User talk:Srthompson721

June 2021

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:Sidney Thompson, from its old location at User:Srthompson721/sandbox/Sidney Thompson. 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. Jupitus Smart 02:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sidney Thompson (June 8)

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

Not crossing WP:Academic or WP:Author

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:Sidney Thompson 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:Sidney Thompson, 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.

Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 05:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Srthompson721! 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! Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 05:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Sidney Thompson has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Sidney Thompson. Thanks! Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sidney Thompson has been accepted

Sidney Thompson, 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!

SL93 (talk) 02:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Srthompson721. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Sidney Thompson, 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 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. Notfrompedro (talk) 16:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am only making objective, neutral, factual statements. My historical fiction includes facts about many historical figures: George R. Reeves, Belle Starr, and Bass Reeves in particular. My books have received 8 honors from various western, historical, educational, literary, and African-American organizations. I don't understand why someone is removing my edits to these figures' pages when I merely state the obvious, that their lives are rendered within my books, and I am providing those verifiable claims under the category of Literature. What is the problem? Someone please tell me. And then tell me why it's a problem for me but not for others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srthompson721 (talk • contribs)

Please see WP:COISELF. When your edits to articles are challenged, you need to discuss the issue on the articles' talk pages. You simply keep putting back content that other editors have removed. Schazjmd (talk) 16:14, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Negro Fort. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Notfrompedro (talk) 16:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that I have anything subjective or soapboxing. I am merely pointing out what awards the books have won, what reviews and published authors have said, and what relevant history and subject matter can be found in the books. More than anything, I hope to promote the history, where information can be found for rarely discussed historical figures and places of reference that are gaining national and international interest. Can you be more specific, please. I'm new to Wikipedia and am happy to revise. Thank you!

Repeatedly adding links to your own books (at this point it is very clear that you are Sidney Thompson) is promotional. You have been asked repeatedly to disclose your COI which is required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use and you continually avoid doing so. You have spent four months making no edits other than ones which promote yourself and your own books. Notfrompedro (talk) 18:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Notfrompedro (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for advertising or promotion.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:09, 10 November 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).

Srthompson721 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I believe that I have been unfairly blocked for attempting to do what someone posted on my Wikipedia page, Sidney Thompson: "This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; try the Find link tool for suggestions. (October 2021)" It may look only like self-promotion, but my books are historically relevant. I am writing about history that has been whitewashed. I am trying to change that with my work. It's the history I value more than my books. I make so little on them, given my time, labor, and expense, that profit is a moot and laughable point. More important is no one has written more books on Bass Reeves than I have. My work matters to people. They should know it exists, be able to find it because there is so little on the subject. It makes no sense that I as an author and academic have a page but no articles linked to me, so I was merely trying to remedy the situation because I know better than anyone else which figures and events in history I write about. If that is an error on my part, it's an innocent error. I am a legitimate academic with award-winning books about a plethora of historical subjects. If you don't want me to link my book to them or even to Bass Reeves, I don't know what to say but ok, I won't, but some exception to the rule of self-promotion should be reasonable in some cases. In this case. Please reconsider.Srthompson721 (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 11:34, 4 March 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.

This is a tough issue. Obviously, you are acting in good faith, and you do seem to be the #1 expert when it comes to Bass Reeves. Wikipedia:Expert editors has some guidance about this -- we'd be very happy if some editor other than you the author was citing your work in the relevant articles, and if you declare yourself properly (a technicality) there's no reason you can't suggest material in your own work on the article talk pages. What we're really trying to resist is self-promotion; I don't think you're trying to that, but the kneejerk reaction around here is indeed to assume self-promotion because we get so much of that. So you're not unfairly blocked; you're fairly blocked, but we can fix that. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 21:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, --jpgordon. I would like to update my own page, Sidney Thompson, and Bass Reeves with a recent national story from Oxygen (TV network) about Bass Reeves, which refers to my books and cites my interview with the article's author: https://www.oxygen.com/unsung-heroes/the-legacy-of-bass-reeves-the-first-black-deputy-us-marshal. Readers of this article will likely want to go online to look up Bass Reeves and also me. Wikipedia benefits from that connection, doesn't it?. Thank you for your consideration! Srthompson721