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

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Foydster/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 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.

🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Foydster! Having an article draft 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! 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on User:Foydster/sandbox, 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 consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free Web hosting service. (See section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)

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. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Acroterion. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 21:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Floidster! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Slavery several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Slavery, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Rsk6400 (talk) 11:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that you already reverted three times and a fourth revert inside the period of 24 hours might cause a block, see WP:3RR. Rsk6400 (talk) 11:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Long-standing consensus is against conflation of indenture with chattel slavery. If you wish to try to change that, the proper path is to discuss first on the article talkpage. Dictionary definitions are insufficient to make such an assertion. Take it to the talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 22:38, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Acroterion. The statutes at large: being a collection of all laws of Virginia from the first session of legislature, in the year 1619. Volume 3 of 13 William Waller Hening page 454, XXI And because poor people may not be destitute of employment, upon suspicion of being servants, and servants also kept from running away. That every servant when his or her time of service shall be expired, shall repair to court, have his or her freedom entered. And whoever shall hire such servant, shall take his or her certificate, and keep it till the contracted time shall be expired. In this way the indentures were repeated over the lifetime of the person. Yes I would like to change the long-standing consensus to being for the conflation of slavery, servitude or anything resembling it before the 19th century. However, I would ask for the consensus against the conflation of present day indentures with slavery, in my case I voluntarily entered into my Marine Corpse contract, which I agreed to serve 4 years, many service members repeatedly enter new contracts after the previous contract expires. Floidster (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you're talking about. In any case, you will need to provide multiple concordant sources in academic research to support your assertion, not your personal analysis of your service or antique law, and do so on the article talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 23:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ok thanks Floidster (talk) 10:32, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken this to the articles talkpage Actroterion. See my discussion there. Floidster (talk) 11:30, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Floidster reported by User:Rsk6400 (Result: ). Thank you. Rsk6400 (talk) 13:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 13:54, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for attempting to improve Wikipedia! The case is point is a simple one. The topic, is the subject of a sentence: "Slavery and enslavement," and, also, the predicate of the sentence: "are both the state and condition of being a slave." [cited by dictionary 1 and 2] I have been blocked indefinately for persistently improving the subject of the sentence by adding: "indentured servitude" [cited by dictionary]. The sentence is clearly a defining of words which have the same meaning. Am in agreement that the violation of edit warring is applicable here, but disruptive edits should apply to those editors that debase the consensus of dictionaries, especially while using dictionaries as the reliable source of the sentence being edited. The topic in question is the subject and predicate of the sentence, the sentence is a definition of slavery, indentured servitude and enslavement, the purpose of the edit improves the article. The sentence is clearly a definition, the reliable source is the dictionary, the dictionary should be equally good for my edit. Therefore, the scrutiny should be directed towards all the editors, this is my reason for requesting to be unblocked and allowing my edit to improve the article. Floidster (talk) 15:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's understandable that you feel the need to vent. The problem is that you have acquired a block, one with indefinite length. The only person who can persuade an admin to lift the block is you.

Please do read the guide to appealing blocks, and then please both show humility in your appeal, and mean the humility that you show. Please be clear. Even if you are correct in your bold face font, it does you no favours. They are responsible for their own existence here, as are you on yours, so please concentrate only on what you must do in order to seek to get your block lifted. Righteous indignation never carries the day, so please try very hard not to express it. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:13, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Timtrent, I can't understand that Floidster feels a "need to vent". They were not able to understand the source they used, not able to understand our rules about reliable sources and not willing to listen to a mulitude of editors trying to discuss with them, both on this page and on Talk:Slavery. WP is not about "humility", but editors need to be able to cooperate with each other. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:32, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rsk6400 Any editor being blocked can feel the need to vent, thus it is something I understood, thus it is understandable. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Please give them the space they may need to decide to get it right from now on. If they decide to get it right, great. If not, then that is their loss. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to the email from Rsk6400 and Sirfboy, the use of the dictionary as a reliable source was just fine for the article until new user Floidster added indentured servitude, therefore, the new consensus should be to remove refs 1 and 2, because the sentence is a ordinary defining of the words slave, indentured servitude and enslavement, nothing more. As I stated before I have been blocked indefinitely for improving Wikipedia. Preventing information from being attained by users by removing my edit is disruptive, for this reason I should be unblocked and the edit should stand as I have written it. Floidster (talk) 10:45, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]