Jump to content

User talk:Kc2290

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Request to be UNBLOCKED.

It says that I "abused editing privileges." I disagree, I always edited and sourced my entries accordingly. I feel I was removed because I largely made edits to someone on the political Right and was the target of Leftist trolls.

Kc2290 (talk) 02:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)Kc2290[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of The Trump Revolution

[edit]

Hello Kc2290,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged The Trump Revolution for deletion, because it seems to be copied from another source.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. JbhTalk 14:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! JbhTalk 14:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kc2290, you are invited to the Teahouse!

[edit]
Teahouse logo

Hi Kc2290! 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 78.26 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse
We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

[edit]
Hello, Kc2290. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 23:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.[reply]

Please fix your signature

[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! As of this revision, your signature is ~Kc2290. This violates WP:SIGLINK, meaning that you must have “at least one direct internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page.” For help on fixing your signature, please see WP:FIXSIG or reply to me here. Thank you; happy editing! —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 23:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Can someone please remove the flag template from this page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilana_Mercer

Thanks

Kc2290 (talk) 09:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)kc2290[reply]

About your article on Into The Cannibal's Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa

[edit]

Hi, I've noticed that in this article, you have written a long section of quotes from the book. While I can't find any policy that specifically prohibits the use of such quotes, in general book articles on Wikipedia do not have such lists of quotations, and only include quotations when it is relevant to a specific section of the article discussing the book. I would remove the entire section myself, but it seems like you have put a lot of effort into it and I would like to inform you first. You can see WP:QUOTE for more guidelines regarding quotes. Thanks! Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 10:12, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Trump Revolution: The Donald's Creative Destruction Deconstructed (August 30)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Narutolovehinata5 was:
This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.
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 when they have been resolved.
Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:The Trump Revolution: The Donald's Creative Destruction Deconstructed concern

[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:The Trump Revolution: The Donald's Creative Destruction Deconstructed, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ilana Mercer

[edit]

There's discussion at the BLP Noticeboard that involves the entries on Ilana Mercer and her books. Please comment there.

Looking at your edit history, I've noticed that most of your edits are related to Ilana Mercer and seem to cast her in a positive light. I just wanted to make sure you were aware of Wikipedia policies on conflict of interest editing, as well as policies on Neutral point of view and Reliable Sources. These are particularly relevant when dealing with material related to living persons. Nblund talk 14:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Ilana Mercer. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you.
Information icon Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Ilana Mercer, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and reverted your edits at Ilana Mercer once again - you still haven't engaged with the discussion or meaningfully addressed the issues being raised by multiple editors - responding to concerns about relying too heavily on WP:PRIMARY sources by adding even more lengthy quotations from her book suggests that you really don't understand the problem. If you continue to restore your preferred version without engaging with the discussion, I will bring this to WP:ANI which may result in your being temporarily blocked from further editing all together. Nblund talk 19:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

[edit]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove an Articles for deletion notice or a comment from an AfD discussion. Praxidicae (talk) 03:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a further note, removing such a notice will likely hurt your cause if you intend for an article to be kept. Removal of the notification does not end the discussion, and an editor knowledgeable about the topic, who otherwise may have sources strong enough to prove notability, may not provide those sources because they are unaware of the discussion. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Levy

[edit]

Hi, can you revisit the Howard Levy article for this change to fix the date errors. Is the date 12 October 2010 or 10 December 2010? I looked at the ref but could not find either date. Thanks. Keith D (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

[edit]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing 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 ~~~~}}.  Guy (Help!) 01:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

[edit]

I understand why I was blocked. The use of non-3rd party sources. I have read over the rules and would like to be UNBLOCKED.

Kc2290 (talk) 08:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)Kc2290[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).

Kc2290 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

your reason here

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. In particular, please tell us what you will do differently if you are unblocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:30, 13 January 2019 (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.

I'd like to be restored. I understand the rules of Wiki and wish to continue being part of it.

Thanks

Kc2290 (talk) 02:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)kc2290[reply]

Appealing a block

[edit]

Just a heads up: that's not really how you appeal a block. You need to paste the unblock template below and then write your appeal in the part after the equals sign. e.g.:

{{unblock|1=I am requesting an unblock because...}}

You probably need to give a more detailed reason for why you should be unblocked. You were blocked previously, in part, because you appeared to have a conflict of interest with regard to Ilana Mercer. I think if you said that you would refrain from making edits related to Ilana Mercer, and that you had read and would try to conform to the WP:FIVEPILLARS, you could probably be unblocked. Nblund talk 21:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Me

[edit]

The conflict of interest beef was way off base. I have an interest in libertarian politics but that's it.

I would like to be Unblocked though. I'm appealing here! I understand the rules and will not break them again. Kc2290 (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UNBLOCK APPEAL

[edit]
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).

Kc2290 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am requesting an unblock because... I was blocked a couple of months back for making non-3rd part edits. I understand the rules and will not break them in the future. Please reinstate me. I understand the rules. I know I broke them before (using non-3rd party citations.) I won't let happen again. Thanks Kc2290 (talk) 03:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)Kc2290[reply]

Decline reason:

You have not addressed the concern around WP:COI, WP:PAID, and WP:UPE. Yamla (talk) 11:48, 19 January 2019 (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.

Some of you are worse than my old grade school teachers! I'm asking to be given a second chance as an editor.

I feel like I'm being held hostage by nitpickers.


You only need one unblock request, so I have merged the two. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:28, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you. Kc2290 (talk) 09:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)Kc2290[reply]


Again, to address all these points - there is no conflict of interest. I have never been paid to edit a Wiki page. This is crazy.

I'd like to be UNBLOCKED please.

Kc2290 (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)kc2290[reply]

Again, can I please be UNBLOCKED? I read all the rules, I understand everything I did wrong and won't make the same mistakes.

Kc2290 (talk) 06:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)Kc2290[reply]

UNBLOCK APPEAL

[edit]
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).

Kc2290 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand what I did wrong. Please reinstate my account. Kc2290 (talk) 08:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)kc2290[reply]

Decline reason:

That's great, but we need to actually know what it is you think you did to cause yourself to be blocked. From this unblock appeal, there's no way that we can tell whether you know what the problem was or not (for all I know, you think we blocked you for using the wrong font or something) so there's no way for us to know that the same issues won't occur again. Please compose a new unblock request explaining why you were blocked, and how you intend to avoid being blocked again for the same thing in future. Yunshui 雲水 08:50, 25 January 2019 (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.

I've addressed it before - it was said that I didn't use "3rd party edits" on an article. Which was true. I understand the rules about that now.

Someone also said, there was a conflict of interest between myself and someone I was editing. There isn't. I don't know how to prove it other than saying - NO THERE IS NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

The Wiki demigods are very frustrating. 

I mean what more can I do?

I'm at the point now where I want to throw my laptop across the room.

Kc2290 (talk) 09:10, 25 January 2019 (UTC)kc2290[reply]

UNBLOCK APPEAL (AGAIN)

[edit]
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).

Kc2290 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Will I ever be "unblocked?" I've addressed why I was blocked in the first place, a few times now, yet still BLOCKED Kc2290 (talk) 08:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)KC2290[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm not sure if you have a conflict of interest/paid editing relationship or if you are here to push a political agenda/point of view, but either is a reason to keep you blocked. I suspect you will need to agree to a topic ban of some sort in order to be unblocked, possibly one from post-1932 American politics-related articles. I am declining your request. If you make another request that is not significantly improved, you may lose access to this page and will need to use WP:UTRS to request unblock. 331dot (talk) 10:56, 27 January 2019 (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.

You know what - go fuck yourself.

Bunch of Wikipedia demigod assholes. You jaggoff "editors" think this is your site? Do you get a paycheck?

Kc2290 (talk) 10:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)kc2290[reply]

Stop hand
Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kc2290&oldid=1065969267"