User talk:Learningmaster

Hi!

Hello! I just redirected a page you created—Blackboard LLC—because it had the same subject as another article, Blackboard Inc. If you need any help or have any questions, you can ask me at my talk page. Thanks! RileyBugz会話投稿記録 15:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Learningmaster, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Teahouse logo

Hi Learningmaster! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Gestrid (talk).

Visit the Teahouse
We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

22:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017

Information icon Hello, I'm In veritas. I noticed that you recently removed content from CourseInfo 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. In veritas (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. 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 CourseInfo, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 11:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Information icon Hello, Learningmaster. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article Blackboard LLC, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

  • avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
  • instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
  • when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
  • avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
  • exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must 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 WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. 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 Blackboard Inc., you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 12:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Blackboard LLC (Historical) for merging to Blackboard (company)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Blackboard LLC (Historical) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be merged into Blackboard (company).

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

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

Smallangryplanet (talk) 06:49, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Blackboard LLC for deletion

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

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

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Blackboard LLC

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

  • A URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters contains an invalid URL. Please edit the article to add the valid URL. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 18:25, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Issues resolved Learningmaster (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Article moved to draft

Information icon Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. A page you recently created, 1EdTech: IMS Global Learning Consortium, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so it has been moved to Draft:1EdTech: IMS Global Learning Consortium where you can continue to work on it. Please consider using the Article Wizard or the Articles for Creation procedure. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read "Your first article". You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. --みんな空の下 (トーク) 16:56, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

LLM use - please stop

Information icon Please refrain from making edits generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology) to Wikipedia pages, as LLM-generated content is prohibited on Wikipedia. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. JTtheOG (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you JT - will use the sandbox more, I am using some tools to do research, so apologize if it leaked into the article, that was not the intent. Learningmaster (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 1EdTech: IMS Global Learning Consortium for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1EdTech: IMS Global Learning Consortium is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1EdTech: IMS Global Learning Consortium until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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

MrOllie (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Would suggest another editor do the research to find all the notable resources, there is a substantial amount of it out there as IMS was an is still an organization who's standards have been incredibly valuable for online learning. Learningmaster (talk) 06:28, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

May 2026

Information icon

Hello Learningmaster. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Learningmaster. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Learningmaster|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. MrOllie (talk) 21:45, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is not paid advocacy work and I don't receive compensation in anyway. Hope that helps. Learningmaster (talk) 22:31, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Why, then, is 100% of your editing adding content about Blackboard, adding promotion of Blackboard, or removing negative information about Blackboard? What you're doing on Wikipedia is indistinguishable from what a paid advocate would do. Are you associated with Blackboard in some fashion? MrOllie (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you edit Wikipedia using a large language model, which is prohibited. Electricmemory (talk) 22:18, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

icon

Your account has been blocked indefinitely for advertising or promotion and violating the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. This is because you have been making promotional edits to topics in which you have a financial stake, yet you have failed to adhere to the mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a form of conflict of interest (COI) editing which involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is strictly prohibited. Using this site for advertising or promotion is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, please read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the end of your user talk page. For an unblock to be considered, you must:

  • Confirm that you have read and understand the Terms of Use and paid editing disclosure requirements.
  • State clearly how you are being compensated for your edits, and describe any affiliation or conflict of interest you might have with the subjects you have written about.
  • Describe how you intend to edit such topics in the future.
qedk (t 愛 c) 22:47, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators: if this block includes a Volunteer Response Team ticket number, this block was placed as part of the conflict of interest VRT queue and the user must not be unblocked without the express consent of a user with access to the queue. Admins lifting or loosening such blocks without appropriate authorization may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.
cross icon
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).

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

Request reason:

I understand the concerns raised about my editing approach and I would like to request reconsideration of the block. My intent was not promotional editing or removal of valid criticism. I was attempting to improve factual clarity and historical consistency, neither good nor bad, across articles that have become increasingly confusing due to company transitions, mergers, ownership changes, and product lineage developments involving Blackboard, Anthology, and related entities, including the evolution of industry standards organizations. In retrospect, I recognize that some of my edits were broad in scope and that I should have relied more heavily on Talk page discussion before making substantial structural or interpretive changes. I also understand that removing or modifying negative material — even when attempting to improve sourcing, neutrality, or context — can reasonably raise concerns among editors about balance and conflict-of-interest issues. My goal was to work from citations, historical records, archived materials, and reliable sources to improve article clarity and reduce contradictions, not to advocate for any company or individual. I recognize now that intent alone is not sufficient on Wikipedia, and that consensus and editing process are equally important. Going forward, I am willing to: propose major changes on Talk pages before editing, avoid large-scale restructures without consensus, make smaller incremental edits, discuss disputed material before removal, and work collaboratively with other editors to maintain neutrality. I respect Wikipedia’s editorial process and would appreciate the opportunity to continue contributing within those expectations. I have read and understand Wikipedia’s Terms of Use, including the paid editing disclosure requirements. I have not been paid or compensated for any of my edits. I do not have any current affiliation with, employment relationship with, or compensation arrangement involving the companies or organizations whose articles I edited. Going forward, I intend to approach these topics more carefully by using Talk pages first for substantial or potentially controversial changes, making smaller incremental edits, avoiding removal of disputed material (good or bad) without discussion, and working through consensus and reliable sourcing with other editors. Learningmaster (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This unblock request shows strong signs of being AI/LLM generated. Unfortunately, we are not interested in debating whether an LLM should be unblocked. We want to hear from you about why you think you should be unblocked. If we wanted to hear from a bot, then we'd have bots talking to each other non-stop. If you can't write in your own words, then you will not be unblocked. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:57, 20 May 2026 (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.

icon
This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

Simply put I respect highly the editorial mechanism that are in place on Wikipedia, am new so am still learning appropriate inputs. I am not compensated in anyway for this work. There are lots of changes happening within the industry so trying to do appropriate research to support the articles, solely from a verifiable source approach, which is becoming more difficult as sources are stripped from the web as they age out.

The goal is simply factual preservation and identity of the companies and organizations that impacted the networked learning and online learning spaces. I have read and re-read Wikipedia approaches and am trying to be respectful to the facts, neither good nor bad but using research to validate notability backed by research. I apologize in that maybe I should have used talk before making changes, or actually I made the mistake that the editorial community would use talk to guide me in the development of the article. Its not my attempt to make any article look good or bad - the research dictates the material so I thought talk would be the collaborative component for feedback and updates. If some of these articles demand a criticism section then we can certainly add those, and we should if the material supports it.

Maybe i am not asking the right research questions to vet that out but I of course can add that to my research profile ala, Is there anything related to public criticism of a topic that should be considered. I think I may have done that in one article but did not apply that pattern to all of my research constructs. I was taken back that I was blocked so quickly as I half expected to see some updates and revisions in talk, but again my bad, still getting to know the community and how to best provide highly valuable, and well constructed material.

I love the activity of doing the research and formulating understanding and think highly of Wikipedia and am excited to be able to be part of this community. Unfortunately my excitement got ahead of me as I have been preparing research and materials for weeks on some of these topics so it was exciting to to see them come to reality, unfortunately I skipped some steps or wasn't conscientious enough to read some of the comments inline with some of the notations - still learning the pattern of what to look for in responses.

I am a prolific writer and admittedly use AI for research, and as a way to improve my own personal writing style to be more factual and resource aligned, which is the tricky thing about Wikipedia, tying the prose to the sources and remaining factual. In comic jest its like working with Detective Sergeant Joe Friday - "just the facts, ma'am", which is not always easy and yet is the way of the Wikipedia. Sorry that literally just popped into my head as I was writing this.

I also have been working with AI to build a research component that tries to go to the depths of the web to find material that, would be considered lost, so deep dives into web archive, way back machine, ERIC and many other sources that do more retention, especially with some of the historical components.

Sidebar: It's also tricky using those resources or even older online resources since the chances of them fading out is high and if that happens it compromises the source and citations that support an articles longevity due to natural resource attrition from the web. So net, net. Happy and excited to be part of the community and make contributions with only one intent of working with the community to create effective contributions but also preserve notable items of history before they get lost to history. Something maybe we can solve together.

Anyway - that's all I got. I leave the rest in yours, and the communities hands, for next steps. I believe I can be a powerful contributor, and can learn the ways of the Wikipedia - that said - that's up to you guys. I am sure you will LMK. Learningmaster (talk) 12:39, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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=Simply put I respect highly the editorial mechanism that are in place on Wikipedia, am new so am still learning appropriate inputs. I am not compensated in anyway for this work. There are lots of changes happening within the industry so trying to do appropriate research to support the articles, solely from a verifiable source approach, which is becoming more difficult as sources are stripped from the web as they age out. The goal is simply factual preservation and identity of the companies and organizations that impacted the networked learning and online learning spaces. I have read and re-read Wikipedia approaches and am trying to be respectful to the facts, neither good nor bad but using research to validate notability backed by research. I apologize in that maybe I should have used talk before making changes, or actually I made the mistake that the editorial community would use talk to guide me in the development of the article. Its not my attempt to make any article look good or bad - the research dictates the material so I thought talk would be the collaborative component for feedback and updates. If some of these articles demand a criticism section then we can certainly add those, and we should if the material supports it. Maybe i am not asking the right research questions to vet that out but I of course can add that to my research profile ala, Is there anything related to public criticism of a topic that should be considered. I think I may have done that in one article but did not apply that pattern to all of my research constructs. I was taken back that I was blocked so quickly as I half expected to see some updates and revisions in talk, but again my bad, still getting to know the community and how to best provide highly valuable, and well constructed material. I love the activity of doing the research and formulating understanding and think highly of Wikipedia and am excited to be able to be part of this community. Unfortunately my excitement got ahead of me as I have been preparing research and materials for weeks on some of these topics so it was exciting to to see them come to reality, unfortunately I skipped some steps or wasn't conscientious enough to read some of the comments inline with some of the notations - still learning the pattern of what to look for in responses. I am a prolific writer and admittedly use AI for research, and as a way to improve my own personal writing style to be more factual and resource aligned, which is the tricky thing about Wikipedia, tying the prose to the sources and remaining factual. In comic jest its like working with Detective Sergeant Joe Friday - "just the facts, ma'am", which is not always easy and yet is the way of the Wikipedia. Sorry that literally just popped into my head as I was writing this. I also have been working with AI to build a research component that tries to go to the depths of the web to find material that, would be considered lost, so deep dives into web archive, way back machine, ERIC and many other sources that do more retention, especially with some of the historical components. Sidebar: It's also tricky using those resources or even older online resources since the chances of them fading out is high and if that happens it compromises the source and citations that support an articles longevity due to natural resource attrition from the web. So net, net. Happy and excited to be part of the community and make contributions with only one intent of working with the community to create effective contributions but also preserve notable items of history before they get lost to history. Something maybe we can solve together. Anyway - that's all I got. I leave the rest in yours, and the communities hands, for next steps. I believe I can be a powerful contributor, and can learn the ways of the Wikipedia - that said - that's up to you guys. I am sure you will LMK. [[User:Learningmaster|Learningmaster]] ([[User talk:Learningmaster#top|talk]]) 12:39, 20 May 2026 (UTC) |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=Simply put I respect highly the editorial mechanism that are in place on Wikipedia, am new so am still learning appropriate inputs. I am not compensated in anyway for this work. There are lots of changes happening within the industry so trying to do appropriate research to support the articles, solely from a verifiable source approach, which is becoming more difficult as sources are stripped from the web as they age out. The goal is simply factual preservation and identity of the companies and organizations that impacted the networked learning and online learning spaces. I have read and re-read Wikipedia approaches and am trying to be respectful to the facts, neither good nor bad but using research to validate notability backed by research. I apologize in that maybe I should have used talk before making changes, or actually I made the mistake that the editorial community would use talk to guide me in the development of the article. Its not my attempt to make any article look good or bad - the research dictates the material so I thought talk would be the collaborative component for feedback and updates. If some of these articles demand a criticism section then we can certainly add those, and we should if the material supports it. Maybe i am not asking the right research questions to vet that out but I of course can add that to my research profile ala, Is there anything related to public criticism of a topic that should be considered. I think I may have done that in one article but did not apply that pattern to all of my research constructs. I was taken back that I was blocked so quickly as I half expected to see some updates and revisions in talk, but again my bad, still getting to know the community and how to best provide highly valuable, and well constructed material. I love the activity of doing the research and formulating understanding and think highly of Wikipedia and am excited to be able to be part of this community. Unfortunately my excitement got ahead of me as I have been preparing research and materials for weeks on some of these topics so it was exciting to to see them come to reality, unfortunately I skipped some steps or wasn't conscientious enough to read some of the comments inline with some of the notations - still learning the pattern of what to look for in responses. I am a prolific writer and admittedly use AI for research, and as a way to improve my own personal writing style to be more factual and resource aligned, which is the tricky thing about Wikipedia, tying the prose to the sources and remaining factual. In comic jest its like working with Detective Sergeant Joe Friday - "just the facts, ma'am", which is not always easy and yet is the way of the Wikipedia. Sorry that literally just popped into my head as I was writing this. I also have been working with AI to build a research component that tries to go to the depths of the web to find material that, would be considered lost, so deep dives into web archive, way back machine, ERIC and many other sources that do more retention, especially with some of the historical components. Sidebar: It's also tricky using those resources or even older online resources since the chances of them fading out is high and if that happens it compromises the source and citations that support an articles longevity due to natural resource attrition from the web. So net, net. Happy and excited to be part of the community and make contributions with only one intent of working with the community to create effective contributions but also preserve notable items of history before they get lost to history. Something maybe we can solve together. Anyway - that's all I got. I leave the rest in yours, and the communities hands, for next steps. I believe I can be a powerful contributor, and can learn the ways of the Wikipedia - that said - that's up to you guys. I am sure you will LMK. [[User:Learningmaster|Learningmaster]] ([[User talk:Learningmaster#top|talk]]) 12:39, 20 May 2026 (UTC) |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=Simply put I respect highly the editorial mechanism that are in place on Wikipedia, am new so am still learning appropriate inputs. I am not compensated in anyway for this work. There are lots of changes happening within the industry so trying to do appropriate research to support the articles, solely from a verifiable source approach, which is becoming more difficult as sources are stripped from the web as they age out. The goal is simply factual preservation and identity of the companies and organizations that impacted the networked learning and online learning spaces. I have read and re-read Wikipedia approaches and am trying to be respectful to the facts, neither good nor bad but using research to validate notability backed by research. I apologize in that maybe I should have used talk before making changes, or actually I made the mistake that the editorial community would use talk to guide me in the development of the article. Its not my attempt to make any article look good or bad - the research dictates the material so I thought talk would be the collaborative component for feedback and updates. If some of these articles demand a criticism section then we can certainly add those, and we should if the material supports it. Maybe i am not asking the right research questions to vet that out but I of course can add that to my research profile ala, Is there anything related to public criticism of a topic that should be considered. I think I may have done that in one article but did not apply that pattern to all of my research constructs. I was taken back that I was blocked so quickly as I half expected to see some updates and revisions in talk, but again my bad, still getting to know the community and how to best provide highly valuable, and well constructed material. I love the activity of doing the research and formulating understanding and think highly of Wikipedia and am excited to be able to be part of this community. Unfortunately my excitement got ahead of me as I have been preparing research and materials for weeks on some of these topics so it was exciting to to see them come to reality, unfortunately I skipped some steps or wasn't conscientious enough to read some of the comments inline with some of the notations - still learning the pattern of what to look for in responses. I am a prolific writer and admittedly use AI for research, and as a way to improve my own personal writing style to be more factual and resource aligned, which is the tricky thing about Wikipedia, tying the prose to the sources and remaining factual. In comic jest its like working with Detective Sergeant Joe Friday - "just the facts, ma'am", which is not always easy and yet is the way of the Wikipedia. Sorry that literally just popped into my head as I was writing this. I also have been working with AI to build a research component that tries to go to the depths of the web to find material that, would be considered lost, so deep dives into web archive, way back machine, ERIC and many other sources that do more retention, especially with some of the historical components. Sidebar: It's also tricky using those resources or even older online resources since the chances of them fading out is high and if that happens it compromises the source and citations that support an articles longevity due to natural resource attrition from the web. So net, net. Happy and excited to be part of the community and make contributions with only one intent of working with the community to create effective contributions but also preserve notable items of history before they get lost to history. Something maybe we can solve together. Anyway - that's all I got. I leave the rest in yours, and the communities hands, for next steps. I believe I can be a powerful contributor, and can learn the ways of the Wikipedia - that said - that's up to you guys. I am sure you will LMK. [[User:Learningmaster|Learningmaster]] ([[User talk:Learningmaster#top|talk]]) 12:39, 20 May 2026 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

(Non-administrator comment)Thank you for writing this yourself - have you got any prior relationship to the people or organisations you've written about? You've not really mentioned this in your appeal. Blue-Sonnet 12:54, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On re-reading this appeal, it feels like you've just re-written the AI's appeal instead of writing it yourself from scratch. You need to look through the block notice and the warnings you've been given, then address those in your appeal.

The one you've made above just reads like a random collection of thoughts rather than an appeal against a block that was made for very specific reasons.

I very strongly suspect that this appeal is likely to be rejected, because it doesn't address the reason for your block in any way whatsoever.

I recommend deleting the open appeal and starting again, in your own words, focusing on the reasons why you were blocked. Blue-Sonnet 06:10, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote it all from scratch and tried to speak directly to the issues. I did not use any AI as a guide. It was my thinking at that exact time. I can do a re-write but I thought I was being thoughtful in my approach and speaking to the core issues. I'll go back to the block notice and just reply directly to the 3 or 4 things it mentions in brevity. Learningmaster (talk) 06:21, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That would be helpful! Please also try to address this question in your appeal, you can just overtype your existing appeal with a new one. Blue-Sonnet 06:59, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(non-admin comment) You are not allowed to remove declined unblock quests during the duration of your block. It says so right at the bottom of the reviewed request itself: Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. — Dædαlus+ Contribs 08:26, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Anthology Inc. for deletion

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

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

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

Ca talk to me! 13:01, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:WebCT Company Logo.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:WebCT Company Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free 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) 17:56, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Anthology Company Historical Logo.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Anthology Company Historical Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free 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) 17:05, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.