Hello, Truthsayer21, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 01:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You need to comply with WP:COI. Please read it carefully and add the connected contributor template where appropriate. The page tells you how to request changes to the article. I find it hard to understand why you deleted something saying cite error, as the cite to the NYTimes clearly supports the text.\ Wikipedia is not a place for self-publicity either by individuals or groups, they normally have their own websites for that - or social media. See WP:PROMOTION. An opinion piece by the owner is not something we would use. You might gain from reading Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Descendants of Slavery. The page was kept, as it should have been, but the comments on the page are relevant. The page should be based on what reliable sources say about the organisation. Doug Weller talk 09:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because it doesn’t support it. That piece was a cover article and this page has taken the fringe worse parts and tries to use it as a description. Ann Coulter writing a single tweet suggesting we change our group name which I rejected and rebuked has no place on a Wikipedia as if she is a major contributor in an attempt to smear. I will review what was sent. Truthsayer21 (talk) 13:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This group is a liberal group and this page smears as conservative. I and Yvette have 250 liberal videos. This page should not be a place for interpreting The NY Times article in its most narrow light but simply presenting it for its most complete description. In addition a opinion piece on USA Today about ADOS which lost me as a founder explaining ados isn’t self promotion. Who says that and adds a Mention of a video of Yvette with a prop hat no context of the video and doesn’t call that promotion? None of it should be on the page and it should be a described page. Truthsayer21 (talk) 14:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no issue citing to The NY Times article and allowing people to go read that article to draw their own opinion as that it is so wide ranging. But you cannot go and find fringe parts and make this description page into a right wing smear. Truthsayer21 (talk) 08:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 17:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continued conflict of interest editing.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  GeneralNotability (talk) 15:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]