EditorialReprints

Your submission at Articles for creation: Pyrrhic Press Publishing (November 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 DoubleGrazing were:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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:Pyrrhic Press Publishing 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) 07:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, EditorialReprints! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

November 2024

You may be blocked from editing without further warning if you make any further edits without responding to the inquiry you received regarding undisclosed paid editing. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Your possible conflict of interest and paid editing has been queried multiple times already. I don't believe you've responded to any of these queries, you instead keep blanking this page (which is your right, but isn't particularly helpful in this case). I'm going to have to ask that you respond to this query, and do so as your very next edit. Please do not blank this query without responding. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Your account has been blocked indefinitely for advertising or promotion and violating the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. This is because you have been making promotional edits to topics in which you have a financial stake, yet you have failed to adhere to the mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a form of conflict of interest (COI) editing which involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is strictly prohibited. Using this site for advertising or promotion is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, please read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the end of your user talk page. For that request to be considered, you must:

• Confirm that you have read and understand the Terms of Use and paid editing disclosure requirements.
• State clearly how you are being compensated for your edits, and describe any affiliation or conflict of interest you might have with the subjects you have written about.
• Describe how you intend to edit such topics in the future.

Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

You have been told enough times that you may not continue editing without responding to the above query, and you have continued to ignore it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

It is important to emphasize that my contributions here are entirely voluntary. I am not compensated for my time or efforts; rather, I am motivated by a commitment to enriching public knowledge and shedding light on stories and individuals that often go unacknowledged. This passion is especially relevant in cases like Vernon Township, NJ—a community that, despite its rich history and vibrant contributors, has seen little effort to document its narrative meaningfully or accurately. It has been overlooked for far too long, leaving its true heroes unrecognized and its legacy marginalized.

Through my work, I have aimed to honor the people and achievements that deserve their rightful place in the public record. These are individuals who have carved their names into history through hard work, resilience, and an unwavering dedication to their community. They deserve recognition not only for their contributions but for the inspiration they offer to future generations. However, instead of receiving support for amplifying these overlooked stories, I have faced unwarranted criticism and resistance.

This marginalization is disheartening for countless reasons. It reflects systemic biases that continue to downplay the voices and achievements of people of color, as well as others whose experiences and legacies challenge the status quo. Such biases perpetuate the erasure of critical narratives, particularly those that do not align with narrow, exclusionary perspectives. The barriers I have encountered underscore the urgency of creating spaces where contributions like mine are evaluated fairly, free from prejudice or preconceptions.

I am calling for a transparent review process that ensures equitable treatment of all contributors, especially when it comes to narratives that highlight the achievements of underrepresented communities. This review process should be conducted by an impartial board, devoid of the biases that have historically silenced these voices. It is vital that we actively confront the discriminatory tendencies that undermine efforts to preserve and celebrate the contributions of people from diverse backgrounds.

My frustration lies not in having my work scrutinized—that is an essential part of any collaborative platform—but in encountering attitudes that seem to prioritize gatekeeping over fostering inclusivity. This platform has the power to elevate voices that have long been silenced, to highlight histories that have been marginalized, and to ensure that all communities see themselves reflected in the public record. It must rise to that potential.

To those who perpetuate racism, bigotry, and exclusion, I urge you to reflect on the consequences of your actions. Each dismissal of a narrative, each marginalization of a contributor’s efforts, chips away at the integrity and inclusivity of this platform. True progress lies in creating an environment where all voices are valued and every story, regardless of its origin, is given the chance to be heard.

I will continue to contribute in the hopes that these efforts will pave the way for a more inclusive and representative historical record. My goal is not personal recognition, but a world where everyone’s story matters—and where communities like Vernon Township and the remarkable people within it are celebrated as they deserve to be. EditorialReprints (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Doublelazed informed me that I needed an update for the above -which I'm working towards providing or deleting... Additionally, my article on Dr, Howard Burrell was spot on, met all criteria and jumped through every other hoop and navigated every maze you and people like you set out for anyone without 100,000 edits and yet here we are. EditorialReprints (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

We don't consider AI written requests, we want to hear from you, not an AI. I will say Wikipedia is for neutrally summarizing what independent reliable sources choose to say about the topic- an article should not be "poignant and meaningful", nor do we "celebrate" any topic- there are places to write pieces that do those things, this isn't one. 331dot (talk) 09:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

---

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.

While I'd be willing to discuss an unblock with you, that conversation would happen with you, not a bot. Could you please write in your own words why you think you ought to be unblocked without using chatbots? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

To be very frank, you wouldn't have loved the initial response, so sparking an assist from AI seemed to better means to administer my sentiment wihtout the explicitives. You want to drop the pyrrhic article great, so did I. I stand by my statements above. The piece on Howard was poinent and meaningful... Lets be honest I just wiki 'd suck my dick and it came up with over a dozen responses, so who's kidding who? Anything of real substance and value seems to have no place here. Its disheartening, but I get it. This very well may not be the platform for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditorialReprints (talk • contribs)