can be connected by prosopography with another person from Ancyra. This inscription will be published soon and therefore no further details should not be pre-published in this Wikipedia article. Therefore, I suggest deleting the above-cited phrase part.

Correct! A freudian slip copying the notes, the euergetism was by Gaius Iulius Severus the Younger. Thank you for emending! (that we promptly corrected before you deleted!)

5) The indication of continuous publications of annual excavation reports between 2017-2020 is simply wrong. You can easily verify this by clicking the link you have inserted.

Did it and found there the Pompeipolis' excavations!

6) The statement “Trial trenches have been dug all over Zimbilli Tepe in the last fifteen years and nothing came to light dating to 1st century BC so far. Persisting in thinking that Zimbilli Tepe is the place of the Pompey's foundation makes no sense” ignores that In the excavation trenches of the theater at least 12 Mithridatic coins and in another place a Pergamenian cistophoros were found. It is true that we cannot assign any structure to this early period yet. But didn´t it take at least six years to reach the Roman levels? NO!It is well possible to find earlier levels in the future. Therefore, for the time being, there is no reason to doubt that the city was not founded on the hill. It is just trivial ?? We think it's trivial to delete others' opinions just because they contradict yours! to state that the city was founded somewhere else because someone observed a possible stadium in the nearby Tasköprü. I suggest that this supposedly new discovery should be first presented to scholarly discussion before presenting it to the wider public. As it is shown in the case of Sebaste, once unproven information is hastily spread in the world it is very difficult to eliminate it later, even if it is proven as false.

User Pompeiopolis, if you were an archaeologist, you would know that finding 12 (but even 12 thousands!) Mithridatic coins in a 2nd century AD or later layer doesn't mean anything concerning the presence of a 1st century BC city on the tepe! In a dozen of spots in the tepe the bedrock has been reached (theatre included) without any clue of the Hellenistic city. We don't know where the Pompey's foundation was, but the odds that was over Zimbilli tepe are less than scarce! The (possible) amphitheater is simply a clue that in Imperial time a part of the city was already beyond the river, earlier than the Byzantine phase, of course doesn't prove anything else. That said, to venture an opinion about the problem of the location of the Pompey's foundation is more than legitimate in a scientific community that has overcome the paranoia of the age of Galileo Galilei! We think that your problem is that you still live in that era!

7) As for the earthquake there are at least eight written sources that mention an earthquake in the time of Justianus in Pompeiopolis. Despite some confusion with Mysia, the scholarship does not doubt the identification with Pompeiopolis in Paphlagonia. A new detailed article is being written on this topic.

Again, what's the point of 15 years of archaeological research if we still write the history of Pompeiopolis using eight (uncertain) written sources? We doubt anyway about the ultimate identification you advance, but the point is: show us at least one evidence of a 6th century earthquake in one out of the at least ten major areas investigated on the tepe. After that we can discuss of earthquakes and how much they could have affected the abandonment of the city

8) Already the enormous diameter of the octagon has been the subject of discussion whether or not the interpretation of "macellum tholos" is right within the excavation team. The reviewer of the first Pompeiopolis volume also harshly criticized this issue.

We do not interfere in the macellum-non macellum interpretation, we simply said, and repeat here, that 2 and a half pit tombs DO NOT PROVE that the building where they were found was a church! The clues about that should be (and are) different ones.

9) It is not right to mention one sub-project including its leader and financial sources etc. If this self-presentation is really required all other sub-projects and the financial support received by the German Research Foundation and other institutions should be also presented in the same detailed way, even it would appear odd in a Wikipedia article.

Right! Only the first one and its super-hero director must be mentioned and shame upon all the other idiots continuing the work there! But wait, why not to mention just the 1984 team that really pioneered the modern investigation on the tepe??

It is just sad and also ridiculous that the former team members must carry out the much-needed discussions via Wikipedia article quasi ananomysly. From the scientific point of view, it would be much more gainful to discuss directly on controversial questions instead of using Wikipedia.

WE TOTALLY AGREE ABOUT THIS! And we are available to continue the discussion privately. You know where you can find us. We only doubt about your real interest in any discussion rather than a heavy censorship about whatever is different from your ideas!

Thank you!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pompeiopolis (talk • contribs) 19:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Jessicapierce. —teb728 t c 10:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Greetings! I appreciate your move towards direct communication rather than keeping misuse Wikipedia for personal communication. But this sudden and surprising readiness for communication is simply hypocrisy. Exactly on this very issue, I contacted the person who is paying you some time ago and proposed her to agree on a text for Wikipedia. If she would have answered this embarrassing editing war would have never begun. Unfortunately, she prefers to stay in the background pulling the strips. Your statement of editing this Wikipedia article to meet the requirements of “local authorities” puts doubts in mind what privileges you may have been offered for this service. You were first bitterly defending the evidently wrong historical information, like Sebaste, Neoclaudiopolis etc. etc.) and you say now you didn´t author them. It was me who inserted all footnotes and quotations to prove or disprove the information that I changed or deleted. Due to lack of experience and stable internet, I might have made a couple of mistakes in online editing. But your approach to spreading anonymously unsourced information by disregarding the published scholarly opinion is unacceptable. As for Plinius, he has been long discarded as a historical source relevant to Pompeiopolis and revealed as an obvious confusion between Eupatoria and Amisus situated on the Black Sea coast 500km away on which much ink has been spilled. But you can of course revisit this communis opinio and change the state of the art by publishing an article on it. Otherwise, it is only misleading to cite it here anonymously. You seem to be not aware of the research history of Pompeiopolis. The one-week salvage excavation of 1984 by the Kastamonu Museums that you mention was never a scientific project. Whatever they have then excavated there could be posthumously and only partly reconstructed thanks to the notes and photos. I was thinking the initiator and creator of a scientific project would deserve to be named. Nevertheless, I have no problem to remove all the names of course with the exception of Prof. Luisa Musso who really merits to be named for spending so much money, and not only your salary. As for the earthquake, several observations in different excavations trenches led us to review the available historical sources and to interesting conclusions. A detailed article is being written on this topic. Once it is published you can bring all your contra-arguments against it. Coins do not walk across the bridge and climb on the top of the hill; therefore, they are considered as indicators for contemporaneous architectural phases. Nevertheless, new archaeological discoveries can of course change our preliminary results and views. It might be also interesting whatever you have observed. But I suggest you first publish this new discovery in a scholarly manner, which may then urge to review the current location of Pompeiopolis, instead of to put it anonymously as a rumor in circulation. As the confusion Sebaste shows, once unsourced information is shared publicly, it is impossible to eliminate it even if it is afterward hundred times proven as false. I do not comment on your insulting remarks which actually say much more about your level of hatred rather than about my academic qualification. We are always open to argumentatively and factual based discussions and sent several emails to my counterpart who is your boss to continue the scholarly communication. While she cloaks herself in silence for whatever reason, at least a part of your “local authorities” keeps to inform us unasked what is going on the site. We are actually impressed by the pictures of the paved road passing by the villa which contributes to the understanding of the city plan. Howsoever, I retreat myself from this tiring war of editing for lack of time and money to pay someone to do this job for me. Thus, you won! Congratulations! But it is only a Pyrhhic victory. This discussion will remain a good source to understand all intrigues, denounces, retributions around Pompeiopolis which go far beyond the scientific ends. Let us give up this time- and nerve consuming abstruse editing war and take an easier route for a civilized scholarly discussion. I am still waiting for a reply to my email. All the best

October 2020

Hello, I'm Jessicapierce. I noticed that you recently removed content from Pompeiopolis without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jessicapierce (talk) 00:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Pompeiopolis, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

The Show preview button is right next to the Publish changes button and below the edit summary field.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Jessicapierce (talk) 00:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Pompeiopolis, I saw your helpdesk query and have added a header and a couple of signature templates to this page. I hope this is helpful, please undo if not. It is always helpful to sign posts on talk pages. even your own, with four tildes like this: ~~~~. My best wishes (as a non expert) for your improvements to the Pompeiopolis article. TSventon (talk) 13:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (October 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Eagleash was: 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 User:Pompeiopolis/sandbox 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 User:Pompeiopolis/sandbox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" 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, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

Eagleash (talk) 11:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Pompeiopolis! 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! Eagleash (talk) 11:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Pompeiopolis in Paphlagonia

Hello, Pompeiopolis. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Pompeiopolis in Paphlagonia, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 08:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, User:Pompeiopolis/sandbox

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

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 11:09, 23 April 2021 (UTC)