Lsbstian77

Your submission at Articles for creation: Marie Ruumet (February 26)

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

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines for sports persons and athletes). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

See WP:SPORTSIGCOV.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit it after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Marie Ruumet and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

ChrysGalley (talk) 10:25, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Lsbstian77! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! ChrysGalley (talk) 10:25, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

March 2026

Hello, I'm Peaceray. I noticed that you recently removed content from White genocide conspiracy theory 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 your 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. Peaceray (talk) 21:25, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at White genocide conspiracy theory. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 17:18, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at George Floyd, you may be blocked from editing. Referentis (talk) 01:25, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Killing of Iryna Zarutska, you may be blocked from editing. LordCollaboration (talk) 03:53, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

There are already sources referenced in the article supporting the fact it was a racially motivated attack, references 39 and 40. Lsbstian77 (talk) 04:01, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

No, they do not. Both of those sources say that Council on American-Islamic Relations called for a hate-crime probe ("We join calls for the U.S. attorney to investigate the murder of Iryna Zarutska as a possible hate crime given video footage that appears to show the perpetrator commenting on her race and gender after brutally attacking her"). Neither source said that this was the motive, nor was CAIR even saying that this was definitely the motive. It is absolutely an unsourced claim. LordCollaboration (talk) 13:03, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of Jigsaw NayoksoywiangyongLamphun for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jigsaw NayoksoywiangyongLamphun 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/Jigsaw NayoksoywiangyongLamphun until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to 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 until the discussion has finished.

Doug Weller talk 17:11, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I Am Maximus moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to I Am Maximus. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing as a live article at this time because it has no sources. I have converted it to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. QEnigma 论 06:35, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Groypers

Please note that simply placing an AfD template at the top of an article does not constitute a valid deletion nomination. Please read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion to see the correct process, which involves (amongst other things) providing a valid rationale for deletion on a deletion discussion page. Frankly though, I'd have to suggest that you are wasting your time, given the number of sources the article cites - it is clearly going to meet Wikipedia notability criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Since you haven't responded, I've removed the template. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

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

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

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

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

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

March 2026

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be 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 noticeboards.
• 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. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. You have recently made seven edits related to race that have been reverted and you have received multiple warnings. Discuss such changes on the talk pages. Continuing in this manner will likely result in a block. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:46, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contribution(s). However, as a general rule, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generalisation, other talk pages such as Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory are strictly for discussing improvements to their associated main pages, and many of them have special instructions on the top. They are not a search engine, a chatbot, or a general discussion forum about the article's topic or any other topic. If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at the Teahouse. Thanks.  Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 02:20, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

March 2026 II

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

Important points to note:

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

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:59, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

March 2026

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:10, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't particularly care what your opinions are in real life. On Wikipedia, you need to abide by our core content and behavioral policies. That includes not edit-warring, not engaging in original research, and participating in the process of consensus-building. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I didn’t do any of those things? There’s not a single edit I reverted more than 2 times nor have I engaged in original research all my edits have referenced properly. And I have clearly used the talk page to discuss the edits if you check my history Lsbstian77 (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Point me to the specific infraction you see as edit warring? Lsbstian77 (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I will leave the unblock request for another admin, but this is you, yesterday, engaging in edit warring and original research. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:44, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Lsbstian77 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

I did not engage in the behaviour I am accused of

Decline reason:

Looking at the recent history of White genocide conspiracy theory, you were edit warring. I am declining your unblock request. PhilKnight (talk) 06:09, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

---

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

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).

Lsbstian77 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

I have been blocked for allegedly edit warring. However I never reverted a single edit, I made one addition to the page which was then reverted by another user I clearly did not engage in edit warring

Decline reason:

You removed a source you didn't like, based on an argument that suggests original research. That was reverted, and you reverted the reversion and called it "vandalism" (which it clearly wasn't). You were reverted again, and again you reverted the reversion. That is edit warring, and trying to argue otherwise is pointless, you should accept and admit that you made a mistake, and undertake not to do it again. As long as you insist that you did notthing wrong, it would clearly be unsafe to unblock you. DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:47, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

---

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

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).

Lsbstian77 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

The reason I removed the source was because it did not contain information supporting the assertions it was being used to support not because of original research. I had wrongly believed you could revert an edit up to 3 times before it was classified as editing warning evidently this isn’t the case. If I am unblocked I will edit less contentious articles in the future and will refrain from any edit warring.

Decline reason:

This does not address the clear examples of OR pointed out by Vanamonde93 above, nor others that have been pointed out elsewhere in discussions. I agree with 331dot that a topic ban seems prudent, and am disinclined to consider unblocking without one. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:41, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

---

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

I see no path to an unblock without a topic ban from topics related to race, broadly construed. 331dot (talk) 14:27, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Lsbstian77 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

I have noted not to engage in original research and not to edit topics related to race. Can I be unblocked now please

Decline reason:

You have not agreed to a broad topic ban on topics related to race. Frankly, I don't think that would be sufficient. I think you'd need a much, much broader restrictions than this, but you might be able to convince another administrator that it's sufficient. Yamla (talk) 11:34, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

---

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

In your own words, why do you think original research is bad for Wikipedia? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 14:16, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Because all content on wikipedia is supposed to be directly supported by reliable sources. Lsbstian77 (talk) 17:40, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Lsbstian77 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

I have stated multiple times in this thread that I agree to the topic ban and will not engage in edit waring or original research. Can you unblock me please.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I have stated multiple times in this thread that I agree to the topic ban and will not engage in edit waring or original research. Can you unblock me please. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I have stated multiple times in this thread that I agree to the topic ban and will not engage in edit waring or original research. Can you unblock me please. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I have stated multiple times in this thread that I agree to the topic ban and will not engage in edit waring or original research. Can you unblock me please. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

What do you want to edit about other than issues related to race? voorts (talk/contributions) 00:55, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

If you look at my edit history I had made many edits previously that were not related to race. Lsbstian77 (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

What do you want to edit about other than issues related to race? voorts (talk/contributions) 17:28, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nat Cohen, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kilmore was added. 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) 21:34, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Marie Ruumet (March 28)

Draft declined

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.

Feedback

The reviewer, Dan arndt, left the following feedback:

This draft lacks inline citations. Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires that all content be supported by reliable sources. We require inline citations (footnotes) to show which source supports which specific statement.

You must place an inline citation directly after:

• quotations;
• any material whose verifiability is likely to be challenged or is contentious;
• any material about living people.

Please edit your draft to support your statements with inline citations. Learn how to create inline citations in the:

• Source Editor: Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup.
• VisualEditor: Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor.

This draft's references do not show that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for sports. The draft requires either:

• evidence that the subject meets any of the specific criteria for sports;

or multiple published secondary sources that:

• provide significant coverage: discuss the subject in detail, not just brief mentions or routine announcements;
• are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight;
• are independent: not connected to the subject, such as interviews, press releases, the subject's own website, or sponsored content.

Please add references that meet these criteria. If none exist, the subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia.

Next steps

• Edit Draft:Marie Ruumet to address the points above, making sure to publish any changes.
• When you are ready to resubmit your draft for review, click the Resubmit button.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it may be deleted.

Need help?

• For an overview of our policies and guidelines see Everything you need to know.
• You can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Scam warning

• If anyone asks you for money or payment to publish, protect, or restore a Wikipedia article or draft, it is a scam. Learn about scams on Wikipedia.

Dan arndt (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: I Am Maximus (April 28)

Draft declined

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.

Feedback

The reviewer, VortexPhantom, left the following feedback:

This draft appears to be a duplicate of an existing article. Wikipedia does not permit multiple articles on the same topic.

• To improve the existing article, please edit it directly at I Am Maximus. If the article is protected and you cannot edit it, propose your changes on the article's talk page.
• If you are writing about a different subject with the same name, ask the reviewer to rename your draft to distinguish it.

Next steps

• Edit Draft:I Am Maximus to address the points above, making sure to publish any changes.
• When you are ready to resubmit your draft for review, click the Resubmit button.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it may be deleted.

Need help?

• For an overview of our policies and guidelines see Everything you need to know.
• You can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Scam warning

• If anyone asks you for money or payment to publish, protect, or restore a Wikipedia article or draft, it is a scam. Learn about scams on Wikipedia.

✓ortexPhantom (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Domthong Lukjaoporongtom moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Domthong Lukjaoporongtom, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Dan arndt (talk) 08:35, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Isaac Mohamed moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Isaac Mohamed, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Dan arndt (talk) 08:52, 4 May 2026 (UTC)