User talk:Bluegrass35

Hello Bluegrass35! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Hipal/Ronz (talk) 02:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Useful templates • Categories • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Tools • User scripts

Bluegrass35, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi Bluegrass35! 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 Cullen328 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

lead for 2020 election[edit]

Hey mate, thanks for your recent edit on the 2020 NZ Election article. I'm currently having trouble keeping the lead I have written in place, as it keeps getting trimmed too short. I would really appreciate some help getting consensus for my work on the talk page for the article in question, but only if you wanted. Thank you :)Aubernas (talk) 03:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I’ll try to help:) - Bluegrass35 (talk) 03:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A lengthy welcome[edit]

Hi Bluegrass35. Welcome to Wikipedia. I've added a welcome message to the top of this page that gives a great deal of information about Wikipedia. I hope you find it useful.

Additionally, I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily in collaboration.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

If you work from reliable, independent sources, you shouldn't go far wrong. WP:RSP and WP:RSN are helpful in determining if a source is reliable.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 02:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh Labour Government[edit]

Hi Bluegrass35, I noticed that you added references to a Seventh Labour Government your recent edits on the Sixth Labour Government of New Zealand. While this is a Labour Government unlike the previous government which was a coalition between Labour and New Zealand First, it is not really a new government since it is also a continuation of Jacinda Ardern's premiership. Before making any changes, I think it is best to first discuss it on the talk page with other users before proceeding further. Hope this helps. Andykatib 07:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:New Hope (Israel) § "Right-wing"[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:New Hope (Israel) § "Right-wing". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

US Senate[edit]

I'm losing my patients with you. Will you PLEASE WAIT, until the 3 new senators are SWORN IN, by Harris. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EXCUSE ME?! I’m losing my patience with you. I’m the one who’s reverting the constant vandalism because I’m trying to keep it the way it was. Look at the damn edits. You keep reverting the edits to them already being sworn in. The Senate convenes at 4:30 PM EST, so will you PLEASE WAIT till they are inaugurated.Bluegrass35 (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They haven't been sworn in YET. Harris will do the honors. GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That’s basically what I JUST SAID. - Bluegrass35 (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why then were you changing the Dem-Ind total to 48, then? GoodDay (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No I didn’t, it’s 47. 45 Dem and 2 Ind, other users were reverting it to making it 48 Dems and 2 Ind to 50. The Senate has not convened yet. -

Yes you did revert it to 48, at 19:42 UTC. GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No I didn’t, you kept reverting it. Look at the edits. -

YOU DID, at the 19:42 UTC mark. GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NO I DID NOT. you kept reverting my edits I was fixing them. I made an edit after that. - Bluegrass35 (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism at 2021 Israeli legislative election:[edit]

Hi,

I added quotes marks to part of the Balad section of the 2021 Israeli legislative election article, since "600 members of the Balad council will be eligible to vote in Nazareth" was taken word for word from this ref: [1]. Thanks. David O. Johnson (talk) 07:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I actually added my own words to it so it’s not plagiarism. Thanks - Bluegrass35 (talk) 13:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry block[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}.

As pointed out to you every time this happens, if you want to be allowed to edit Wikipedia again, you need to file an unblock request from your original account, Branflakes452701. If you haven't been edit warring and you state you understand why you were blocked and commit to stop socking, you might be allowed back. However, every time you create a new sockpuppet, it reduces the chances of you being allowed back. Number 5 7 09:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bluegrass35 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The only reason I created a new account because I don't have access to my original one and can't get on it. I understand I was blocked and I will absolutely commit to no more socking, if you allow me to freely come back and edit. I am sorry for the socking, but I did it because I can't get on the original account. I'm not making excuses for myself, but I shown that I have not engaged in any edit warring.

Decline reason:

As below. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2021 (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.

As you were banned (rather than just blocked), I will copy this request to WP:AN. Number 5 7 12:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the discussion here. It looks like consensus is emerging is that you should not be unblocked, but should wait at least six months with no socking and then request an unblock before you do anything else. Number 5 7 20:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for unblock after 6 months[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).

Bluegrass35 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello, I would like to request an unblock, after 6 months. I have not created any accounts after my block and have not edit warred. I was told to wait at least 6 months. I was blocked in the beginning of February and did no further socking. I am sorry for my past actions of edit warring, but I ask for an unblock. I ask to please give me another chance. I think I’ve learned my lesson and I will never create any new account because that violates the rules.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline. It's not been 6 months. Additionally, you know perfectly well you are banned, not just blocked. WP:UNBAN explains how to contest your ban. Yamla (talk) 17:37, 2 July 2021 (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 said, "I was blocked in February. It has been six months. I don’t understand why you tell me something and then not keep your word." February to March is one month. To April, two. To May, three. To June, four. To July, five. To August, six. Looks like WP:CIR applies here, too. --Yamla (talk) 11:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note also you'll need to make your unban request (WP:UNBAN, not a regular unblock request) with your original account, not here. Note that your extensive abusive sockpuppetry is not the only problem you'll need to address. You'll also need to address your disruptive editing and your repeated addition of unsourced content after many warnings. --Yamla (talk) 11:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]