User talk:Historymatters007

Hello, I'm 2A00:23C5:9313:B900:D9FE:4C2B:A11F:ECA8. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.

You are clearly connected to Angelique Monet. Please stop unconstructive such as spam articles ([1]) or removing legitimate tags from articles. And note Wikipedia is not here for your promotion.

Update

All the information on this page is verified since 1997 and has links with verified news. Historymatters007 (talk) 23:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Angelique - it would be best if you focused on building your career so that it warrants an honest entry rather than adding promotional spam to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:9313:B900:40CE:E88E:116E:85BB (talk) 08:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And in respect of your statement ‘All the information on this page is verified since 1997 and has links with verified news.‘

Wikipedia did not exist in 1997. It was founded in 2001.
A clipping from a minor newspaper that is given in support of the puffery introduction makes no mention of ‘award winning American multi-media talent that specializes in performance, film, theatre, musical arts’
The reference given for further puffery [2] does not support the claim of ‘her works attributed to the popularity of modern day ventriloquism’. The English of the sentence is also flawed.
The claim of ‘Angelique Monét is also the world's only stage actress and ventriloquist and the first African American female and black female ventriloquist world-wide.‘ is not supported by the the single reference.
The alleged relation to a politician is not supported by the single reference.
The reference to ‘She also started the Hamptons Black International Film Festiva’ is fake [3]
The reference to ‘her one-woman Off-Broadway show’ is fake. [4]

Cyber abuse

Dear unidentified user. The information questioned was corrected. You went and changed it to be unquestionable again. It is obvious you may know this subject and have a serious issue. You are being reported because it is obvious this will not stop. In 1997 the subject won Ms. Black South Carolina and the article reflects this, in addition to the other updates: Wikipedia writers are not suppose to change major press related articles of importance. This is the last text to you. You are being reported for abuse. Historymatters007 (talk) 10:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re."It is obvious you may know this subject and have a serious issue."

It is not obvious, and I do not know the subject.
Please moderate the tone of your discussions, such as claiming I "have a serious issue."

Re."In 1997 the subject won Ms. Black South Carolina and the article reflects this, in addition to the other updates" Trying to understand your garbled message:

A reference supports the claim of having won Ms. Black South Carolina and consequently has not been removed. However it is highly questionable if this is sufficiently notable to justify an article.
Other claims are not supported as the given references are fake.

Re. "Wikipedia writers are not suppose to change major press related articles of importance."

Please advise of the relevant policy, and how this article is important.

Re. "You are being reported for abuse":

Please advise in what form this abuse has taken.
I removed unsubstantiated claims and puffery, and with this documented inc. with edit summaries and entry on the appropriate talk pages. Whilst you have added unsupported content and fake references along with accusations of "malicious intent" and "a serious use." (see, [5]
I look forward to the result of being reported.

You are recommended to read the following: Civility, Conflict of interest, Notability, Not for promotion, Verfiable & Reliable sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:9313:B900:78F7:420C:AF82:154F (talk) 13:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Wikipedia. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Historymatters007. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, 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. Thank you. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Doug Weller talk 13:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Doug, Thank you kindly for your advice. As a master Wikipedia can you please check out the person who just edited this page. This page as per my wiki knowledge and research is not an orphan and it appears to person has edited the page previously. Please advise and thank you again for your advice in changes. Historymatters007 (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Weller. I am a supporter of Angelique Monet and monitor her page. Sadly fake claims and the cyber bullying has continued to the point the writer cannot spell. Can you check into the matter? Historymatters007 (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COI

User Historymatters007 is suspected as being Angelique Monet, and has been COI editting Angelique Monet for promotional reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.217.132 (talk) 22:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking

Care to explain why you've blanked Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angelique Monet? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I have not deleted the article. As a fan I noticed earlier someone literally deleted the entire article. In addition to misspelled words. I am glad you have noticed. Historymatters007 (talk) 20:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Historymatters007, I'm not sure you understand: you blanked a backend page about a deletion discussion, which should not be blanked. The community has determined, at that page, that Angelique Monet's page should be deleted as she is not notable. Wikipedia does not write about everyone, only those who have received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After researching it is Jack Pack Lambert that has blanked the entire page. Clearly this is cyber abuse and not Wikipedia writer practices. Historymatters007 (talk) 20:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What community you and Jack? It appears fake ID’s not listed in addition to her deletion on other wiki pages ongoing and the same users are the community. This again is not Wikipedia standards Historymatters007 (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Historymatters007, Well, no. John Pack Lambert was one of several people who voted to delete the article. In fact it was an entirely different person who actually deleted the page, based on community consensus. This is standard practice on Wikipedia. What is not standard is you blanking the page. I have no clue what you mean by fake ID.

Also, if you know the person who created the account User talk:Jomark bene, or you are that person, that is against policy, don't do that. Creating multiple accounts is known as WP:SOCKPUPPETRY and is not allowed, and tag teaming with other real people is known as meatpuppetry. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CaptainEek you are well aware of wiki rules and you accusing me of being another user is now an attack. It is clearly you and your group do not like the subject Historymatters007 (talk) 20:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Historymatters007, Our personal like or dislike of subjects has nothing to do with it. We are ensuring the encyclopedia sticks to its principles of notability. I see that this conversation is not going anywhere fast. If you think the deletion was improper, you could request a review at WP:DRV. But I caution you that it wasn't and unless you can show that she was decidedly notable using reliable sources, the article will remain deleted. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who is we? You and your friends? Who patrol Monet’s page? Add false information, and deactivate legitimate links? Wikipedia legal department will see these transactions and certainly the matter will be dealt with accordingly. Good day Historymatters007 (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. v/r - T P 00:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The user has blocked my account based on opinions. It is clear that Angelique Monet was a victim as a Woman of history. I have monitored her account to witness sabotage from the same wiki users and as a fan try to upkeep her page. The press around her if you look pre 8 months has been verified and a track record. She made history as a ventriloquist in 2001 and was a pageant contestant, these are press links verified and archived. My page should not be blocked due to unjust wiki users who clearly may know Angelique. Historymatters007 (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]