User talk:Danceswithedits

Welcome!

Hello, Danceswithedits, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Ganesha811 (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

I read your post in the Teahouse. Welcome to the Wikipedia family! I began working on Wikipedia seven years ago. I hope that you will enjoy editing here as much as I do. Occasionally frustrations arise, but I have found the activity to be enjoyable and rewarding.

I still remember being new and wondering how to do certain things or where to look for certain resources. A couple of editors helped me through a few rough times in the early going. If you have questions, feel free to ask me. I won't guarantee that I can answer, but I will try, and if I don't know the answer, I will admit that. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

So far, so good. My contracted editing work dovetails nicely into wiki, as even the platforms are similar. Just did my firs citation here as part of an article going out this afternoon. Good times...--Danceswithedits (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Danceswithedits! Your additions to Abraham Lincoln University have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 13:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (April 27)

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

Theroadislong (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Danceswithedits! 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! Theroadislong (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Michelle Rozen, from its old location at User:Danceswithedits/sandbox. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 21:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Michelle Rozen (May 12)

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

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please get familiar with the tone used on Wikipedia before resubmitting. And, if you resubmit, make sure the references are via independent, reliable sources that provide extensive coverage of Michelle Rozen.

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 Draft:Michelle Rozen 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:Michelle Rozen, 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 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.

JSFarman (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Paul M. Sparrow (July 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Curbon7 was:

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Large portions of the draft are completely unsourced. Also, sources must be reliable and independent.

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 Draft:Paul M. Sparrow 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:Paul M. Sparrow, 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 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.

Curbon7 (talk) 15:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Marcia Griffin (July 26)

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

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Hi.

I’m sorry, but the sourcing here isn’t helping the subject meet our General Notability Guidelines. The majority of the sourcing here are primary sources - government websites, nonprofit websites, press releases, her own TV show, speeches, Kindles, and other things associated with the subject - or passing mentions.

We need *significant* in-depth coverage (that is independent of the subject - meaning no promotional pieces, government websites, university/company websites, event websites, social media, press releases, paid coverage) in notable major media outlets or by notable publishers about Marcia Griffin.

Examples include: magazine and newspaper reviews and features about Marcia Griffin specifically; books or peer-reviewed white papers written ABOUT Marcia Griffin and radio features ABOUT Marcia Griffin. These would be critical and not just promotional on how lovely his work is.

Frankly, if the subject isn’t passing WP:NBIO they may not be eligible for an encyclopedic article.

Also see WP:RS for additional guidance on what reliable secondary sources are.

If those are available, please improve this submission. If not, then it might not be the right time (WP:TOOSOON) for Marcia Griffin to have a Wikipedia article.

I hope you will consider improving existing Wikipedia content about other subjects of interest!

If you have any questions please ask them at WP:TEAHOUSE.

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia!

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 Draft:Marcia Griffin and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not make any further changes to 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.

Missvain (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Danceswithedits! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Draft:Marcia Griffin, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

Your edit to Draft:United States Civil Rights Trail has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 14:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please specify the copyrighted material? Thanks Danceswithedits (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Content from:

All four of those links were initially included by a Civil Rights Trail representative before being handed to me after initial review decline. In fact, ALL content initially came directly from the CRT website without any copyright flagging, at least to my knowledge. As noted in my disclosure, this organization has hired me to revise their page for re-submission. They will naturally waive all copyrighted content if required. Thanks again. Danceswithedits (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of problems with your submission. You cannot post copyright material on Wikipedia even if you are the copyright holder or have their permission, unless special licensing permissions are in place. That is because Wikipedia aims to be freely distributable and copyable by anyone, and all content must have the appropriate documentation in place before that can happen. Please see Wikipedia:donating copyrighted materials which explains how it works.

The second problem is conflict of interest. Writing an article about your own organisation or that of a client is strongly discouraged, as it is difficult to maintain the required neutral point of view. According to our terms of use, paid editors and people editing on behalf of their employer are required to disclose their conflict of interest by posting a notice on their user page or talk page. — Diannaa (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Danceswithedits. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Draft:United States Civil Rights Trail, 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, clients, 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 Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
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. — Diannaa (talk) 20:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very familiar. My only connection is working on the Wikipedia page for re-submission after its initial rejection. Again, I have indeed disclosed being a paid editor on my bio, specifically citing the U.S. Civil Rights trail and others, as required by Wikipedia. Nothing I have communicated to you implied a connection otherwise, nor have I revised any content in any way that would indicate a connection beyond editing under Wikipedia guidelines. I kindly request that you refrain from those types of implications, as they are invalid in this case and I have already indicated my disclosures. I simply wish to know how to resolve the copyright issue which, again, I had no awareness of and did not initially submit. Thanks again. Danceswithedits (talk) 14:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I should have checked your userpage. There is already a paid editor template in place, and it's been there for a while too. — Diannaa (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No apology necessary. Thanks for your diligence. In this case, I am not being paid by the subject (The U.S. Civil Rights Trail) but by their PR firm which submitted the first entry for review. As this is, in my opinion, both a notable and worthy subject, I am determined to see this project through to completion. Unfortunately, my latest edits are not being published to the draft. Any idea why or suggestions on how to deal with this? Thanks again. Danceswithedits (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had to remove some material copied from elsewhere online, because Wikipedia can't host copyright material unless the copyright holder releases it under license. — Diannaa (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't copy material from elsewhere online

Again I have removed copyright content from your draft. Under current copyright law, literary works are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. So please always assume that all material you find online is copyright. This includes the Civil Rights Trail website. All prose must be written in your own words, unless we have received written permission from the copyright holder, as described in my previous posts. The Wikipedia copyright policy and its application are complex matters, and you should not edit any more until you have taken the time to read and understand our copyright policy. There's a simplified version of our copyright rules at Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright. Further copyright issues will result in you being blocked from editing. — Diannaa (talk) 00:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I am NOT copying material from online. I am revising material previously published by another editor. This is why I've been hired for this particular project. As you know, the editing process can be extremely tedious/slow on Wikipedia, so I'm not able to get to every copy/pasted section immediately. I fully understand Wikipedia's copyright policies as well as general copyright laws, based on nearly three decades as a professional writer/editor. I will ask again that you please refrain from these sort of comments, which are now borderline threatening with respect to being blocked. I am working diligently to resolve the issues of the original writer and will continue to do so as time permits. Thanks again. Danceswithedits (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will explain it a different way: Content you are retrieving from old versions of the draft has been previously published elsewhere online (at the organization's website and elsewhere), and is copyright. You cannot re-add it, not even temporarily for editing. To do so is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. — Diannaa (talk) 03:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a draft. It's not currently under review. Before re-submitting for review, all copyright waivers and permissions will be granted by the U.S. Civil Rights Trail. No violation of Wikipedia copyright policy will occur upon submitting for review. Danceswithedits (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot post copyright material on Wikipedia (even in sandboxes or drafts) even if you are the copyright holder or you have their permission, unless special licensing permissions are in place. That is because Wikipedia aims to be freely distributable and copyable by anyone, and all content must have the appropriate documentation in place before that can happen. Please see Wikipedia:donating copyrighted materials which explains how it works. So no, you can't post copyright text on Wikipedia and get permission later.

A second problem is establishing notability. While several sites on the trail are notable enough by Wikipedia standards to have Wikipedia articles, I don't think at present you have enough in-depth coverage of the trail itself to establish notability, as Wikipedia defines it. (See Wikipedia:Notability). Also, reviewers have commented that the draft is worded like an advertisement or a travel guide rather than an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise, and it's not a travel guide. It's unlikely the draft will be accepted unless/until these issues are addressed. — Diannaa (talk) 20:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree entirely. The commenter you referred to actually contradicted themselves, at first stating the "edits are doing nothing to dispel the impression that you are being paid to write a travel guide or tourist brochure for the trail" then stating "at least 120 of these sources do not mention the trail." So, which is it? Not many "brochures" or "travel guides" neglect to mention the subject in my professional experience, which is vast and accomplished. Bottom line: this is a notable subject, being written correctly, within guidelines, and not in violation of any copyright rules. This has reached a point of virtual bullying/harassment, of which I have no tolerance and little interest. Regardless I will proceed and re-submit for review when I feel the draft is ready. Thanks again for your interest. I will no longer respond to your comments. Danceswithedits (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with your belligerent paid attitude. Theroadislong (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Paul M. Sparrow (August 16)

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

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Paul M. Sparrow 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.

Greenman (talk) 09:14, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Michelle Rozen has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Michelle Rozen. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: United States Civil Rights Trail has been accepted

United States Civil Rights Trail, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Theroadislong (talk) 10:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing

Paid editing is not the way Wikipedia has been built or should be built, it undermines our editorial independence, and we do not encourage it. You can submit suggestions on the article's talk page with the {{request edit}} template and a reliable source. Theroadislong (talk) 06:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has chosen to allow paid editing with disclosure. Your opinion on this matter is now irrelevant. I am no longer paid for the Civil Rights Trail, as my contract ended upon publication. I'm contributing as a volunteer now. Your continued bullying and harassment will be reported. Please do not contact me again in any context. Danceswithedits (talk) 12:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware of WP:BOOMERANG you are edit warring on an article that you were paid to create and also adding links to it from other articles. Theroadislong (talk) 18:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You were paid to create this article, you therefore have a conflict of interest, you can submit suggestions on the article's talk page with the {{request edit}} template and a reliable source please do NOT add content directly as previously requested. Theroadislong (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at User:Danceswithedits, you may be blocked from editing. Adding [1] spam links to your own book Theroadislong (talk) 20:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your incessant harassment. You leave me no choice but to file an official complaint about your continued attacks and interference to legitimate and fully sanctioned Wikipedia contributions. Do NOT contact me again. Danceswithedits (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:Help desk. 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. Theroadislong (talk) 14:14, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did not attack an editor, as I did not identify you or anyone. All personal attacks have been strictly from your end, as I can proved undeniably with your own words and continued harassment. You will not deter me in my work and will use every means at my disposal under Wikipedia rule to end your abhorrent behavior. Danceswithedits (talk) 15:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at United States Civil Rights Trail 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Theroadislong (talk) 15:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Paul M. Sparrow (September 10)

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

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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

The awards are not supported by the sources?

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 Draft:Paul M. Sparrow 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.

Theroadislong (talk) 07:09, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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:Danceswithedits reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: ). Thank you. PICKLEDICAE🥒 17:06, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a legitimate reason for removing the landmarks content? Nope. So, why do it? A previous version of landmarks remained on this page for days without a single revision. Is this simply piling on? Yep. Danceswithedits (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently, the war instigator faces no repercussions, while the one being stalked and harassed simply for following Wikipedia's disclosure guidelines is "punished." Brilliant! Danceswithedits (talk) 23:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (United States Civil Rights Trail) for a period of 1 week 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 ~~~~}}. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo! I've been blocked for being bullied and harassed. Gotta love it! Danceswithedits (talk) 23:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the low-hanging fruit. If you edit war on any other article or draft for which you are being paid, you will be blocked indefinitely, site-wide. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:18, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, terribly fruity. I'm not warring at all. I'm being harassed and bullied by a single Wikipedian as I add perfectly legitimate content under Wikipedia guidelines as a very clearly openly disclosed paid editor...under Wikipedia guidelines. No worries. I've never been deterred by bullies and/or fruit. Danceswithedits (talk) 23:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page

Your edit here [2] on your user page added inappropriate promotional details of your off wiki activity together with a spam link to a book you wrote, please see WP:UPGOOD for what is acceptable. Theroadislong (talk) 18:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Paul M. Sparrow (September 29)

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

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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

no improvement

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 Draft:Paul M. Sparrow 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.

Theroadislong (talk) 14:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute will be filed. Danceswithedits (talk) 23:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on United States Civil Rights Trail. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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. Theroadislong (talk) 17:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:United States Civil Rights Trail. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Theroadislong (talk) 16:43, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's called "defending" when attacked. I have not once attacked anyone unprovoked. Please discontinue your personal attacks immediately. I will continue reporting your abusive behavior until action is taken. Any further attempts to block me from editing will be met with the appropriate action as well. Do not contact me again. Thank you. Danceswithedits (talk) 12:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Pie Insurance (October 25)

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

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Sources cited are routine business reporting / churnalism, which does not establish WP:GNG notability per WP:ORGCRIT.

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 Draft:Pie Insurance 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.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeatedly adding disputed content that does not have consensus, despite being reverted by many editors, and in spite of warnings and previous blocks.

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 ~~~~}}. Floquenbeam (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I'll file formal complaints daily until an objective decision is made by objective Wikipedians.

NO consensus has been made either way despite my repeated efforts to communicate and make my case with cold, hard facts. Ultimately, I will prevail, as I have every right to edit this page and the content I'm attempting to add is without a doubt acceptable, based on countless Wikipedia precedent. Why a very tiny minority have chosen to attack this specific article is perplexing, and troubling. Bottom line: the landmark chart should be included on this article as with every similar article, and the attacks on me and the content of the Civil Rights Trail reeks unacceptable bias, if not outright prejudice. Danceswithedits (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Civil Rights Trail

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).

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

Request reason:

This is a very clear and undeniable result of personal attacks and possibly content prejudice. The content – a simple landmark chart – I've attempted to add to the U.S. Civil Rights Trail is both valid to the article and follows Wikipedia precedent in countless similar articles. I posted a partial list of these articles on the article talk page, with no reasonable or factual rebuttal. My attempt to create this article as a paid contributor, and now as strictly a volunteer, have been assailed by a single editor who literally stalks me from article to article – simply because I've followed Wikipedia guidelines in disclosing my professional status. Block me accomplishes nothing other than displaying the ability of a very few to manipulate relevant articles and information based purely on personal bias.

Decline reason:

You seem to indicate there was no consensus either way, despite your efforts. That means you shouldn't proceed with your change, not that you should. Yamla (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2022 (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.

I believe you misunderstand the essence of the lack of consensus. My efforts failed very clearly due to the personal attacks of a single Wikipedian who stated quite clearly, among other things: "I hope your article is declined because you're a paid editor." This is a continuation of constant harassment by one individual. Is this behavior condoned on Wikipedia? Anyone with an unbiased eye can clearly see that (as I proved unequivocally on the article talk page) my edit belongs on the Civil Rights Trail page. Failing that, countless similar/identical trail pages from around the world should have all landmark charts removed in order to remain consistent and/or fair to the CRT article. The lack of consensus is comical here, and due entirely to apathy for doing the right thing. Please unblock my editing immediately based on these very clear facts. Thanks. Danceswithedits (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide the diffs for where this was said, "I hope your article is declined because you're a paid editor." because clearly that is not an acceptable comment. Theroadislong (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

original unblock reason

Decline reason:

This appeal does not address the reason why you were blocked. I have no desire to dig through the history of the content dispute you were involved in - any unblock request you make ought to address the reason for the block. Be aware that if you continue making unblock requests of this nature, your access to this talk page may be revoked. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:44, 16 December 2022 (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.

Once again, requesting an unblock based on indisputable evidence of appropriate editing and consistent personal attacks by a single Wikipedian. Please remove block immediately as there is absolutely no legitimate basis for the action. Every edit I made to the U.S. Civil Rights Trail is valid, factual, and backed by literally countless Wikipedia precedent. Not a single editor has refuted this, instead only offering harassment for disclosing paid status under Wikipedia guideines. If block remains in place, I will take the necessary steps to formally appeal. Thanks.

Admins will not see your unblock request because you have not formatted it correctly please follow the instructions above in the blue box. Further personal attacks will not help your case either. Theroadislong (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked to stop contacting me. Your continued harassment is unwanted and unnecessary. If you refuse to discontinue your harassment, every possible step will be taken to force you to cease and desist. Do you have no grasp of this very simple concept? Danceswithedits (talk) 13:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Theroadislong was trying to help you, actually, by pointing out that your unblock request was incorrectly formatted and therefore ineffectual. Instead of gratitude, you respond with more hostility and unfounded accusations of harassment.

I must say that I find your continued adversarial, belligerent even, attitude wearying and not at all conducive to collaborative working. For that reason, let me save you the hassle of banning me also from your talk page; I will see myself out. Regards, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:20, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly have not seen the entire body of communication from this individual, which has been nothing but adversarial, insulting, abusive, and completely unnecessary almost from the moment I followed Wikipedia's disclosure guidelines. I will ALWAYS defend myself from unwarranted attacks, from anyone, and I will continue to press my rights regarding the U.S. Civil Rights Trail page, as I am completely justified, both ethically and factually. I find your lack of knowledge of this situation perplexing and your input invalid. Collaborative working does not mean collaborative personal attacks. Perhaps inform yourself better before reaching such a silly conclusion on this matter. Oh, and happy holidays from a very decent, professional writer/editor dedicated to Civil Rights and civility in general. Pity the latter is a rare commodity on this venue. Danceswithedits (talk) 18:19, 26 December 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

Once again, I am requesting an unblock based on indisputable evidence of appropriate editing and consistent personal attacks by a single Wikipedian. Please remove block immediately as there is absolutely no legitimate basis for the action. Every edit I made to the U.S. Civil Rights Trail is valid, factual, and backed by literally countless Wikipedia precedent. Not a single editor has refuted this, instead only offering harassment for disclosing paid status under Wikipedia guidelines. If the block remains in place, I will take the necessary steps to formally appeal. Thanks.

Decline reason:

This is your formal appeal. I am declining it because it primarily talks about others. You were blocked for what you did, not for what others did. In reviewing edits related to this matter, I'm skeptical that you have the collaborative attitude needed to participate here. 331dot (talk) 08:30, 27 December 2022 (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.

By the way, you still are a paid editor- otherwise every paid editor would say "I was paid, but I'm not anymore" which would render the policy meaningless. It will always be relevant that you were paid, even if you aren't currently. 331dot (talk) 08:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. However, I was not, in fact blocked for what I did, I was blocked for attempting to add valid and clearly admissible content to an important article, which was rejected by an editor an openly stated vendetta against those who disclose their paid status. I am in fact not always a paid editor and in fact add content without being paid in most of my contributions. I collaborate daily with writers, editors, and students around the world, so your assessment could not possibly be further off base. However, when I encounter blatant hostility and prejudice (in this case against being a paid editor) collaboration is virtually impossible. Once again, the chart I added is 100% valid by all Wikipedia standards and precedent. The ONLY reason it has been declined is because of a single editor who has harassed me since disclosing my paid status. "What I did" is contribute in an acceptable manner, then stand up to bullying. I'm quite skeptical as well, but for different reasons involving integrity, civility, and basic decency. I will move forward to the next level and see this through, as I am in the right here. Danceswithedits (talk) 20:23, 7 January 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

I created this page as a disclosed paid contributor. Despite constant harassment from a single editor, the article was accepted and published, thereby ending my contract. However, as I am personally committed to the Civil Rights movement and this article in particular, I continued adding content, including a landmark information chart based on other virtually identical historical trail articles published on Wikipedia. I attempted to confirm its relevance and Wikipedia precedent via the talk page, to no avail. My account was subsequently blocked for "warring" which is completely absurd given that the content added is undeniably relevant and acceptable for this particular article. I presented several Wikipedia articles that prove this beyond any doubt, yet the personal animosity of the other editor seems to overrule any effort I put forth on this article. Attempts to contact other editors who posted on the talk page have essentially been met with silence as, I assume, no one can offer a valid reason why the landmark page should not be included. I followed the "paid contributor" guidelines and have added content to many articles following Wikipedia rules and guidelines. I am therefore asking that my editing account be restored. Danceswithedits (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You appear to have been told multiple times what you need to do, paid contributor or not, to discuss content that has been challenged in good faith, yet you continue to believe that Wikipedia should bend to suit you because you believe that you are right. This request reads as further indication that you have no interest in participating collaboratively and will instead continue trying to force your challenged edit into the article, without discussion and in violation of numerous policies, and so I am declining your request. Consider reading the guide to appealing blocks, particularly under the heading talk about yourself, not others. It will be expected that your next request addresses your own tendentious editing without blaming anyone else, and describes how you will participate constructively and collaboratively if you are unblocked; if it does not then your access to edit this page will also be revoked for wasting our time. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:11, 9 January 2023 (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.

False. I'm simply trying to add valid content without being harassed. I've asked no one, nor do I expect anyone to "bend to suit" me. It's not a belief about being right. LOOK AT THE HARD EVIDENCE, for the love of (choose your deity). The edit belongs because its a) valid; b) relevant; c) supported by dozens/hundreds of other similar/identical articles. It's being denied for one reason: the open animosity of one editor toward paid contributors. How is this not crystal clear?? I've talked about what I've contributed and how I proved my case beyond any reasonable, rational, or objective doubt. Evidently, that carries no weight here. No one's time has been wasted more than mine, I assure you. This is beyond absurd. I've never witnessed such lack of civility and inability to collaborate as I have in trying to add simple, reasonable, and necessary content to a piece, in any venue. And I've been doing this since long before Wikipedia existed. Unreal.

Comment from blocking admin: This is way simpler than you're making it. To summarize yet again:

You were a paid editor on this article. It is not reasonable to ask to be treated as an unpaid editor on that article now. I do not think anyone on WP will be willing to consider you a "normal" editor on this article.
As a paid editor, you added content to the article that was disputed by someone else. Per policy, you therefore need to gain consensus for the edit on the talk page. This is not unreasonable, and is fairly simple, and I don't understand why you're refusing. If this is reasonable material to add, others will agree on the talk page.
You will need to stop attributing bad motives to the editor who reverted you. You've insulted them at almost every turn; while you've stopped calling them racist, you haven't apologized and you're still making baseless claims about their motives.

That's literally all you have to do: agree to gain consensus for the added material on the article talk page before making the edit again, and stop insulting the other editor. Do that, and you can be unblocked. Refuse, and I very much doubt you will never be unblocked.

I would suggest to the reviewing admin that this is going around in circles, and if this editor cannot commit to these two simple, reasonable limitations (get consensus, stop the personal attacks), their talk page access be removed. Submitting essentially the same unblock request multiple times is just wasting the time of reviewing admins. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is far more complicated than you're making it. I'm simply adding relevant content to a relevant article. Simple. Obviously, there's a tremendous amount of entitlement here, and when someone dares stand up to bullying from the elite, it's met with almost comical anger and resentment. Here's my summary:

1. I've never asked to be treated like an unpaid editor. That's pure fiction. I asked to be treated civilly. Period. I am no longer a paid editor for this article. End of story.

2. My valid content addition was challenged by an editor who has openly expressed resentment for paid editors and has virtually stalked me since the moment I followed Wikipedia disclosure guidelines. I could easily not disclose my paid status, as so many others do, but instead I disclosed in order to conform to the Wikipedia norms. Again, I attempted to discuss the matter with other editors on the talk page to gain consensus, even offering hard evidence to support my case. I received crickets in response. I do not understand how you do not understand this as it's painfully obvious.

3. Shall I attribute "good" motives to constant harassment and bullying? You could not possibly be more wrong here. I insulted no one until insulted first and repeatedly. Do apologies only go one way in this world? Am I somehow required to submit to an almighty editor simply because I'm relatively new to this venue? No, I have not claimed racism. I have pointed out quite clearly and incontrovertibly that my efforts on this important Civil Rights article have been assailed from the start, while other historical trail articles with content identical in nature have been allowed without question, consistently. I state facts. Some facts raise questions based on established human behavior. It would be negligent to not point out these inconsistencies especially in the context of the U.S. Civil Rights Trail.

In short, it sounds like you want me to passively submit to insults, not stand up for what is clearly valid content, and basically grovel to an individual who clearly despises paid editors. I suggest you take the grand lesson from the Civil Rights movement itself, since we're dispensing advice. Fighting for what is right is never a waste of time. Perhaps we can reach a consensus on that concept in this situation. Danceswithedits (talk) 14:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You were warned, clearly and directly, to stop the baseless personal attacks against one editor. Talk page access has been removed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Pie Insurance (January 14)

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

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

mostly a list routine funding rounds, which do not establish notability.

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 Draft:Pie Insurance 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.

Theroadislong (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Michelle Rozen

Hello, Danceswithedits. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Michelle Rozen, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Michelle Rozen

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

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. When 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:28, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Paul M. Sparrow

Hello, Danceswithedits. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Paul M. Sparrow, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Paul M. Sparrow

Hello, Danceswithedits. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Paul M. Sparrow".

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. When 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Pie Insurance

Hello, Danceswithedits. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Pie Insurance, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Pie Insurance

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

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. When 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]