User talk:RestoringPeople

Welcome!

Hello, RestoringPeople, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Draft:Southern Baptist Church, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at the our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.

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 have any questions ask me on my talk page or you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! — Diannaa (talk) 19:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Draft:Southern Baptist Church

If this was the first article that you created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

The page Draft:Southern Baptist Church has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appeared to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appeared to be a direct copy from https://southernbaptistchurch.org/our-history. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition has been 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.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion Review — Diannaa (talk) 19:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Draft:Donte’ Lamont Hickman

If this was the first article that you created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

The page Draft:Donte’ Lamont Hickman has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appeared to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appeared to be a direct copy from https://www.saul.com/2019-real-estate-conference-speaker-bios. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition has been 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.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion Review — Diannaa (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2020 (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 Dan arndt 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.

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:

Fails WP:ANYBIO, lacks any sources or references.

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:RestoringPeople/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:RestoringPeople/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.

Dan arndt (talk) 05:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RestoringPeople! 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! Dan arndt (talk) 05:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (April 28)

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

All information should be referenced with inline citations - see Wikipedia's guide to referencing for beginners - not a series/list of links.

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:RestoringPeople/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:RestoringPeople/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.

Dan arndt (talk) 01:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Donte Hickman (May 5)

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

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Donte Hickman instead.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Two copies of this page have been created, in draft space and in article space. It is not necessary to create two copies of the same page, and it annoys the reviewers. This is sometimes done in order to bypass Articles for Creation review. However, if a submitter is ready to have the article in article space, it can be moved into article space, rather than creating a copy. It is common for a page that has been duplicated in draft space and in article space to be nominated for deletion or proposed for deletion. If the article is kept, this draft should be redirected to the article. If the article is deleted, this draft may be kept for future 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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Donte Hickman 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:Donte Hickman, 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.

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:58, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Donte Hickman, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please stop making cut and paste copies, and stop adding malformed external links. If you want to add a reference then add it as a properly formatted reference, and do so inline Meters (talk) 08:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CITE Meters (talk) 08:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Donte Hickman. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Again, stop adding these seemingly random external links. Meters (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And please stop putting text in quotes. Unless it is a direct quote it does not go in quotes. Donte Hickman does not appear to be ready for article space. Why did you move it out of draft space, and why should we not delete it and let you continue working on your draft version? Meters (talk) 00:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Donte Hickman

The article Donte Hickman has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article has notability issues and tone issues. This article does not speak for itself and does not explain why the subject satisfies general notability. This article appears to have been written to praise its subject rather than describe his career neutrally.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Donte Hickman (May 21)

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

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Donte Hickman instead.

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:

Two copies of this page have been created, in draft space and in article space. It is not necessary to create two copies of the same page, and it annoys the reviewers. This is sometimes done in order to bypass Articles for Creation review. However, if a submitter is ready to have the article in article space, it can be moved into article space, rather than creating a copy. It is common for a page that has been duplicated in draft space and in article space to be nominated for deletion or proposed for deletion.

If the article is kept, this draft should be redirected to the article. If the article is deleted, this draft may be kept for future improvement.

This page appears to have been written to praise its subject rather than to describe the subject neutrally. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view.

If this draft is resubmitted without being reworked, it may be nominated for deletion. You may ask for advice about the tone of articles at the Teahouse.

The multiple copies of this title are becoming an annoyance. I have proposed for deletion the one in article space. If any more drafts are submitted, they may be Rejected.

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 Draft:Donte Hickman 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:Donte Hickman, 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.

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Donte Hickman

Hello RestoringPeople,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Donte Hickman for deletion in response to your request.

If you didn't intend to make such a request and don't want the article to be deleted, you can edit the page and remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

John B123 (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Donte Hickman

As the comment on your draft says, "Please do not remove reviewer comments or this notice until the submission is accepted." Meters (talk) 09:14, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And references have to actually support the claims. You cannot simply add a source that mentions him, and claim that it supports statements that it does not. Meters (talk) 09:21, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COI username notice

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "RestoringPeople", may not comply with our username policy. Please note that you may not use a username that represents the name of a company, group, organization, product, service, or website. Examples of usernames that are not allowed include "XYZ Company", "MyWidgetsUSA.com", and "Foobar Museum of Art". However, you are permitted to use a username that contains such a name if it identifies you individually, such as "Sara Smith at XYZ Company", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", or "FoobarFan87".

Please also note that Wikipedia does not allow accounts to be shared by multiple people and that you may not advocate for or promote any company, group, organization, product, service, or website, regardless of your username. Please also read our paid editing policy and our conflict of interest guideline. If you are a single individual and are willing to contribute to Wikipedia in an unbiased manner, please request a change of username by completing the form at Special:GlobalRenameRequest, choosing a username that complies with our username policy. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. Thank you. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Donte Hickman (May 23)

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

The comment the reviewer left was:

This still has a strong promotional tone like it was written as a dedication or a commendation.

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 Draft:Donte Hickman 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:Donte Hickman, 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.

AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 20:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Draft:Donte Hickman, you may be blocked from editing. Stop cutting and pasting the entire article every time you submit it for review. Just submit. Don't copy it. And please address the potential conflict of interest that was raised. Meters (talk) 05:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Donte Hickman (May 24)

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

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Donte Hickman 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:Donte Hickman, 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.

Jeromeenriquez (talk) 08:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times, Washington Post and The Baltimore Sun do full interviews and reports on the subject and his work.

There are multiple appearances and coverage of the subject and his work on CNN, CSPAN, PBS and other syndicated news outlets.

The Baltimore Business Journal does full stories on the subject and his work.

Each of these and others are reliable sources and not just passing mentions.

RestoringPeople (talk). 12:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COI

For the third time, please address the potential conflict of interest that was raised by User:AngusWOOF. As he pointed out, you are using one of the slogans for Hickman's organization as your username, suggesting a conflict of interest. Meters (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RestoringPeople is not the slogan. However, if it needs to be changed I’d like it to be changed to HighPriest7. How do I change the username?

We're asking why you are using this phrase. If you are connected to him or his organization then you have a conflict of interest. For the fourth time, you need to explain. I can 't speak for anyone but myself, but I am getting tired of you ignoring almost everything anyone tries to tell you. Meters (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RestoringPeople is merely an epithet for being apart of the human community. And scripture says the strong should bear the infirmities of the weak.

For the fifth time, do you have a conflict of interest? Meters (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not have a conflict of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ RestoringPeople (talk • contribs) 22:14, May 24, 2021 (UTC)

It was after I read the COI that I realized the conflict of interest and was immediately transparent. RestoringPeople (talk). 20:56, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I acted in good faith. The edits I made were in line with the editors. I maintained neutral language and presented the notably published facts. RestoringPeople (talk). 20:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing because of the following problems: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business, organisation, group, or web site, which is against the username policy.

You may request a change of name and unblock if you intend to make useful contributions other than promoting your business or organization. To do this, first search Special:CentralAuth for available usernames that comply with the username policy. Once you have found an acceptable username, post the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with your new username and replace the text "Your reason here" with your reasons to be unblocked. In your reasons, you must:

Disclose any compensation you may receive for your contributions in accordance with the Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure requirement.
Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

Appeals: If, after reviewing the guide to appealing blocks, you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal it by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your reason here" with the reasons you believe the block was an error, and publish the page. Orange Mike | Talk 20:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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

Requested username:

Kerygma7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

I understand the reason for blocking was that the name Restoring People seemed to be aligned with the subject thereby inferring a conflict of interest.

I assure you that I am not a paid contributor. And any edits I make going forward will be to further the standards as outlined by Wikipedia.

RestoringPeople (talk). 22:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I don't think you wrote about the Bishop by chance, and until you describe your connection to him, there is no pathway forward. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 23:00, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Change username from RestoringPeople to Kerygma7

Have you fully read WP:COI? A conflict of interest is not restricted to a paid relationship. Family members, friends, members of the congregation, volunteers, etc. can all have a conflict of interest without being paid editors. Meters (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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

Requested username:

Kerygma7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

I am the Bishop writing the biography in neutral language

Decline reason:

Thank you for admitting you attempted to mislead us earlier by lying about your conflict of interest. That's the first step. I'm afraid, though, that we won't unblock you to write an autobiography. If there are areas for which you have no conflict of interest, tell us what you plan to write about instead. You'll need to convince us that you understand why your edits were inappropriate. Yamla (talk) 10:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

malformed unblock request by User:RestoringPeople at 02:14, May 27, 2021 refactored by Meters (talk) 03:56, 27 May 2021 (UTC) [reply]

So, you are now directly contradicting your last edit [1], where you stated that you had no conflict of interest. Please read WP:AUTOBIO. Meters (talk) 04:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit surprised that you would have the time to attempt to write a Wikipedia article about yourself, and that in doing so you would deny having a conflict of interest several times. 331dot (talk) 06:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I read WP:AUTOBIO and understood that it was strongly discouraged. Therefore I submitted it through articles for creation. It was summarily moved to article space and editing ensued. From there I sought to respond with what was being requested. I maintained neutral but factual data that is published. I became a bit confused by the resubmission process and how to cite the sources and ended up creating two or three drafts. So I sought deletion and continued to work on the draft. T is fine by me that the editors pick it up from articles for creation. But let me further say that when it was moved and edited my corrections were only to provide sources and make it neutral and not self aggrandizing or promotional.

Why did you lie to us and say that you have no conflict of interest? To be frank, that's odd behavior for a pastor or bishop. 331dot (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the standards on auto bio and did not know it was a conflict of interest. I remember reading earlier that it was discouraged but not disallowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RestoringPeople (talk • contribs) 16:13, May 27, 2021 (UTC)

Except that you didn't even tell us that you were writing about yourself(even if you didn't know about conflict of interest). In any event, it's out of my hands now; you may make another unblock request for someone else to review. 331dot (talk) 16:23, 27

May 2021 (UTC)

I see no room left for WP:AGF. After five requests to explain the apparent conflict of interest RestoringPeople left what appears to be an intentionally deceptive unblock request with: "I understand the reason for blocking was that the name Restoring People seemed to be aligned with the subject thereby inferring a conflict of interest." and "I assure you that I am not a paid contributor. " He then followed up by flatly stating "I do not have a conflict of interest." Meters (talk) 18:51, 27 May 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

I’m requesting an unblock as I proposed an article of creation that I am the subject of and participated in editing in response to the editors. I have recently read WPAUTOBIO and understand the discouragement of writing and editing the articles because of the need to be neutral and not self promotional. And I understand the great pain of others editing my bio. Nevertheless, the material that I have presented is factual, neutral and published by notable media outlets. I humbly request to be unblocked and that the draft be considered for article space and edited accordingly. Thank you.

Decline reason:

Only one open unblock request at a time, please. ^{!ɘM γɿɘυϘ}⅃ϘƧ 00:41, 1 June 2021 (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 contend that there is room for WPAGF as I was transparent about my conflict of interest once I became aware of it.

You don't have to be aware of the conflict of interest policy in order to tell us you are editing about yourself, which you had several chances to do and didn't do until your second unblock request. I'm with Meters here. It's not up to me, but I'm having difficulty seeing a path forward here. 331dot (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was only after I read the WCOI that I understood the conflict. And even at that it was a discouraging not a disallowing of making the article. And I initiated it as an article for creation which I believe is proper according to Wikipedia.

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).

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

Request reason:

Change name to Kerygma7RestoringPeople (talk). 02:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Many administrators have been through this with you. You need to articulate what you are here to do that contributes to the mission of the encyclopedia, and merely stating that you wish to change your username without that plan is not sufficient to do this. I am not revoking talk page access, though continued unblock requests that do not address your plans for constructive contributions are likely to lead to that outcome. Go Phightins! 22:45, 12 June 2021 (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.

Please don't open multiple unblock requests. Meters (talk) 02:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And no, you don't get to host your draft about yourself on your talk page either. Removed. Meters (talk) 06:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Donte Hickman

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).

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

Request reason:

your reason here RestoringPeople (talk). 11:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural close as stale only; you may use WP:UTRS to make further appeals for others to review. 331dot (talk) 08:34, 30 July 2021 (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 have not been paid to edit draft Donte Hickman. It is my hope that the article would be published accordingly and in line with the principles of Wikipedia.

So now you deny you are him again. Since we can't get a straight story from you(kinda surprising from someone claiming to be a preacher), I am removing talk page access. 331dot (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS 46056

UTRS appeal #46056 has been closed.01:41, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Donte Hickman

Hello, RestoringPeople. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Donte Hickman, 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) 03:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]