Fix your error. Its find not found

Thank you for the story

Thank you for uploading File:Bhsbuc.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because one can freely take photographs of the TSU campus, you cannot use copyrighted images of the campus; I have a free image of the TSU campus. If you and Houston and want to take your own pictures, that is perfectly fine. If you are not in proximity to TSU, you can make a photo request for me or others to take photos at TSU too. Lastly, if you want to, please join Wikipedia:WikiProject Houston - Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When are you gonna clean up the TSU page?

• What information do you consider to be irrelevant?
• If you are referring to the Slade stuff, I must add that Wikipedia articles should be based mostly on secondary sources. A lot of sources reported in detail about the Slade scandal, so the article cannot ignore that particular aspect.
• In regards to other matters (i.e. alumni listed that did not go to TSU, etc) that aren't controversial, please note the page Wikipedia:Be bold - you are welcome to make changes that you feel are necessary. If someone opposes your edit, he or she will let you know, or you can contact him or her on his or her talk page or on the article talk page.
• Thanks,
• WhisperToMe (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Texas Southern University, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SWAC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 12:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I did not add the alumni section, and I don't know who did or who is maintaining it, so I'm afraid I'm not the one who researched the alumni dates. Sorry I can't be of more help. Best of luck to you, --Paulsuckow (talk) 00:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Texas Southern University, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 13:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did, thx!

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dallas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oak Lawn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Dallas Black Pride 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 an organized event (tour, function, meeting, party, etc.), but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. ⛵ Admiral Caius ⛵ 21:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to update the seal to a better version but it didn't show up now the link is totally gone. I accidentally clicked save instead of show preview to see if it worked. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.

I have the better seal on my C drive. A silver and maroon one I found via Bing's image search on Texas Southern University. It was one of the first dozen images.

All this is under Texas Southern University.

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Help me with fixing the seal for the Texas Southern University wiki page. The previous seal was lackluster and didn't have the school colors. And I was simply trying to upgrade it to a better one and now it's missing totally and I need assitance in adding the new gray and maroon seal

Broadmoor (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the previous version. More in a minute or two.

You can always go back to a previous version of an article. Click the "View history" tab, then click on the time/date link for the revision you want to restore, click "Edit source" at the top, ignore the warning "You are editing an old revision of this page", and click "Save page". It is best to use an edit summary like "Reverting to version by Soandso at 17:15, 15 February".

Any image you find on the internet is almost certainly copyright to someone, so you need to worry about that, see WP:Copy-paste. This might well come under the exception for logos - read WP:LOGO for what you would need to do in order to use it.

Another tip: if you refer on a talk page to an article or another page, write its name between double square brackets, like [[Texas Southern University]], which gives a link Texas Southern University. That makes it easier for readers to find it. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride 2014, a campaign to improve coverage of LGBT-related content on Wikipedia throughout the month of June. On June 21, there will be a multi-national edit-a-thon, if you wish to participate. Here is the project page for Houston: Wikipedia:Meetup/Houston/Wiki Loves Pride 2014. Ways to help? Create or improve LGBT-related articles, host an edit-a-thon at a local coffeeshop, library or other location, or photograph LGBT culture and history in the Houston area. Visit the project page for more information, and if you are interested in contributing, just add your name to the list of supporters or add the results of your work. Thanks for your consideration! --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:48, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for improving the LGBT culture in Dallas–Fort Worth article. I appreciate the efforts you made adding the choir!

I also appreciate finding the new figures. One thing I did was remove your citing of another Wikipedia article and cited the actual source. References may disappear from another Wikipedia article and it may be difficult for other people to verify the information. Citing the actual source and indicating the proper page number will help people verify the info.

Also even if you find one set of figures, please don't remove the other set. There may be different estimates, and therefore it may be good to refer to all of them.

Happy editing! I'll see you soon! WhisperToMe (talk) 18:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Yes, it's fine if the lead paragraph can be simplified! The detailed statistics can be moved to a sub-section within the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I noticed the removal of this content. I think it's important to leave this fact in the article (that Alcorn isn't very prominent outside of Mississippi). If you remove sourced content please state why the removal is happening in the edit summary.

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 02:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. Even though the source is still over 20 years old, the history of the school's reputation is still important, and to my knowledge there is no new written information that contradicts what was said back in the 1990s. The reputation and notoriety of a university is very important and it should be reflected in its article. If there are any published sources saying that the school has become more famous, I would like to hear about them. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

I noticed your recent edit to Mississippi Valley State University does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list and
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Corkythehornetfan | Chat? 17:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. ElKevbo (talk) 15:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --IJBall (talk) 07:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list and
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! --IJBall (talk) 07:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Florida A&M University. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. --IJBall (talk) 07:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete others' comments on Talk pages. It's perceived as hostile and rude and there is widespread agreement that it should only be done under very limited circumstances. ElKevbo (talk) 02:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What comments did I delete? Broadmoor (talk) 02:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These. ElKevbo (talk) 03:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall pressing delete.Broadmoor (talk) 03:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if you remember doing it or how you did it. You did and you should be more careful in the future. ElKevbo (talk) 03:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It does matter, you are already harassing me and I'm not trying to give you any more reason too. I really don't remember deleting it and still not convinced I did so right now.Broadmoor (talk) 03:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have deleted cited material from the article Florida A&M University without any reason given in the edit summary. The hazing incident might be summarized more tightly but was a landmark in realizing that students were still subject to hazing at the university level and has helped put a stop to it. It was national news for months.

The graduation level is already short enough. It is very key information about the university or its admission policy but draws no conclusions as to either. It should remain.

Rm material without reason seems hostile to Wikipedia's policy of WP:NOTCENSORED. Student7 (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did give valid reason to the person who placed it there. Broadmoor (talk) 03:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. ElKevbo (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jackson, Mississippi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lifetime. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. ElKevbo (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. As you will have seen, the user with whom you have been involved in a dispute regarding this page has filed at the edit warring noticeboard. I've tried to defend you there because I don't think it helps anyone just to stop to allow you editing, especially since you describe yourself and appear to be someone of integrity. However, please be aware that you really need to start engaging in serious discussion at the page Talk:Texas Southern University about these controversial removals of information. Regardless of whether you're right or wrong, Wikipedia's very core is about collaborative editing, so you need to try to reach a consensus through reasoned discussion. Saying things like "I will always delete it" seems to suggest that you are not open to doing so. I'm sure this was just something in the spur of the moment, but you need to be very careful now as you were already blocked previously for edit warring, which is in effect the opposite of discussion. Thanks for thinking carefully at any rate about this message, and feel free to leave me a message if you want any further input. --Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 12:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Rather than starting (or continuing) another edit war regarding the NCAA sanctions, what do you think would be a good compromise? NCAA sanctions are a significant event that needs to be noted; whether or not it isn't cited in on other school's articles are irrelevant- maybe you can help identify and correct these shortcoming on other pages. Perhaps a separate article about the sanctions can be written and linked to within this article? Frankly,this article, like many others about other schools, reads more like a press release from the college's PR office and less like an neutral, objective summary of the facts. Since no one believes any institution is perfect, these articles actually make the institution seem sketchy and unwilling to be honest. I believe mentioning the "warts" of the institution lends more gravitas to the article as it demonstrates that it more fair representation of what the school is actually like. Wkharrisjr (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No not all NCAA sanctions need to be noted Wkharrisjr because if you're familiar with college athletics you would know that they are quite common and are not a noteworthy event. The only time NCAA sanctions are noteworthy is if the "Death Penalty" is rendered which means an elimination or prolonged suspension of a program (think SMU football in the late 80s). Outside of that, noting NCAA sanctions are petty and not responsible editing. But despite that I left the sanctions on TSU football wiki page since it's only dealing with them and there's still one more year left of the sanction. So IT'S THERE AND IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE NOTED TWICE and I'm writing in all caps b/c I've stated that fact several times. What's fair is to leave it like it is and work on other pages that are seriously lacking in content and correctness that deserves your attention.Broadmoor (talk) 23:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Broadmoor. You have new messages at Jay-Sebastos's talk page.
Message added 01:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 01:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Tuskegee University, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 18:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how the NCAA link isn't a reliabile source Broadmoor (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me where the administrators agreed with you and blocked the other person who kept adding the NCAA sanctions? From what I remember, you were the one blocked for edit-warring, not ElKevbo, who was the only you were edit-earring with. This shows that the admin, Swarm, didn't take a side and said that you two need to talk it out more. I was just getting ready to comment on the user's page when I saw your comment. Corky | Chat? 00:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm convinced you're ElKevbo just a different user name ... why of all content to add are you adding the NCAA Sanctions from 3 years ago just like he was. And I wasn't blocked for the NCAA Sanctions which is the topic at hand. The administrators locked the account to prevent ElKevbo from adding unnecessary and biased content and for also being a hostile editor which I provided.Broadmoor (talk) 00:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that you were blocked for edit-warring with that user; I didn't say what you were blocked for, I just said you were blocked for edit warring. The page was protected, not only to prevent ElKevbo from adding it, but to prevent you from removing it as well. Once again, SHOW me where I've added the NCAA sanctions content. The ONLY edit I have made to the article was THIS, which does NOT even deal with the sanctions. I could really care less whether or not the content is on there, but you need to talk to him about it instead of edit-warring. It is getting old when you and another user are acting childish. Corky | Chat? 01:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Athletic rivalries, unless nationally noted such as Harvard-Yale, are usually considered non-notable and thus trivial. A good rule of thumb is that the rivalry is worthy of a separate wikipedia article, it is notable. Another good practice is to properly document the fact that these are noted rivalries via national media coverage of the games with specific mention as to how notable the match up is. Wkharrisjr (talk) 11:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Did you read this note before your last revert? If you don't mind, I'll take this issue to arbitration so we can resolve things. Thanks. Wkharrisjr (talk) 01:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to thank you for creating the article D.C. Black Pride. In case you were not aware, there is a campaign called Wiki Loves Pride, which runs through the month of June; its purpose is to encourage the creation and improvement of LGBT-related content at Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. I've already added D.C. Black Pride to Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride 2015/Results to reflect your improvements to an LGBT-related article. Feel free to add more articles to this page if you create/improve other articles throughout the month. Thanks again! :) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ElKevbo (talk) 17:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am Diannaa and I am an administrator on this wiki. I have looked at the material presented at an administrators noticeboard: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Persistent copyright violations. Prose you find online is almost always copyright, and cannot be copied here; it's against the law to do so. All prose must be written in your own words. There's more information about copyrights and how it applies to Wikipedia at Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright. Copyright law and its application are complex matters, and you should not edit any more until you have taken the time to read and understand our copyright policies. Further copyright violations will result in you being blocked from editing. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

I'm not sure how hard it is to summarize what you've edited, but apparently it is pretty difficult for you. If you don't want to use it, that's fine, just be prepared when you remove a large amount of content, it will be reverted for an unexplained reason. This isn't your first time hearing about this, either.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list and
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Corkythehornetfan 17:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I normally do, but I've had the discussion with ElKevbo before about his biased editing on the matter so I didn't leave anything. Any opportunity he has to challenge me even though evidence proves he's in the wrong, he will. Thanks for the reminder.Broadmoor (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Normally do? I would beg to differ... Your contributions shows you used it earlier today (twice!), but then that last time you used one was on this edit:

22:20, 19 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+239)‎ . . Florida A&M University ‎ (Undid revision 672215724 by ElKevbo (talk) Here you go, yes it's history).

I wasn't really talking about your interactions with ElKevbo, it was really just a reminder because I've seen your name in my watchlist a lot w/out a summary. Just remember, not only does it help other users, but it helps you as well. Corkythehornetfan 18:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I will be more mindful of that. If I feel I can easily prove it's grossly wrong or out of place I tend to be less inclined to leave a note initially but I will anyway moving forward.Broadmoor (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your contributions, such as to Hampton University. I don't want to repeat the above automated note, but I would like to join with others and request that you explain your edits using the edit summary field. It helps us other editors understand the why and what of your change without having to completely examine each change. In my experience, it tends to make my edits have less "friction" with others. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the source for the USF incident? —C.Fred (talk) 01:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I left it after the sentence again, it was in the original citation but you had to wait for it ... do a ctrl+f to find the incident. There's many stories about that incident and Zeta Phi Beta is one entity so if one soror doesn't something wrong, it's a reflection of the whole organization which is why there's a intensive screening process for membership. Hazing culture is still strong in ZPhiB and it needs to be documented, has been for years. It's a reality good or bad.Broadmoor (talk) 01:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the various NPHC articles, you may simply want to get the text to the form you want in a local sandbox and then copy it over.Naraht (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you added to the Jackson, Mississippi article that Jackson State University is the largest HBCU in Mississippi. Could you please add a reliable source to your edit? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Florida A&M University, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited African Americans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Great Migration. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For context on this, keep in mind the point of the paragraph. For further reading, start with List of research universities in the United States (but follow through to the cited sources) TEDickey (talk) 10:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm not sure if you saw my response or not, but I realized that I left out a bracket so it didn't ping you. So incase you didn't, I said go ahead! The only think I do with rivalry articles is sometimes convert the old tables to the new table. ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 00:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Your edit summary is wrong. I just looked at two such articles -- Japanese Americans and American Jews -- and neither has an "increase" or "decrease" indicator next to the population.

As I wrote in my edit summary, please read the instructions at Template:Increase. The population of African Americans is not comparable to "ranking in a list or company profit". — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Either remove all increase symbols or don't remove the one from African Americans. ::::

I just corrected your error at African Americans again. Please start a discussion at Talk:African Americans if you have any rational justification for your edit. Thank you. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What does it mean that it's not "comparable" to ranking in a list or company profit? Those are examples. The template documentation says "These templates show icons to indicate increase or decrease, such as ranking in a list or company profit." which means the basic idea is that it can be used to mark increase or decrease, then it gives two examples, but it could give more. If you have a real problem with the presence of this additional information on African Americans, I suggest you state it on Talk:African Americans (which seems like a better place than here), but nitpicking on the template's documentation doesn't show a real problem, and certainly not an "error". LjL (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at African Americans shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
I sent the other editor a warning but you are not exempted from discussing it in the proper place either. I see nothing in the template's documentation against using it, but it won't hurt to make a good argument about why it's beneficial to use it in the first place (is it supported by sources?), and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS justifies neither adding it nor removing it. LjL (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've already tried reasoning, I said if the indicator is wrong why do other pages have it but I got no response outside of I'm wrong despite having proof that most similiar pages have the indicatorsBroadmoor (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a sound line of reasoning: just because other possibly wrong stuff exists on Wikipedia doesn't mean it should be copied elsewhere. Both of you should make good arguments about why this should be included or not, which should not be based on what other similar pages do, unless you can show that what they do, they do for good, sound, policy-based reasons. LjL (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LjL that was not my complete argument. I said if it's wrong on the African American page, why is there no imitative to take it off the 3 other ethnic group pages mentioned that have the very same thing. And to that I got no valid response outside of because I said so. I'm fine removing the indicator but it also should be removed from the ethnic group pages which they didn't seem to agree with. What sense does that make?Broadmoor (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It makes perfect sense to first ensure the original dispute is solved on the page where it originally took place, before enforcing the same outcome on other pages; not doing so could be seen as WP:POINTY editing and is really not recommended. Thus, "why aren't they doing the same on other pages too?" is far from a good argument to make, and falls under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS like I've kept telling you. LjL (talk) 16:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well I see what the administrators have to say. I don't think it's that simple.Broadmoor (talk) 16:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Broadmoor reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: ). Thank you. Thomas.W ^talk 14:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas.W we're already discussing this on the African American talk page ... go see for yourself.Broadmoor (talk) 14:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And? Whether or not you're discussing it, you've gratuitously violated the WP:3RR rule, and now you've been reported, and informed about the report as is required. Good luck with not being blocked; even though I was in support of your change, your way of defending it has been utterly inappropriate (I see you've even told Thomas.W in the edit summary to a further revert that other articles create precedent, in complete defiance of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXITS which I've by now pointed you at several times), and if you get blocked, you had it coming; sorry. LjL (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did nothing wrong in my egregiously wrong in my opinion, I did what I knew was best to stand for integrity and consistency in editing. I didn't call anyone out there name and create a hostile environment like the other users. Had I known how to report a block I would've done that but I don't remember how to do thatBroadmoor (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You broke WP:3RR, which is a bright-line rule, after being clearly warned about it, so by definition, you did something egregiously wrong. The wrongness of what others did is more arguable, but what you did is grounds for an immediate block, depending on the closing admin's best judgment. LjL (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right but I should have not got the warning in the first place, that's the problem. But like I said the closing administrator will have the final say, I'm making my argument the best as I can.Broadmoor (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What? That makes no sense. You were about to break WP:3RR, so of course you should have got the warning. That's what warnings are for. People aren't meant to get a get-out-of-jail-free card for edit warring past 3RR just out of not being warned for it. That's pure nonsense; and as you can see, you've now been blocked, so you weren't doing a very good job of arguing (especially not by accusing established editors of sockpuppeting, that was really hideous). Well, now at least you'll have a fair bit of off-Wiki time to read up on Wikipedia policies. LjL (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I just love how Bishonen blocked me for edit warring and false accusations (which I'm entitled into my opinion) without even acknowledging how MShabazz called me a "dick" and other names more than once ... is that not worthy of some type of block or repercussions? Wikipedia is lacking in fair administrators. You should speak up on it LjL as well and have this investigated.

I've already spoken up on it - repeatedly, once on Talk:African Americans and once on your edit warring report - but honestly, after your shenanigans on the report, I don't expect any sanctions to be handed out to anyone but you. If you're new, try to learn, not to yell left and right and make absurd accusations that you can't prove like that two well-established editors are the same user. Being "entitled to your opinion" doesn't mean you are entitled to make such personal accusations against other editors; to most Wikipedians, that sort of thing is worse than using words like "dick". LjL (talk) 16:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LjL oh yeah my personal opinion that someone is using multiple accounts is WAY worse than being called the derogatory term "dick" multiple times. And a opinion doesn't have to be proved, just like no one was able to prove that a growth indicator didn't belong without a shadow of a doubt and it was fine. And furthermore, if MShabazz was entitled to call me names without repercussions, I'm entitled to my opinion on him. This isn't a fair process or one that makes sense no matter how you try to rationalize it. This site is controlled by a bunch of psycho cyber bullies and biased editors.Broadmoor (talk) 14:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Walk away then. LjL (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for disruptive editing and edit warring on African Americans, ditto on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, and ridiculous accusations.[1][2]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bishonen | talk 16:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I restored your edit adding Hampton University, replacing the revert claiming its addition was "not an improvement" to the article. While at William and Mary, I enjoyed taking advantage of some of the mid 1800s Virginia Census data then available at Hampton Institute's library which I could not get my hands on at W&M...Your proposed edit including Hampton University may take some additional attention, I regret to say. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Jackson State University

added a link pointing to Ethopia

Southern University

added a link pointing to Georgia

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited North Carolina Central University, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Honors Program. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it, I meant honors college/honors program.Broadmoor (talk) 14:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chandra Minor until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 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. TheLongTone (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate an apology for your offensive remarks on the discussion page.TheLongTone (talk) 15:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Doug Williams (quarterback), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Harris. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source(s)? 🎓 Corkythehornetfan 🎓 03:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ElKevbo (talk) 10:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to make an article on VH1's show, there appears to be enough infomration out there and due to the controversy it was covered much more than some other VH1 shows.Naraht (talk) 14:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed that you recently made a contribution to the Atlanta University Center article that seemed to be a test. Your test worked! However, test edits on live articles disrupt Wikipedia and may confuse readers. If you want more practice editing, the sandbox is the best place to do so. 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) 22:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Broadmoor. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm General Ization. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Texas Southern University, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. General Ization ^Talk 01:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. General Ization ^Talk 01:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Texas Southern University. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. General Ization ^Talk 01:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is something that I have been meaning to talk to you about (and I would really appreciate your comments at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fraternities_and_Sororities#Controversies to restart it)

You added two controversies on Pi Kappa Alpha. The 2017 Cal State Chico National Forest situation definitely has National Coverage and thus qualifies for inclusion Pi Kappa Alpha. OTOH, the one added in 2010, has a ref which is local coverage in the school newspaper, and IMO doesn't belong on the page. I'd appreciate if we could use this to explain what sort of coverage is needed in this regard.Naraht (talk) 13:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This revert isn't how things work on Wikipedia. First, you don't WP:OWN the article. Second, unsourced material can be deleted on sight. The burden of proof is one the editor who wants to keep material in an article. I'll give some time before I look at this again but strongly recommend that you reconsider the revert, or find some sourcing. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since when did every school document every tradition.Broadmoor (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Bri's talkpage Since when every university documents all of its rich traditions. Nothing listed as a tradition on the page in question is outlandish or questionable. I can personally vouch for what's listed.Broadmoor (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can see above that people have had an attempt to educate you on what a reliable source is and why they are so important to Wikipedia. Maybe it is futile but I will try again. Your recollection or whatever, if it had been published, would be a primary source and the least-desirable kind of sourcing, not admissible in most cases. Since it hasn't even been documented (and, by the way, we don't know who you are), it is completely inadmissible. Surely you must realize this? Sometimes, facts, though they may be facts, must be left unsaid here, this is summed up in WP:NOTTRUTH which is worth a read, if that stings. It elaborates Wikipedia:Verifiability which is a policy -- that means it's not my opinion, it's just how things are. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can see also you have an insidious agenda. Why would delete the picture of the architecture picture on the page? You're making all kinds of biased and ridiculous edits and not adding anything of substance Broadmoor (talk) 01:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Broadmoor. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pi Kappa Alpha, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Harris County (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Historically black colleges and universities. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

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

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. When multiple editors give multiple reasons to dispute an edit you make, re-doing that same edit without comment is not going to get you anywhere. DMacks (talk) 17:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did leave comments and explained the issue on the talk page. But there's one editor committed to conveying a false narrative about HBCUs and apparently I'm the only that seems to care about the integrity of Wikipedia.Broadmoor (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ElKevbo (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In case you missed it, there is an open discussion here about the logo that you are repeatedly inserting into the Texas Southern University article. There is also discussion on the topic here. I strongly recommend you stop edit warring on this issue. ElKevbo (talk) 00:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding the athletics logo in the Texas Southern University article. Per WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFC#UUI§17, we cannot include it the article. The only article it is allowed in is Texas Southern Tigers. Why? Because it is a non-free logo and copyrighted, only allowing us to use it in one article. File:Houston Cougars logo.svg, fails originality, making it in the Public Domain. Public Domain images are allowed in any article because they are not copyrighted. I hope this helps you and maybe will make you quit edit warring. Corky 00:33, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Corkythehornetfan I'm not convinced I'm violating any rules. There are many university pages that have images not in the public domain on their main page and no one is complaining. And it's befitting for the image to be on the main page, I don't see the big deal. If it can be on the athletics page, it should be OK the main page as well. And just because no one didn't take the time to place the image in the public domain, doesn't mean it can't be used as such. It's not a precious protected image, it's everywhere. Broadmoor (talk) 00:54, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the policies I linked? They specifically say these can't be used. University articles that have non-free logos are usually in the infobox, which include the seal and the university logo. Those are perfectly fine. What isn't fine is a non-free athletics logo being used in the article. It is just a decorative non-free file when in it is used in the body of the article... that violates WP:NFCC#8. Do you have proof that isn't copyrighted? I'll be glad to ping another user who deals with images on a daily basis if you don't believe us. Corky 00:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you're not convinced that you're violating any rules is precisely why I have placed the warning below here on your page. You are not editing collaboratively; you are saying that because you don't think it's a problem, it's not a problem. That's not the way things work here. You'd think that, already having been blocked twice for edit warring, you'd know that by now. Keep in mind that your next block will be longer than the last if you persist. General Ization ^Talk 00:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:General Ization you haven't been following the incident. I have been provided lengthy links with all kinds of content in them but none of it concisely addresses the matter at hand so like I said I'm still not convinced. I did attempt to engage in fair dialogue about the matter but things are rarely resolved that way without going to a dispute board of some sort.Broadmoor (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line is that you don't need to be convinced. You are persistently adding content that other editors have objected to (for reasons they have tried to explain to you), and you are doing so in a way that constitutes edit warring. You are strongly encouraged to stop now, because if you continue, convinced or not you will be blocked from editing. General Ization ^Talk 01:19, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I need to be convince other editors what I'm doing is right, I need to be completely convinced what they doing is right as well. And how am I supposed to be sure it's not the same editor with different accounts. I have two different Wikipedia accounts ... one at home and one at work.User:General Ization.Broadmoor (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Texas Southern University. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. General Ization ^Talk 00:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have contributed before, I'd like your opinions.Naraht (talk) 15:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(User talk:Naraht) I feel they (frat members) were going to eventually find a flimsy loophole to remove any truthful information that put the fraternity in a negative light. I'm surprised it took so long. But I do feel the good and highly publicized bad needs to be there for balance and integrity reasons. The fraternity has always been plagued with many serious hazing violations and that should be clear. Hazing is part of the frat's identity regardless if they like it or not, it's the truth. Broadmoor (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Broadmoor. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add these photos to The Human Jukebox article?

Please add photo between photo's of building and dancers.

Add Caption 'Longtime Director of Bands, Dr. Isaac Greggs "Doc"(1969-2005).

' Add Caption 'Exclusive "S" worn only by members and Alumni of Southern University Marching Band.'

It would be greatly appreciated — Preceding unsigned comment added by TylerBCHS (talk • contribs) 23:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TylerBCHS sorry, I rarely read my messages but I made the change. Thanks for your help. And if you can, please let me know if you can help me build the other HBCU band pages.Broadmoor (talk) 13:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested and have time to work through the process, you should consider nominating North Carolina A&T State University to be promoted to Good or Featured Article status. It's a pretty well-written article and I think it could be promoted without a lot of additional work. ElKevbo (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ElKevbo Good idea, I will likely do so soon.Broadmoor (talk) 13:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Donald Albury. I noticed that you recently removed content from Florida A&M University without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. - Donald Albury 15:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop changing the nicknames. If you look at the link to the left of the nickname, it indicates the athletic nickname, like Braves and Lady Braves for Alcorn State. The mascot would be something like Mickey the Brave or something similar if it existed.Naraht (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Jacona. I noticed that you removed topically-relevant content from Jackson State University. However, Wikipedia is not censored. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. If the content in question involves images, you have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jacona (talk) 12:41, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Jacona. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Spelman College have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. Jacona (talk) 12:41, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Jacona. Your recent edit to the page Spelman College appears to have added incorrect information, so it has been removed for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. 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. Jacona (talk) 13:53, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Jacona. Your recent edit appears to have added incorrect information, so it has been removed for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. 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. Jacona (talk) 13:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited GSU Tiger Marching Band, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Coachella (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BubbaJoe123456. I noticed that you recently removed content from Thurgood Marshall School of Law without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 15:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ElKevbo (talk) 17:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. ElKevbo (talk) 17:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Black mecca, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! About this edit at Carnegie Vanguard...

This is original research (not allowed on Wikipedia) as the source is only a ranking of schools and doesn't actually say the school is distinguished. You need a quote from a journalist from say the Houston Chronicle or Houston Press saying it is such.

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 18:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a discussion underway on my Talk page - which might be better on the article's Talk page if multiple editors become involved - about the use of the non-free logo of the student newspaper in Georgia State University. Please join that discussion and address the policy concerns that have been raised. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 15:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Arlington, Texas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page XFL (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a discussion in the article's Talk page. Please participate. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 01:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Blue Ridge, Georgia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fulton County (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:20, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop inserting bare urls into articles as you've again done at Lesbian bar, as you previously did on 14:39, 26 December 2019 and 14:44, 26 December 2019. Read WP:BURL and learn the reason why bare urls are detrimental to articles.
You've been a registered editor since 17 June 2008, and I am surprised that a long-term editor would add potential link rot to articles. If for whatever reason you are unable to remember how to add a citation, the editing toolbar provides the easiest, quickest, accurate means for adding RS citations to articles — at the location where you want to include a source, do the following:
- Click "Cite" on the editing toolbar and the "Templates" window appears
- Click "Templates" and the selections for cite web, cite news, cite book, cite journal appear
- Choose one of the templates
- Click [Show/hide extra fields] to open all the parameters available
- Enter details about the source in the corresponding parameters
- Click [Preview] to review the citation
- Click [Insert] and the {{cite}} template is automatically added to the article.
I'm going to, again, fix the latest bare urls ... but please stop depending on other editors to clean up after you. Thank you. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 04:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't add external links to the text of articles. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 05:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Broadmoor. I noticed that you recently used celebritynetworth.com as a source for biographical information in Lance Gross. Please note that the general consensus as expressed at WP:RSN is that it does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria for the inclusion of personal information in such articles. I've gone ahead and removed it. If you disagree, let's discuss it. Thanks.--Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of African Americans in Dallas-Fort Worth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Mann (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for updating the # of students. Please fix the reference you provided - it's gibberish. Thanks. Contributor321 (talk) 15:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the reference is missing essential info, such as https// or www. to link to a website. Contributor321 (talk) 01:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm GreaterPonce665. I noticed that you recently removed content from Southern University without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 00:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the content to NOLA campus page now. Thanks for using edit summary to alert me. GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 19:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Contributor321 (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Broadmoor, I've started a new section in Talk:Gentrification About the LGBT subsection on that page. I noticed you've made a lot of edits in that subsection, and I would like your input. Thanks. 3nk1namshub (talk) 02:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Tuskegee University, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Contributor321 (talk) 02:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Broadmoor. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page J-Setting, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Please do read the recommendations at the COI guideline, in particular, the section about WP:DISCLOSURE. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Broadmoor, just wanted to point out in connection with the discussion about WP:Notability at Talk:J-Setting#Notability that when we talk about "Notability" at Wikipedia, it doesn't quite mean what it means in regular, English usage. Rather, WP:Notability is a specific Wikipedia policy, that is used to evaluate whether a particular topic deserves to have a standalone article about that topic, or whether it should be part of some other topic which is more notable. Also, while WP:Verifiability is about the content of an article, WP:Notability is not; it's strictly about the topic itself; a topic can be Notable, even if we have no article about it at all. So that's a key thing to know about Notability: it's a property, or measure, of the topic (the topic is identified by the title or proposed title of an article), not of the content. The criteria used to measure a topic to see if it's Notable or not, are listed at WP:Notability. This distinction between "topic" (the thing described by the title), and the "article" (the content; what's on the page) is key when discussing Notability, and it's easy to confuse them. When discussing Notability of the J-Setting topic, if you keep that in mind, and it will make it easier to discuss, and hopefully, come to some consensus about it. Mathglot (talk) 07:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Broadmoor. I've removed the thefamouspeople.com reference you added to Shaun King because it is unreliable. You may want to check WP:RSP and WP:RSN to help determine if a source is reliable, especially for biographical information which strictly requires high-quality references.

Also, please try to use edit summaries, to give some indication of what you're doing with your edits.

Thanks. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen your work before, and appreciate much of what you do. In this situation, you've made a flurry of edits to the Fraternities and sororities article, which is way at the top of the foodchain for multiple derivative and more specific articles below it. But in your recent work you are deep into the weeds: You are asserting, and expanding a section that talks about recent chapters in the news where biased or non-balanced publications take them to task for an anecdotal incident of the organization's bias. I note several problems with this:

• To include such claims, unchallenged, at the summary level of ALL FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES implies that these problems are systemic and widespread. This patently untrue, as all fraternities have lengthy resumes of internal legislation that seeks to dismantle all aspects of bias and the various "-isms" that plague society today.
• The fraternities and sororities practice their freedom to associate, choosing members from a privileged group who have already been accepted into their universities. Students then may choose from a flurry of groups, at some universities numbering in the thousands where they can offer their volunteer time and make friends. These relationships are forged as a two-way street. Fraternities and sororities come in a multitude of styles that embrace every lifestyle and segment. Yet your changes ignore this reality.
• Some of the multicultural fraternities and sororities are quite old; one of your edits, removing the sentence that they started in the 1920s allows readers to assume that they are a recent development.
• Many fraternities began as Jewish-themed, or non-sectarian; The fact that many of these have merged or fallen off is really a triumph of a more inclusive culture among Greek societies - pluralistic inclusion, as I explain here - and shows the exemplary progression of these societies to throw off a significant form of bias.
• Fraternities are among the most studied and watched groups on campus. They consequently are schooled regularly in matters of avoiding bias, and empathizing toward others. You do not mention this.
• One of the most recent areas of bias concern among some in society is that over transgender people. Even though internal legislation takes time to evolve, several national fraternities and sororities have adopted policies that they will not deny membership to transgender people. Yet you do not mention this.
• The articles you have cited are polemic, and antagonistic toward Greeks; You've not included any alternative views, nor put in standard disclaimer language. You therefore assert that these claims of bias are true. They may be, instead (and ARE, in my opinion) simple outliers.
• The historical record shows that fraternities have been on the forefront of pushing for societal change in the area of race, and with some exceptions, tend to be welcoming toward gay students, and those of the other segments of bias that you mention. To expand on the race issue, because it stretches further back in time, after the military integration of WWII, the next place it occurred in a rapidly changing time was within the nation's colleges and universities. Many, many chapters made stands in support of pledging blacks, who had formerly not been a significant proportion of the student body of these schools. Many fraternities and sororities rejected bias clauses in the 1950s; some quite earlier. Indeed, the record for the Greeks generally in this regard is laudable. --Some chapters and some individuals are exceptions to this rule. But are outliers, not common.
• Students are often reactionary, but student behavior is cyclical and predictable. Just because there is a petition drive to 'ban the Greeks' somewhere doesn't mean any more than an organizer is using this to cause a wedge. Campus protesters scream about so many things but new items of outrage shift the focus from last week's issue to this week's. As the Greeks aren't really "the problem" I do not think they will remain in the cross-hairs.
• As I told some of the young men on one of the campuses where I am a mentor, "None of you would deny someone who is gay to become a member. Nor would you do so on the basis of race. You are past that nonsense. You look at two things: "what is a prospective member's character", and "will they pay their bills." --It's that simple for the vast majority of Greek chapters.

Overall, your changes in this section of the article tend to paint with a too-broad brush, and (frankly) you smear these groups. You are normally measured in your edits, so I wish to call this out to you, and ask you to correct the article. Jax MN (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC) Broadmoor (talk)[reply]

Jax MN I can only smear the organizations with false information which I don't and never do. Every edit is properly sourced. Only someone who is pro-Greek life will consider my editing as smearing. I help provide a more holistic perspective of these organizations because if we were to leave it to them to tell their story they wouldn't do it justice. Many scholar articles have been written on the dangers and problematic nature of Greek life so that needs to be conveyed, it's not all peaces and roses and people deserve to know the truth.Broadmoor (talk) 18:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I was unclear. Take for example a large university article, an organization that was 150 years old, had graduated maybe 1M students over the years, and was the jewel of the state. These university articles are sometimes bloated, with excessive paragraphs on rankings and important graduates, but that aside, let's say the article was thirty column inches when scrolled. Maybe five widescreen monitors full, all laid out. OK, then in his writings, a minor architect who designed one of the oldest buildings is found to have said a racist, but cast off phrase in one of his letters. His buildings aren't racist, but maybe he said a joke about the Klan that, to our ears, was in terrible bad taste. He was a product of his times. What if a WP editor created a new section on that university page, called "Racist Building Controversy", and provided several long and slanted (NPOV) paragraphs about the architect, the building (which must be torn down, in the opinion of one of the many articles he cites), and in the feelings of so many students that another author tracks down for a "man-on-the-street" interview. Or woman-on-the-street. Our article has stretched from 30 column inches to 36. Is that fair or show proper weight? I don't think so. Does it merit a mention or even a "controversies" section? I'd argue no. It's not that I support racism in any way, but that on the balance, this is a tiny issue for a summary page about a 150-year old institution. That is my point.

If these organizations fought to hurt or abuse these various classes of people today, where there was broad systemic or institutional harm, I'd say go for it. But so many of these organizations are on the forefront, the very vanguard of valuable change that I think you are skewing mindsets by promoting these ultimately small and anecdotal items. Yes, you've cited an actual article. Yes, harmful events may have occurred. But on the balance these are not systemic, not widespread, nor representative of what the institutions want to do. Thus they are misleading. Jax MN (talk) 19:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you. You clearly have a vested interested in curating a false image of Greek life and won't be fair and impartial. There's not going to be a meeting of the minds. I know I'm being fair but of course me being fair will offend people who places Greek life on a pedestal. Evidence shows these organizations have been extremely problematic since their inception, the controversies actually should dominate the pages.Broadmoor (talk) 23:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What more likely is WP:UNDUE is the systematic exclusion of this sort of information by their enthusiasts. Jacona (talk) 12:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ElKevbo (talk) 19:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It took you 5 edits at Morehouse College simply to add "*Pershing Rifles". In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Contributor321 (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited LGBT culture in Dallas–Fort Worth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dallas County.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After your edit was reverted the first time, protocol per WP:BRD was to go discuss your issue on the article's talk page. Instead, you are edit-warring, including by removing RS citations. Please follow protocol or an admin will be asked to intervene. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And what I don't understand is we're saying essentially the same thing. I'm just citing it and for consistency's sake using the same language as at Raphael Warnock. So I'm having trouble understanding your objection.--Tenebrae (talk)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Hipal (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Florida A&M University. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Donald Albury 16:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Human Jukebox

added a link pointing to Drum major

Sonic Boom of the South

added a link pointing to Drum major

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Alpha Kappa Alpha for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:01, 24 November 2021 (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 check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Rsk6400 (talk) 06:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ElKevbo (talk) 02:13, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Florida A&M University) for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contributing to the article Howard University. However, please do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, your own website, websites and publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight, expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, as one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. If you require further assistance, please look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse. Thank you. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jackson State University, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phi Alpha.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Bhsbuc.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 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:03, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning, Broadmoor. I noted your addition of a See Also link to Horus added to the page, Phi Beta Sigma. Yet Horus the Egyptian god is not noted in the body copy, nor is that symbolism indicated on their crest. What is the connection? Jax MN (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to meet WP:SEEALSO. At best it needs an explanatory comment, and I'm not honestly sure it meets in anyway.Naraht (talk) 16:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited African Americans in Atlanta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Usher.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:30, 31 May 2023 (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 check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! glman (talk) 18:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Please do not remove context (as in, "3rd of 190") from university rankings. Per WP:UNIGUIDE this is required to provide a complete picture and prevent boosterism. Thanks! glman (talk) 14:10, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in one subject removal, you stated "proper protocol" - might there be a policy or guideline you can link to back up this effort? Some editors may find these deletions to be a little too bold at the very least. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 02:33, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have failed to explain the removal in University of Louisville, which I regularly work on, I have restored the content. I gave you nine months to reply. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 19:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. S Philbrick(Talk) 21:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Morehouse College, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Shelton.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After all the requests above, I'm not going to use an automated template. But if you want the rationale for your edits to be understood, like the two references you just removed from Atlanta, you should be entering an edit summary. Note that it is fair for someone to revert you if they don't know why you did what you did. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 00:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Alonzo A. Crim Open Campus High School has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 00:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to South Fulton, Georgia has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Broadmoor. This message is being sent to inform you that a request for a contributor copyright investigation has been filed at Contributor copyright investigations concerning your contributions to Wikipedia in relation to Wikipedia's copyrights policy. The listing can be found here. Thank you. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 01:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without evidence of permission. Please take this opportunity to ensure that you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content.

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 ~~~~}}.  MER-C 18:38, 18 July 2024 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I did not intentionally violate any copyright laws. I been editing for a long time and make sure to use my own words as I see fit but sometimes I may make mistakes. I feel I've been unfairly targeted despite being an important and active member of the editing community. If I don't have edit privileges a lot of pages will remain outdated, unsourced, and inaccurate. Broadmoor (talk) 03:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There is nothing unfair about this. Unfortunately, copyright violations are not an area where a lot of mistakes can be tolerated, as copyright violations potentially put Wikipedia in legal jeopardy. You were correctly blocked to prevent these mistakes in the future, until you can demonstrate that you understand what copyright is and how to use copyrighted content on Wikipedia. We'll have to get by without your contributions until then. Hopefully, you'll be able to do that soon. 331dot (talk) 08:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This 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).

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

---

Request reason:

I took the time to more thoroughly review the Copyright laws because the last thing I want is to jeopardize Wikipedia reputation which I spent so much time improving. You can look at my extensive editing history, everything I added is factual. I will accept a temporary block as punishment for not being fully familiar with all the copyright law but I feel an indefinite block is extreme and unnecessary. Especially when there are thousands of people who intentionally violate Wikipedia rules and are not reprimanded at all. Plenty of times I have to correct those edits to protect the integrity of Wikipedia so of course I take this seriously and I know I am more of an asset than liability to the Wikipedia editing community. Also look at my history of original pictures I added as to the Wikipedia Commons. Like I said, my goal is to improve Wikipedia not hinder it in any way and more actions have historically shown that. This situation is a whole misunderstanding.

Decline reason:

This unblock request shows you fundamentally don't understand the seriousness of your copyright violations. This is deeply concerning. In order to lift the block, we need to be certain that you understand how copyright works on Wikipedia. To allow the reviewing administrator to assess your understanding, please respond to the following questions in your next unblock appeal, explaining in your own words:

• What is copyright?
• How is Wikipedia licenced?
• Why is copyrighted content not allowed on Wikipedia?
• Under what circumstances can we use copyrighted content?
• How do you intend to avoid violating the copyright policy in the future?

Your answers will enable us to establish whether or not you should be unblocked. Yamla (talk) 12:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This 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).

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

---

Request reason:

Answering Yamla questions: 1) What is copyright? It is a legal precedent that grants the creator of original content exclusive rights to its use and distribution, usually for an allotted time. Copyrighting of course applying to literary work and allows the creator to control how the work is used, reproduced, and distributed. 2) How is Wikipedia licenced? The Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC BY-SA 3.0) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) are what Wikipedia is licensed under. These licenses enable users to freely share, use, and build upon the content as long as they attribute the work to the original creators and distribute any derivative works under the same licenses. 3) Why is copyrighted content not allowed on Wikipedia? Copyrighted material violates the rights of the original creators and could lead to legal problems. 4) Under what circumstances can we use copyrighted content? We can use copyrighted content under Fair Use. Fair Use content must be minimal and necessary, it must contribute to the educational purpose of Wikipedia, it should not replace the original work or negatively affect its market value, and proper documentation must be provided. 5) How do you intend to avoid violating the copyright policy in the future? I plan to stay abreast on all Wikipedia copyright policies and check my inboxes more often. I plan to use copyrighted material only when I feel 100% comfortable it falls under Fair Use. And I will do a better job of citing sources for any edits.

Please include a decline or accept reason.

---

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.

Looking at your page on commons.wikimedia, I see a substantial problem with copyright there, too. --Yamla (talk) 12:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True but that was several years ago. Also if you follow my history, you'll see I had no disciplinary actions since then and have uploaded many approved original content to Wikipedia Commons that I have seen used on by other creators on YouTube and the internet. Wikipedia has been a learn as I go experience for me. I've gotten better over the years.Broadmoor (talk) 23:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As just an observer here, I am rather taken aback really by the simple crux of this matter, that there doesn't seem to be an understanding that we cannot copy/paste material from other places, but instead we must put this material into our own words. Our K-12 teachers taught us all this. And it's a minimum requirement here. One cannot be expedient or unwilling to take the time to properly fold in ideas from sources without copying them. On top of this, admins should review this editor's lack of WP:COMMUNICATION before this matter. They don't answer questions/concerns left on their talk page by other editors. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 18:28, 20 July 2024 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I answered Yamla questions in order to be reconsidered to be active. I take full responsibility and did more research to ensure I'm fully compliant moving forward. Patiently waiting for response

Decline reason:

I don't see a consensus among administrators to unblock you at this time. I don't think there's a reasonable chance of you getting unblocked while your CCI is open. As an alternative, you can suggest on the talk page alternative wording for some of the articles reported there, which will give us a good indication that you understand copyright policy. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:31, 16 September 2024 (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.

Did you use an AI chatbot to generate those answers? The answers to those questions are stilted and formal, unlike any of the other text that you've written here. I wrote cult film, which uses phrasing like "Academic Mike Chopra‑Gant says that cult films become decontextualized when studied as a group, and Shiel criticizes this recontextualization as cultural commodification." And yet even I don't use the word "abreast" very often. Also, now that I think of it, that does sound like an AI statement. I mean, what policies do you intend to stay abreast of, and in what ways do you expect them to change from year-to-year? It's kind of an odd statement. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta say, as someone in a profession that has reasons to be quite wary of AI-writing, I don't really get the same impression about the reply above. It's stilted and formal, but not really in the same way that LLM replies tend to be; to me it reads more like someone who doesn't have a great deal of writing experience trying to be formal. Abreast is one of those weird words that pops up in this context, along with its cousin whilst. Don't even get me started on "whom." There are also some things there that an LLM wouldn't get wrong. Just for example, describing copyright as a "precedent" is very odd, and inaccurate, and I'm quite certain an LLM wouldn't improperly treat "fair use" as a proper noun. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I could be wrong. It's not a bad answer, though. Fair use isn't the only time we can use copyrighted content. "Copyrighted" is often used as a shorthand for "can't be used", but most content is copyrighted. Wikipedia itself is copyrighted content, but everyone is still free to reuse it as long as they follow the license. Fair use is also rather restrictive, especially on Wikipedia. It'd be best if you just didn't copy-paste anything into Wikipedia rather than relying on fair use exemptions. I guess this is close enough for me, though. @MER-C: what do you think? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright unblocks tend to be very high risk because recidivist editors are not effectively monitored.

I think the lack of communication means this editor should stay blocked. It hasn't been addressed in any unblock request yet. MER-C 18:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No I didn't get it from AI. Why isn't the focus on if the answers I gave are right? I was asked to do research and give a response about the importance of copyrighting which I did but now the conversation has moved away from that. I took accountability and trying to redress the issue. And I been absent b/c I didn't see a response for several days and was sick.Broadmoor (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]