User talk:Wikiaddict8962

Hello Wikiaddict8962! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Bejnar 17:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Getting started Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Building consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Thanks for uploading Image:School Mascot.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 13:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I am not sure that the Krio people category can be substantiated. Do you have a source saying that each of them is Krio? I wrote several of the articles you tagged with it and one specifically, Thomas Peters, does not fit. Krio were the descendants of freed slaves that settled in Sierra Leone. Thomas Peters, however, founded Freetown and died shortly thereafter.--Thomas.macmillan 21:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia editing! See welcome message above. Some of our rules may not be obvious, but we don't use other people's copyrighted work. It appears that some or all of the article Nova Scotian Maroons that you posted on 28 February 2007 is copied from "The Jamaican Maroons" on the official web-site of the Black Cultural Centre for Nova Scotia. If you have a valid license to the material: First you need to put the hangon template on the article so that it won't get deleted. See the instructions at the top of the article. Second you need to present the GNU Free Documentation License or the author's release into the public domain to the Wikipedia administrators. See, for starters Wikipedia:Copyrights#Using copyrighted work from others. Normally the easiest way to establish valid licensing is to have the author place on his or her website one of the licensing release statements. See also, Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and especially What to do when permission is confirmed. --Bejnar 17:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Bejnar I tried to rephrase the information I gathered from the website and added some words of my own-I do apologize for any indiscrepancies I may have caused over an article I believe will improve wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikiaddict8962 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I agree that an article on the Jamaica maroons who were taken to Nova Scotia and then Sierra Leone would be a valuable addition to the Wikipedia and I appreciate the effort that you have gone to. I would stress, however, the words of the template: "Note that simply modifying copyrighted text is not sufficient to avoid copyright infringement — it is best to write the article from scratch." It is also good to get information from multiple reliable sources when writing an article. Often this means book research (not original research) in a university library with access to published periodical indexes. It is seldom a good idea to write an article just from Internet available sources. Lastly, I would not that some of the sentences in the original article such as "The Maroons proved themselves to be excellent fighters" are classic POV statements, and if they are to be used in an encyclopedic article, they require direct citation to a specific, reliable source. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources and especially Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Good luck. --Bejnar 18:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please follow the rules. The copyright violation notice said expressly "Do not edit this page until an administrator has resolved this issue. To write a new article without infringing material, follow this link to a temporary subpage." Yet today you removed the copyvio template and edited the page. Are there extenuating circumstances? You may answer here. --Bejnar 02:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 17:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have taken the liberty of standardizing the category you created at "Sierra Leonean Hospitals]]" and moving the occupants to Category:Hospitals in Sierra Leone. Also, please do not create articles that do not have substantially new content (such as History of Freetown, Sierra Leone) or do not provide enough context for someone not already familiar with the subject to figure out what it is about (such as Sherbro Culture). Such articles may fall under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion and will probably be at least merged so that there is only one short article, rather than many super-short articles on the same general topic. Please read Wikipedia:Stub#Ideal stub article when considering making a new stub. Thanks, BanyanTree 16:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You blanked a CFD template from this category. I have reverted this edit, since the CFD is still open. If you object, discuss it on a talk page. Removing the template is a violation of Wikipedia policy.--AgentCDE 04:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may not use the words from "The Jamaican Maroons" article that came from the official web-site of the Black Cultural Centre for Nova Scotia. If you want to write a new article "from scratch", write it at Temporary Nova Scotian Maroons, as per the instructions. Do not remove the copyvio template. An administrator will move your new article at Temporary Nova Scotian Maroons to Nova Scotian Maroons after review. I repeat, do not continue to edit Nova Scotian Maroons. --Bejnar 19:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never copied anything off any website, do you take me for a fool? I copied it off the headline Nova Scotia Maroons in the article Sierra Leone Krio people. Now please stop this sillyness and allow me to do what I love researching on various topics, thank you Bejnar. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikiaddict8962 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• Thank you. I have marked your Wikipedia source, Sierra Leone Krio people#Nova Scotia Maroons, as a copyvio. I do not take you for a fool. Please do not edit Nova Scotian Maroons until the copyright status analysis is complete. --Bejnar 22:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a copyvio, but it isn't Wikiaddict's fault. The basis of the page Sierra Leone Krio people is a large copyvio put in by User:86.146.15.73 last year. That page needs a massive overhaul because of it - and since the Nova Scotian Maroons page is based on it it will also need an overhaul. Grutness...wha? 22:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no accusation of you copying directly from "The Jamaican Maroons" article, just of your using the material from that site, and ignoring the instructions on the copyright violation template. --Bejnar 23:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 23:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for contributing. It would be appreciated if you could add an edit summary, particularly when your changes are repetitive across several articles. It would save time on the part of others who watch for vandalism and undesirable edit. Thanks.--Appraiser 13:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing the speedy delete template from this article. If you do not agree that it should be deleted then please follow the instructions on the notice. This article currently does not meet the criteria at WP:BIO or WP:A. PC78 18:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Wayne Rooney. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Ytny (talk) 06:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed you've posted several new articles that are basically "See (name of school article)". The proper procedure is to make this nto a redirect, which automatically takes viewers from one article to the other. Simply put this as the text of the article:

#REDIRECT [[Name of article to go to]]

It makes things simpler for everyone. Realkyhick 22:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated Maple Grove Crimson and Osseo Orioles rivalry, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maple Grove Crimson and Osseo Orioles rivalry and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 17:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions to the History of the Krio People article, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

Feel free to re-submit a new version of the article. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later."

You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here. You can also leave a message on my talk page. Garion96 (talk) 10:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Sherbro Tucker Family, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 05:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles that you have created yourself, as you did with Sherbro Tucker Family. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please place {{hangon}} on the page (please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag) and make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 05:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Brooklyn Junior High School. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites (http://www.greatschools.net/modperl/browse_school/mn/1586 in this case) or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Brooklyn Junior High School with a link to where we can find that note;
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on the article Talk page. Alternatively, you may create a note on your web page releasing the work under the GFDL and then leave a note at Talk:Brooklyn Junior High School with a link to the details.

Otherwise, you are encouraged to rewrite this article in your own words to avoid any copyright infringement. After you do so, you should place a {{hangon}} tag on the article page and leave a note at Talk:Brooklyn Junior High School saying you have done so. An administrator will review the new content before taking action.

It is also important that all Wikipedia articles have an encyclopedic tone and follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

172.150.205.106 03:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Sherbro Tuckers, by FreeKresge (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Sherbro Tuckers seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Sherbro Tuckers, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Sherbro Tuckers itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 04:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article Thomas de S. Tucker has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article seemed to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. King of Hearts 05:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, did you intented to move Sierra Leone Krio people to Sierra Leone Creole people? If so, please tell me and I will fix it. To comply with the GFDL you don't copy & paste when you want to move an article but use the move button. Garion96 (talk) 18:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, the speedy delete tag wasn't to remove the article, but to fix (again) your copy-paste move. The article will still be where you left it, with the Krio version still a redirect. To move, you should use the move tab. You can read more here. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Multiracial. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. If you think there is a good reason to remove material from a Wikipedia article, please explain it in the edit summary. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 04:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Kissy Road Church of the Holy Trinity, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Corvus cornix 18:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but all Wikipedia articles must meet our criteria for inclusion (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Since it does not seem that Kissy Road Church of the Holy Trinity meets these criteria, an editor has started a discussion about whether this article should be kept or deleted.

Your opinion on whether this article meets the inclusion criteria is welcome. Please contribute to the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kissy Road Church of the Holy Trinity. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them.

Discussions such as these usually last five days. In the meantime, you are free to edit the content of the article. Please do not remove the "articles for deletion" template (the box at the top). When the discussion has concluded, a neutral third party will consider all comments and decide whether or not to delete the article. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 19:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've added many references to this article, are you going to use them? If you are, you should add them to your own user space. If you've already used them, or if you wish to add them after you use them, you should do so as a full citation, as explained at WP:CITE. If you'd like help with footnotes or full citations, please let me know, I'd be happy to help. Thanks, Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, great. Ramadan starts tomorrow, so I might be busy for a couple days as my schedule adjusts. But what you will have to do the first set of work. When you have a fact you want to reference, it is nice to use what are called the ref tags. So I just made a change that si what we need to do to sort this. You can see the change here, what I did was I took something from your list of sources and put it between <ref> and </ref> which tells the system to make that a footnote. Basically, you can put facts you'd like to cite between reference tags like that, I'll clean up the references so they are in a more readable style, as I did the Scotsman reference (you can do that, too, if you like). Thanks a lot, this will allow us to better associate the references with the article, and will help readers and future editors. Let me know if you have any more questions. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think you can do what I asked, or should I go through your list of sources myself? If I do it, I'll probably delete them if I think the information is given by another source better. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:African American Establishments, which you created, has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to participate in the deletion discussion located here. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is your proof that Thomas Peters of Sierra Leone fame was born in Nigeria and was an Igbo? I started the article and never found that information, so what do you have that says so? One source says "He was born a slave in the North American colonies and worked in his master's flour mill in North Carolina." while another says that "legend has it" that he was born in West Africa, but the first evidence comes from him in North Carolina. I am going to remove your incorrect information--Thomas.macmillan 14:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disagreeing that he was African-American, but you created 2 overlapping, redundant categories (Black Loyalist and African-American Loyalists) which have nearly the same information. Therefore, one of them should be deleted and I removed the one most likely to be so. Also, the two online sources, including one by the govt of SL says he was born in North Carolina, so I think we should go with that one.--Thomas.macmillan 16:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, if you need to move a page to one that already exists you need to submit a move request. Secondly, It's the generally accepted practice to use the term in common use in historical documents and failing that the term that was in use at the time. Black Loyalists are referred to in scholarly work as Black Loyalists, not as African American Loyalists. And even if they weren't, they certainly weren't called African American loyalists then because 1. No one was an American then. 2. Even if there were Americans then, Black's certainly weren't. 3. The term African American didn't come into wide use until the late 1970s. 4. To someone unfamiliar with the nuances of the English language X-American loyalist might imply that these were people loyal to the American side when they were in fact loyal to the British. Please don't make these types of changes again without seeking a consensus on the article's talk page. Thanks. CJ 02:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, You say I'm wrong. Please provide sufficient sources that list Black Loyalists as African American Loyalists and I'll remove my objection to the page being moved. But it still needs to go through a formal move request so that the article history is preserved. CJ 02:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because I've reverted your edits doesn't mean a consensus can't be reached in your favor. And I can certainly appreciate your sentiments. If you can find sources to document your claims then as I said, I'm more than willing to withdraw my objection to the edits going forward. The article isn't going anywhere. Also, don't feel as though you can't contribute to this or any other article. I'm sure that as a descendant of these people you can surely offer other insights besides terminology. CJ 02:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 02:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is an anachronism and a neologism to refer to "African American Loyalists". I don't know whether British colonists were referred to as Americans, but certainly enslaved Africans would not have been referred to as "African Americans".

Are there any reliable sources that use the phrase? A quick look at the footnotes and external links suggests otherwise: Black Loyalist Directory, blackloyalist.com, Black Loyalist Heritage Society.

Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names): "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things."

"Black loyalists" gets 37,600 Google hits. "African American loyalists" gets 86. I think the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate why "African American loyalists" is superior to "Black loyalists". — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 02:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They were "Black loyalists". Calling them "African American loyalists" is an attempt to use a 20th century phrase to describe people of the 18th century. They were enslaved Africans in Colonial America, but they were not "African Americans". In order to be an "African American" one must be an American, which is an identity that British colonists in North America may not have assumed at that point, and most certainly is an identity that their enslaved Africans didn't have.

In any event, it doesn't matter what you or I want to call them. Wikipedia's naming conventions say that article titles should use "the most common name of a person or thing". I've indicated above that "Black loyalists" seems to be a much more common name than "African American loyalists". Can you demonstrate that "African American loyalists" is more commonly used than "Black loyalists"? — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 06:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop introducing modern terms into historical contexts as you did at Black Loyalists. Doing so is a violation of WP:NEO and WP:NCI. If you continue these disruptions you will be reported to an administrator. CJ 10:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:African American Loyalists, which you recently created, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, please follow the link in the CFD notice on the Category page. Thank you. Cgingold 13:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't justify you identifying them as African Americans. Again. My earlier warning still stands.CJ 22:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel we're wrong then feel free to go to WP:DR and get someone else to make an opinion. But don't keep putting bad information back into an article just because you feel it's right. That's what gets you reported. CJ 22:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think an article from 1999 that uses the phrase African American a grand total of three times, twice as a neologism, justifies using it that way in a wikipedia article. It doesn't prove that African American was a term in use at that time. It only demonstrates that the author made the same error you want to. But as I said before, you're welcome to take it to dispute resolution.CJ 10:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made my point. I'm not going to continue repeating it. If you want to continue this conversation then you need to go to WP:DE. CJ 00:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Americo-Liberian history, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Americo-Liberian history is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Americo-Liberian history, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 22:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 00:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please fix the dangling sentences, and cite the 7% statistic, so the page can be marked as patrolled, thanks. ThuranX (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Black Loyalist, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Your ongoing effort to add the anachronism African American to Black Loyalist is becoming disruptive. Please stop. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 06:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. It is doubtful that any Black Loyalists were "born in the United States", as you wrote, since they were born before the American Revolution. Please stop reverting changes that have been made by consensus, and don't re-create categories that have been closed after discussion. If you would like to change consensus, please post your messages at Talk:Black Loyalist. It would be helpful if you could provide contemporary sources that suggest Black loyalists were referred to as African Americans. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message, and especially for providing sources for the use of the phrase "African American" with respect to Black Loyalists. You're right: the British source refers to Black loyalists as African Americans and the Nova Scotian source refers to "enslaved African Americans".

You are also right about Simon Schama. On pages 5-6 of Rough Crossings: Britain, The Slaves and The American Revolution (2006), he writes that "Tens of thousands of African-Americans clung to the sentimental notion of a British freedom even when they knew that the English were far from being saints in respect to slavery." He uses the phrase to describe several people in his book and uses the phrase at least a dozen times. (Although I note that Rough Crossings refers to "enslaved Africans". )

I've never heard of Cassandra Pybus, but Epic Journeys of Freedom: Runaway Slaves of the American Revolution and Their Global Quest for Liberty was published by a reputable publisher and has an foreword by Ira Berlin. She writes on page 84 of "African American and African Caribbean men, often runaway slaves, joining ships heading for England", and on page 104 she refers to the British "facilitating the flight of enslaved African Americans".

Frankly, I think it's anachronistic to use a modern term (African American) to describe people who were considered sub-human by (white) "Americans". In its Dred Scott decision, the Supreme Court rightly summarized what the founders of the United States thought of people of African descent:

It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion in relation to that unfortunate race, which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and when the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted. ... They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.

I cannot imagine that any people of African of descent, free or enslaved, were considered "Americans". But I won't continue to argue the point with you. If you don't mind, I would like to copy our messages to Talk:Black Loyalist to explain the use of the phrase "African American" in the article. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that we've misunderstood one another. It's never been my intention to question whether Black Loyalists were in any way different from Blacks who ended up in the United States. Of course they were the same; I can easily imagine that circumstances led to the break-up of some families between the United States and Canada.

My objection to the use of the term "African American" was related to an on-going debate, in the real world and among Wikipedia editors, about whether the word "African American" is appropriate to describe any enslaved person, or any person of African descent, before Reconstruction. Many editors, including me, use "enslaved Africans" because we don't believe "African American" is appropriate.

Again, I'm sorry that I misunderstood your point, and that this disagreement led me to accuse you of being disruptive. I hope that we can work together harmoniously in the future. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 22:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your change of the redirect to Cotton Tree. There is already an article about the Cotton Tree as you can see. The redirect doesn't cause you to loose your edit.--Sandahl 01:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on McGill Family (Monrovia) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -MBK₀₀₄ 18:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, a question. Could you cite the sources you listed in this article. The total amount of sources is almost as big as the article itself and is getting out of hand. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for an explanation how to cite sources in on article. Garion96 (talk) 10:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much of the topic, so I can't help much in deciding what to use. I can help you with the citing part though. If you just add the source url with http:\\www.google.com] behind the sentence you want to cite (if that information is in the source url), I can finish it and it the complete reference for you. Garion96 (talk) 19:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Macfoy family (Sierra Leone) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make multiple articles with the same content but with different names. See Wikipedia:Redirect. Thanks, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Macfoy family (Sierra Leone), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macfoy family (Sierra Leone). Thank you.

Where did you find a source, citing that she is Jamaican or Jamaican-American? I can't seem to find one anywhere, so I'm assuming that it's not true. If you're not sure what I'm talking about, take a look at this. Blackjays1 (talk) 12:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Citing_sources and make use of the citation templates available. Your citations now consist of awful inlined external links, not citations, and a messy list of URLs. This provides you an excellent opportunity to learn the ins and outs of the Wikipedia styles and methods of citation. Especially, please note that for the article to get the best ratings in review, it needs solid inline citations. The templates are an easy way to do this. ThuranX (talk) 13:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

read the page i linked to above, and from there, go to the Citation Templates page. Both will really help. ThuranX (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I have time (and energy) I'll look at it this weekend. You can also use the tool found at [1] and do it yourself. With that tool it is really easy. Garion96 (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Clan Bruce (Ghana), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Robert Bruce (Merchant Adventurer), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article William Wallace Bruce, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the "African American diaspora"? Is it a phrase you made up one day? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on John Kizell requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. скоморохъ 19:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice above that someone has directed you to educate yourself on Wikipedia's citation templates. Are you having trouble? African American settlers (Sierra Leone) is thoroughly cited but not in a clear enough manner for our readers. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 07:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the citations for African American settlers (Sierra Leone) to show you one way of citing. I don't know how you're having trouble citing your sources, but you really should educate yourself on proper citation style instead of making edits like this and relying on other editors to clean up your mess for you. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 03:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How did you try? What is "it" that didn't work? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 06:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the way I've changed the citations. I've put inline citations that refer the author, year, and page number and at the bottom I've put the full citation (I've also used a template so that the inline citation is a link to the full citation). You seem to be overly preoccupied with linking to the source at google books but if properly cited, someone can easily find your source without you linking to it. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 07:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Beninese-American actors, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Cgingold (talk) 04:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Category:African American Lives (television series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. emerson7 18:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently removed the phrase and thus the link to Black Loyalist from many articles, e.g. Black Canadian, Black Nova Scotians, African American settlers (Sierra Leone), Book of Negroes. You have removed articles from the category Category:Black Loyalist documents, Category:People of Black Loyalist descent, and Category:Black Loyalists. To me, it looks like a campaign to remove references to the phrase "Black Loyalist", and yet this is overwhelmingly the most commonly used term, both contemporaneously and in academic and official publications now. Please could you explain your apparent campaign. BrainyBabe (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been warned about this in the past. Although I suspect that you are making these edits in good faith, you will have to seek the consensus of the community to keep making them. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. If you want to make these changes, please discuss them first at the relevant WikiProjects, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups, Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada. If you continue to make these changes without a consensus of editors, you will be treated as someone making disruptive edits and could be blocked. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not arguing a position on the subject either way. I am reverting you edits because the consensus of the comunity as I understand it says that "black loyalist" is the term used in allmost all academic texts. If you think that consensus is wrong, please discuss it at the wikiprojects cited above before making anymore edits. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't really our place to guess what terms will be in common use in ten years. Nevertheless, if you think you have a valid case, I encourage you to start a discussion about it, just don't make sweeping changes across articles until you do.

By the way, when writing on talk pages, be sure to sign you comments with four wavy lines, like this: ~~~~ so that people know who left each comment. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stopping your edites. Once again, I encourage you to talk to the WikiProjects about your opintion; maybe in the end you will convince them to change Wikipedia policy on the topic. Bring up you conserns about the term "Black Loyalists: at one of

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject African diaspora
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canada

and for the stuff specific to Sierra Leone, go to

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sierra Leone.

--Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, but there's a discussion of your edits at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Topic_ban_on_User:Wikiaddict8962. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Sierra Leone Creole people, without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. T L Miles (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the reply. I'm sorry I mistook your edits for vandalism, but I do have a couple of issues. If you're going to remove huge chunks of an article (it went from 55,591 bytes to 5000 bytes), you really should discuss it on the talk page first, give it a bit, and then do your business. Of course if something is uncited, libelous, etc, you should remove it quickly. But why remove half someone's biography? As a collaboration you don't have to be responsible for everything, and if an editor wants to remove your citations, s/he should get consensus on talk and do it his/her self. You seem to be removing big bits of lotsa articles, without discussion or an edit summary, or frankly without any pattern I can see. Perhaps you should take a deep breath and not worry about what someone told you you had to do.

Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources. You can read it and make up your own mind, but I see nothing about citing too many sources, if you actually use them. There's no mandate to use inline citations, though they are recommended for figures and specific facts. If someone told you different, I would suggest they're being a bit of a jerk.

And because wikipedia is a collaboration, we all need to discuss stuff, explain stuff, and sign our talk additions with four tildes. Take a look at Help:Edit summary and Help:Editing. And finally, with a grain of salt, Ignore all rules. Hope this helps, and good luck! T L Miles (talk) 04:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove all that content from Seniora Doll? If you want it deleted, just tag it with {{db-author}}. --Closedmouth (talk) 05:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes for Thomas Corker. --Closedmouth (talk) 05:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mm, sorry, forgot to reply. Anyway, that makes sense, and it's good that you're removing unreferenced content, it just seemed odd that you were completely gutting an article you yourself had created. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have removed several edits you made connecting these two people, through Henry's son Robert of Caen. While it is not incorrect information, you added it shotgun fashion without tailoring it to each article (you still had Henry as the subject, for example, in the article on Gloucester). Also, as i mentioned in the summary, the information linking two people who shared a hair over one percent of their blood (1.071875%, to be precise). So, please don't take it personally, but best not to use the old shotgun when adding information. Cheers, Lindsay 08:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I must confess I edited it in a hurry. But there is no issue in stating that Robert the Bruce was a descendant of Henry Beauclerc. Preceeding pasted from my talk page. Lindsay

No, you're quite right, there is no issue in the fact: RB was, certainly, a descendent of HC. But he was also a descendent of Richard fitzGilbert, of John Marshal, and of Hugh the Great; it's not worth noting, though, since the relationship is so tenuous, though definable, so distant. After all, go back far enough, and we're all related, eh? Cheers, Lindsay 06:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, hope you don't mind my pasting your note here; i prefer to keep a conversation together, so i'll watch your talk page for a response. Cheers, Lindsay 06:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source in the Curtis Davies article (from the Guardian) says nothing about his father being of Creole ethnicity, merely that he is Sierra Leoneon. I did a web search to try to confirm your edit, but couldn't find anything, so I reverted it. Where did you get the information on, as I'd like to restore the info you added if there is a source out there to back it up. Cheers. --Jameboy (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you need to cite a reliable source to support the information. What is your source? --Jameboy (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:David George (Baptist), which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 12:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Descendants of slave traders, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Descendants of Black Refugees (War of 1812), which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that this category you created is unpopulated (empty). In other words, no Wikipedia pages belong to it. If it remains unpopulated for four days, it may be deleted, without discussion, in accordance with Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#C1. I'm notifying you in case you wish to (re-)populate it by adding [[Category:Krio culture]] to articles/categories that belong in it.

I blanked the category page. This will not, in itself, cause the category to be deleted. It serves to document (in the page history) that the category was empty at the time of blanking and also to alert other watchers that the category is in jeopardy. You are welcome to revert the blanking if you wish. However, doing so will not prevent deletion if the category remains empty.

If you created the category in error, or it is no longer needed, you can speed up the deletion process by tagging it with {{db-author}}.

Contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I don't think we have met before, but I am slightly puzzled by your recent contributions. You are blanking pages[2] and removing content[3] without edit summaries, and I cannot understand the reason why. I would ask you to please refrain from blanking pages, as it confuses readers (for the proper ways of deletion, see the deletion policy) and removing content without explanation (as it confuses editors). If you would be kind enough to tell me what you are trying to accomplish with your removal of categories, blanking of pages and removal of misc content, I may be able to help you further in accomplishing your task. Thank you and happy editing! Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 11:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

I saw your reaction on my talk page. Please let me explain. The edits I reverted (which were almost the same as reverted previously by another user) did two things:

1. They removed some of the references, the references section, the bibliography and the external links;
2. They added a few small paragraphs of relevant information.

Just add the information, and nobody will have a problem with it. Of course, you should preferably add sources, or the information you add may be challenged. Debresser (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have written me about this subject on my talk page, and I have answered you there. Please see here. Debresser (talk) 01:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote you on my talk page: if you remove sourced information again (and it is sourced information, whether you are willing to admit it or not), you risk being blocked from editing on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 00:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have ignored reverts by at least three editors, and since you have been properly warned, and nevertheless you continue with your removal of sourced information, I've reported you at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Wikiaddict8962_reported_by_Debresser_.28Result:_.29. Debresser (talk) 00:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why you keep deleting sourced references to Black Loyalists in this article. Black Loyalist is the term commonly used by the international historiography about this migration and should appear in this article.Letterofmarque (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not continue an edit war on article Nova Scotian settlers (Sierra Leone). As you've been warned before, this is your final warning and continuance will end up with you being blocked from editing to prevent disruption to Wikipedia. Disputes should be handled via the talk pages to hash out the issues and to establish a consensus. You are advised to consider Wikipedia's dispute resolution guidance. Cheers, Nja²⁴⁷ 09:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you created this category and later blanked the page. A faster way to delete a category you've created yourself is to place {{db-author}} on the page. This tag attracts the attention of an administrator who can perform the deletion for you. Contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I reverted your deletion of the Category:Sierra Leoneans of Igbo descent category from the Africanus Horton article because it clearly states in the article that he is of Igbo descent. Ukabia (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to go back through my research to tell you. I admit, I didn't do a good job at documenting that, thus it should be deleted. I can tell you that I did read some of this info in literature found on books.google.com. Search Fernando Po, Davis, Barber, Barleycorn... I think a Davis married into the Barelycorn family. Bab-a-lot (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Novascotians.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Freetownbowles.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be delete