User talk:Kpop777

Hello, Kpop777, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum, see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

• 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! HiLo48 (talk) 08:58, 13 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in George Floyd, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. More specifically, redirects generally do not need to be piped (MOS:NOPIPE). —Bagumba (talk) 06:52, 15 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that in this edit to Hao Ge, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 06:59, 2 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to change the title of a page by cutting its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 07:00, 2 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Republic of New Afrika, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources to see how to add references to an article. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:46, 9 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Haz Al-Din, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American Communist Party. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 4 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Ahmed al-Sharaa § Infobox image. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 07:33, 11 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Be careful, you are getting into the realm of wp:edit warring. If an article has this sort of issue, please request wp:requests for page protection (WP:RFPP). Cheers! Adakiko (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Ok thanks Kpop777 (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

This discussion has been (or is suspected to have been) disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user: ~2025-33793-70 (talk · contribs · block log · spi) Their comments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

This pesky user has vandalized the page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_Japanese&curid=59943685&action=history again and removed info about slavery, could you restore the correct version again, this one? ~2025-33793-70 (talk) 19:38, 15 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Administrator locked the page because of his edit warring Kpop777 (talk) 20:02, 15 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. ~2025-34005-32 (talk) 01:43, 17 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kpop777. Thank you. NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 22:09, 17 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

It was concluded that you are not infact sockpuppeting. NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 20:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm Sumanuil. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ.  Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 08:17, 23 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello Kpop777, just to let you know, I replied to your response to my edit request on Talk:Black Japanese. ~2025-34148-16 (talk) 15:12, 17 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I replied again. ~2025-34434-85 (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I made two replies. ~2025-34434-85 (talk) 20:09, 17 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 26 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Black Japanese) for a period of 1 month for resuming edit war immediately after protection expired. 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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I didn't resume an edit war, he did. I just reverted him Kpop777 (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

That is the definition of edit warring. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:10, 29 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Black Japanese".

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 16:37, 30 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi Kpop777,

when you say North Africans are not Black, you only mean Arabs, Berbers, and Copts are not Black, right? Because the Nubians, Beja people, Toubou people, Zaghawa people, Bambara people, and Haratin people are Black and they live in both North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa. ~2025-38254-85 (talk) 16:52, 4 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

I meant to say in North Africa blacks are the minority, where in Sub-Saharan Africa they're the vast majority Kpop777 (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

But when you say "North Africans are not Black", you are only referring to Arabs, Berbers, and Copts, right. ~2025-38785-18 (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

yes Kpop777 (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

It is always better to be specific. ~2025-38687-09 (talk) 00:30, 6 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm NotJamestack. I noticed that one or more of your recent contribution attempts to Jackson Hinkle have been disallowed by an edit filter as they did not appear constructive. 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. If you believe the edit filter disallowance was a false positive, please report it. Feel free to ask for assistance at the Teahouse whenever you like. Thank you. NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 22:17, 4 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to Maram Susli when you modified the page, you introduced unknown parameters. Just because you specify |some_param=some_variable does not always mean that variable will display. The |some_param= must be defined in the template. You can look at the documentation for the template you are using but it is also helpful to use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it. It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. Note I have likely fixed the error by now so check the history of the page to see how it was fixed. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:42, 17 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Kpop777 (talk) 03:50, 17 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to Black people. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:20, 18 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jackson Hinkle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rumble.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 5 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello Kpop777,

I came here to inform you that Arabs are not indigenous to North Africa, since the Arabs invaded North Africa during the 7th century (see Arab conquest of Egypt and the Muslim conquest of the Maghreb). Only Berbers, Copts, and Black people (specifically Nubians, Beja people, Toubou people, Zaghawa people, Bambara people, and Haratin people) are indigenous to North Africa. ~2025-38878-56 (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

You have recently made edits related to living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles. This is a standard message to inform you that living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Hipal (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks 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 believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2025 (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).

Kpop777 (block log · active blocks · global blocks · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · creation log · change block settings · unblock · checkuser (log) · SI)

---

Request reason:

this same user keeps edit warring, using sock puppets, etc. you can see for yourself at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1207 where multiple logged out users were blocked for edit warring with me, and it seemed to be the same guy over and over again. Check the edit history of Black Japanese, Afro-Haitians, Black people, Pan-Africanism, and many more. Different logged out users would remove the term Sub-Saharan African from multiple pages and remove stuff about slavery on pages about Black people, the logged out users who were assumed to be the same person were all blocked my mods for edit warring. One logged out user accused me of "Racist editing" or "White supremacist editing" in his edit summary on Afro-Haitians, a different logged out user accused me of using sock puppets because other people started reverting their edits and they opened a sock puppet investigation of me on one of their accounts, I was found not guilty by @ScottishFinnishRaddish. The same mod blocked me for being involved in another edit war today on the page Black people, where this user removed "Sub-Saharan African". I pleaded with him in my edit summary, and I even said "please stop editing warring I'm begging you" because he's been bothering me for a month non-stop trying to stress me out, trying to get me banned by starting a sock puppet investigation on me. I just joined Wikipedia a little earlier this year, I'm new, and I asked this user to get consensus and stop edit warring with me multiple times. I don't know what else to do. If I revert him we both get blocked which is what happened today, if I don't revert him, no edit war starts so he doesn't get blocked, I don't get blocked, but who's going to revert him when I've asked him numerous times to get consensus. I was wrongfully banned. I don't know if ScottishFinnishRaddish has been keeping up the last month, if he hasn't it looks like at first glance where both in the wrong but dig a little deeper. He's been making false accusations against me, reverting me on random pages, and vandalizing stuff on random pages like "Sub-Saharan Africa" or whitewashing slavery. All the accounts made the same accusation, and all got blocked on the page Black Japanese with me, that's why mods assumed it was the same person a month ago. Please unblock me. Kpop777 (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM. You were edit warring, again. It does not matter what the other editors were doing, or whether your edits were correct or incorrect. Edit warring is inherently disruptive. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:11, 18 December 2025 (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.

Kpop777 (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

@ScottishFinnishRadish @Jpgordon there he goes again re-starting the edit war on Black people, please revert. This thing they keep trying to remove has been on that page for years and randomly after an edit war happens a week and a half later someone else doesn't like it? This is why mods assumed it was sock puppets or something last time. He's the one who has to take the edit to the talk page because he originally made it, but him, his alts, or maybe someone he knows also said I'm the one who needs to take it to the talk page. I've provided proof this has been going on for over a month, this guy keeps getting me blocked, he's mass reverting me, etc. please revert. He's the one who needs to take it to talk page Kpop777 (talk) 04:18, 29 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Also tagging @Cordless Larry @BriDash9000. Kpop777 (talk) 04:37, 29 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

No one is continuing your edit war for you while you're blocked. If you continue the edit war when your block expires you will be blocked again. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:02, 29 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

look at the page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_people&diff=prev&oldid=1330026898. So he can revert me, he doesn't get blocked for continuing it, but if I revert him, I get blocked when he's the one (or his friend, assuming he's not a sock puppet) who originally made the edit and this thing they're trying to remove has been on the page for years? And why did you say "your" edit war when he started it if you look at the edit history. So if I revert him again I get blocked again but he can revert me and nothing happens. All I wanted to do was contribute to this site. This doesn't make any logical sense. Kpop777 (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Republic of New Afrika, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:57, 29 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Republic of New Afrika. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:11, 16 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

my additions, the two paragraphs after the first paragraph were summaries of what was sourced in the "history" section. Only one short paragraph wasn't sourced and that's because I forgot Kpop777 (talk) 12:46, 16 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

With this edit at Republic of New Afrika you wrote: "in a shootout that killed one officer and led to the arrest of 142 individuals". Perhaps I missed it, but where is this sourced in the article? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:16, 16 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

in "history" section of the article it's the 8th source Kpop777 (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

where it says "In the confrontations, law-enforcement officials were killed and injured. Organization members were prosecuted for the crimes. The members claimed they acted in self defense.[8]" Kpop777 (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Where in that source does it say "arrest of 142 individuals"? Magnolia677 (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

oh the source doesn't say that? I heard that from somewhere and thought the source says that. Let me remove that Kpop777 (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

You were blocked twice by User:ScottishFinnishRadish for edit warring. Then today, rather than source your edit which I reverted (accompanied by a level 4 warning on your talk page), you reverted it, and added the unsourced content "you heard from somewhere" back into the article. Please stop your disruptive editing. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

ScottishFinnishRadish blocked me for edit warring become different IP users suspected of being the same person and a few accounts were mass reverting my edits on multiple pages and I didn't break the three revert rule in 24 hours. I tried contacting administrators, they got blocked then more IPs came after me and then a few other accounts and I got blocked in the crossfire along with the people who started it. With today I don't know what a level four warning is (so I'm sorry) and most of the stuff I added was sourced. If one sentence wasn't sourced I'm also sorry. Is the page good now that I removed that paragraph that wasn't sourced? Kpop777 (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Dear Kpop777,

Did you know that the Berbers and Copts of North Africa are the only ethnic groups who are non-Black and still indigenous to the African continent? ~2026-10777-52 (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

i know Arabs aren't indigenous to the continent and the ancient Israelites and ancient Egyptians were Black Kpop777 (talk) 21:28, 17 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

No, ancient Egyptians were Copts and ancient Israelites were Jews (specifically Mizrahi Jews), but none of them were Black. ~2026-11732-63 (talk) 10:40, 22 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Nation of Islam teaches that the biblical Israelites were black though Kpop777 (talk) 10:55, 22 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

The Nation of Islam also created the myth of Yakub. Not everything the Nation of Islam said is true. ~2026-12271-36 (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yakub story might be true no evidence it's a myth Kpop777 (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, trying to be fair, but according to the social policies section of Traoré article, there's ample evidence for his discrimination against LGBTQ people. The evidence comprises about half of this entire section, which goes on to source the specific anti-LGBTQ actions taken by Traoré, and not any other politician in the history of Burkina Faso. SIGM17 (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

you can put "anti-gay" but don't put Anti-LGBTQ. It says nothing about his views on trans people or asexual people or queer people it just mentions "He banned homosexuality". Just put "anti-gay". I doubt your edit is going to last more than a week though someone else will probably revert it but try it Kpop777 (talk) 02:07, 4 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to set Preferences → Editing → Editor → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary). Thanks! 9yz _they/them ^talk 04:59, 24 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Micah Xavier Johnson is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be redirected to 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Micah Xavier Johnson until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

Raskuly 🐰 20:08, 6 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Micah Xavier Johnson, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Micah Xavier Johnson until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 7 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Acroterion (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

No, you don't get to assume someone's a white supremacist. The only difference between your conduct and theirs is that they ignored warnings. Stop making assumptions like that. Acroterion (talk) 11:10, 2 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Sneako, you may be blocked from editing. --Hipal (talk) 16:30, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Reverting 'American Civil Rights leader...' to ' African American revolutionary leader...', changing a long-standing phrasing, should be discussed on the article talk page, not merely reverted. WP:BRD does not work that way. Please open a discussion on Talk: Malcolm X; I am sure it will be fruitful. Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 17:53, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

"American civil rights activist" on the page isn't a long standing phrasing. It said "African American revolutionary" but I removed it and I'm the one who added "American civil rights activist" to make the page similar to the page about Martin Luther King Jr. Someone added back "revolutionary" recently, but saying "American revolutionary" doesn't feel right, Malcolm X didn't participate in the American revolutionary war, he was against integration during segregation in the southern United States and advocated for a Black revolution against the federal government with the goal of creating an African American state, I'm completely against adding the word "Revolutionary" since he was a Black nationalist not a Marxist-Leninist, but if we are going to keep "revolutionary", "African American revolutionary" sounds better than "American revolutionary", if you want to remove the "African American revolutionary" like I did I'm ok with that but remove the word "revolutionary" from the first paragraph Kpop777 (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article EFILism is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EFILism until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may still edit the article, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

Indiana6724 (talk) 23:05, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page EFILism, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A generic name error. References show this error when author or editor name parameters use placeholder names, or the name of the newspaper or organisation, instead of the source's actual author or editor name. If no human author is given, the fields should be removed. (Fix | Ask for help). Below are the references causing this error:
  • News, B. N. O. (2025-05-18). "Bomber of California fertility clinic identified, described himself as pro-mortalist". BNO News. Retrieved 2026-08-28. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 02:40, 28 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved content from EFILism into another page without attribution. Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the original contributors.

When copying within Wikipedia, you must give attribution in an edit summary at the page you are copying content to, disclosing your action and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice to place a {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination.

Please add attribution if no one has done so yet. If you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please repair the attribution. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. User:Zero Contradictions/Efilism Indiana6724 (talk) 04:36, 28 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Indiana6724 (talk)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article New-Afrikanism is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be merged into Republic of New Afrika.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New-Afrikanism until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may still edit the article, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

Prezbo (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Please consider this your warning on bludgeoning the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EFILism. After your initial response, you have replied 21 times, and your participation has become disruptive. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:52, 12 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Kpop777 already had a 2-week block for edit warring, so at this point an indefinite block should seriously be considered. SVG-image-maker (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

i got a 2-week block for edit warring last year because a person used multiple alt accounts to revert my edits on all the pages I made edits on. I would revert them and report them to administrators for target harassment, then when other editors reverted them they would accuse the other editors of being my alt. I reverted their vandalism more than 3 times in one day and at the time I was new to Wikipedia I didn't know that specific rule so I was blocked for 2 weeks for edit wars. I forgot the bludgeoning rule and that you're not allowed to make the same points again even if they're good, sorry Kpop777 (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 7 days from editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EFILism because of your continued bludgeoning of the discussion. Please note that this is not necessarily an assessment of faith or character, and we welcome good faith edits that are also constructive and in line with our policies. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request through the unblock wizard or through your talk page.  Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:35, 14 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Kpop777 continued bludgeoning AfD discussion, even after being warned to stop. ~2026-49546-29 (talk) 00:52, 14 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Explaining your reasoning for a change can also make it less likely to be reverted. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to set Preferences → Editing → Editor → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary). Thanks! Day Creature (talk) 01:27, 6 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm Day Creature. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Black Panther Party, but you didn't provide a reliable source. On Wikipedia, it's important that article content be verifiable. If you'd like to resubmit your change with a citation, your edit is archived in the page history. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Day Creature (talk) 01:28, 6 October 2026 (UTC)Reply