Hello, LumaNatic and a belated welcome to Wikipedia! I see that you've already been around awhile and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help one get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are interested in learning more about contributing, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Red Director (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Shankleville, Texas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Church of God, League, Sabine River, Founder and American

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on JoAnn Wright Haysbert requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://directory.hamptonu.edu/index.cfm?bio=joann.haysbert. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. reddogsix (talk) 22:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Asa Grant Hilliard III (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Dean and Indigenous

Shankleville, Texas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Church of God

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Whoisjohngalt. LumaNatic, thanks for creating JoAnn Wright Haysbert!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Thanks for adding this article, but you have too many links, It makes it hard to read. Thanks.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Whoisjohngalt (talk) 12:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Baird Reunion requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organized event (tour, function, meeting, party, etc.) that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about 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. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Buncombe County, North Carolina, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Pocahontas Island. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Shankleville, Texas. Magnolia677 (talk) 08:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Baird Reunion. 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. Magnolia677 (talk) 08:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Baird Reunion requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organized event (tour, function, meeting, party, etc.) that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about 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. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:07, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Flack-Council-Coleman Reunion requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organized event (tour, function, meeting, party, etc.) that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about 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. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Baird Reunion 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/Baird Reunion 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. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:53, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Flack-Council-Coleman Reunion 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/Flack-Council-Coleman Reunion 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. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Baird Reunion. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stop adding "enslaver" to the first sentence of whatever articles you can think of. This is undue in the first sentence of articles unless this is what the person is notable for. Natureium (talk) 23:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like other people have already mentioned this on articles. You are already on thin ice based on the warnings you have received in the past. Natureium (talk) 23:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Its not to “whatever articles I can think of.” These people were enslavers - that is notable and should be included in the first line of the world’s free open-source encyclopedia. This IS what these people were known for, it is in fact the very reason why their ancestors left their homelands. The very fact that you - and whomever else is trying to edit - don’t know this information is astonishing, and maybe apart of your cultural systemic bias. Please leave such biases out of Wikipedia and allow those familiar with this information to edit. Furthermore, the ad hominems are unnecessary - stick to the facts, the world is a much better place when Wikipedia is factually correct.LumaNatic (talk) 01:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Context matters... In the context of 1700s Virginia, owning slaves was the norm for plantation owners. It was commonplace, and thus not what makes someone notable (indeed, what would be notable would be a plantation owner NOT owning slaves). The article can and should mention the issue of slave ownership, but it does not rise to the level of being mentioned in the lead. Blueboar (talk) 01:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blueboar, I've started a discussion on this here. Natureium (talk) 01:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The people in question are indeed notable for enslaving others, they were Southern plantation owners who racially enslaved people. This practice is what not only defined them, but what they actively engaged in. How is this controversial? The systemic bias here is deafening - the fact that this is causing controversy is due to a very wide-spread systemic bias. Why would we not include that the very foundation of these peoples lives and livelihood was based on racialized chattel slavery? Again, how is this even controversial?LumaNatic (talk) 01:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • Blueboar, Context does indeed matter - during Western colonialism MOST people in the colonies did NOT own slaves. So much so that there was an abolition movement (throughout all of Western colonialism!) from the very start and constant discussion about the legality of such practices. The fact that certain people were in fact engaged in enslaving other people should most definitely be mentioned in the lead, without enslaving others, there would be no First Families of Virginia or their “notable” descendants. The majority of colonial people and their families did not engage in this practice, but many did became “notable,” - it was NOT “commonplace.” Again, I’m shocked (I don’t know how else to put it) that this is not known amongst editors engaging in an edit war on this subject. There seriously needs to be an internal review of systemic, institutional bias on the Wikipedia platform - it only hurts the platform to engage in this sort of bias (that does affect the larger tech industry- and many others, sure, but Wikipedia as an open-source platform should not engage in strenuous efforts to replicate such).
    • Note that I did not say that owning slaves was the norm in all of colonial society... I said that it was the norm for plantation owners. For plantation owners prior to the Civil War, owning slaves is a given... it is assumed... and not noteworthy enough to be highlighted in the lead. Blueboar (talk) 11:16, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Your recent editing history at Robert E. Lee shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Natureium (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So why are you continuing to revert these edits? LumaNatic (talk) 01:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
You clearly don't get it. Natureium (talk) 02:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at John Bolling. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Natureium (talk) 13:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

LumaNatic (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This is patently false -I was engaged in active discussion about my eidts. This is also undue and egregious - I gave credible reasons for all of my reverts. Am I the only being blocked here? We were having a discussion about my edits, and then I'm unceremoniously blocked by an editor not even part of these conversations WHILE I WAS ENGAGED IN SUCH DISCUSSIONS, with no input from them at that. This seems malicious and unnecesary - I was actively engaged in discussion.LumaNatic (talk) 16:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The problem here isn't whether or not you were engaged in active discussion, but whether you continued your reverts. I took a look and it looks to me like you were continuing your reverts. That is why you were blocked. Yamla (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. But apparently you were blocked between when I started this thread and when I could post it to your page. Natureium (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]