User talk:KenzoShibata

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, KenzoShibata! Thank you for your contributions. I am HiLo48 and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Help pages
How to write a great article
The Teahouse, our help forum for new users
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! HiLo48 (talk) 03:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Falun Gong. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 14:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! 220 of ^ßorg 00:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

Hello, I'm GorillaWarfare. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Enrique Tarrio, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:21, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

Plot descriptions cannot be copied from other sources, including official sources and IMDb, unless these can be verified to be public domain or licensed compatibly with Wikipedia. They must be written in original language to comply with Wikipedia's copyright policy. On Terminal Station (film). — Diannaa (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Sungodtemple. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Guillermo Maldonado (pastor), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1 !11 !! (talk)

Problems with editing at Richard Stanley (director)

Wikipedia's policy on reporting about living persons does not permit publishing accusations of criminal actions unless the person concerned has been convicted.
It is no defence to say that you are referring to the accusations as "allegations", not asserting that they are facts.
Nor is it a defence to say that "it is fact that allegations exist"; many things exist that are not suitable for publishing on Wikipedia, for many reasons.
The fact that someone has posted an accusation in a blog does not make it acceptable to publicise that accusation on Wikipedia, not matter how many quotation marks you put round it.
Posting material in a Wikipedia article because you think "the public need to know" is contrary to the whole purpose of Wikipedia: we do not act as a medium for promoting a campaign or for publicising anything. JBW (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JBW Is it okay to add to the "Career" section about SpectreVision cutting ties (with sources, obviously)? I think that falls within Wikipedia's guidelines, since it's already been widely-reported AND it's not directly pertaining to any allegations against him? My concern is that this article is being held to different standard than other, similar Wikipedia pages regarding persons who haven't been convicted, but have had allegations widely reported on in reliable media outlets (i.e. Armie Hammer). KenzoShibata (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Introducing an unsubstantiated allegation by saying "X has done Y following allegation Z" is just as much introducing that allegation to the article as saying "Z has been alleged", and I am sure you must know that. If you knowingly violate Wikipedia policy again you may expect to be blocked from editing. If, as you suggest, you know of other articles where similar violations of Wikipedia's policy on living persons exist, then obviously you should remove those violations immediately, and if necessary seek help from an administrator. The fact that one article contains unacceptable material does not justify putting similar unacceptable material into another article.

Repeatedly restoring your preferred content to an article after others have removed or changed it, known as "edit-warring", is considered unhelpful, and is not permitted by Wikipedia policy. If one disagrees with other editors, one should discuss the matter, with a view to trying to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Editors who persist in edit-warring may be blocked from editing to prevent disruption. A fuller account is available in the policy on edit-warring. JBW (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

False attribution

Please don't put words into my mouth, as you did in this edit summary. I have not "approved" anything. JBW (talk) 08:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm confused. You literally said "I have carefully re-read the relevant section of the policy, and decided that Richard Stanley qualifies as an exception as a "public figure", so I have reverted to a version that you edited." I'm not sure how else to interpret that except as approval, sorry if I phrased it poorly. KenzoShibata (talk) 00:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Francis Parker Yockey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Attorney. 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) 05:57, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Justinas Pranaitis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lithuanian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of TroySchulz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:44, 5 November 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am not a sock puppet account, I don't know why I've been blocked.

Decline reason:

Too much coincidence here to be a coincidence. The edit described by NRP was your second edit. Even if I accept your version, that is still meat puppetry. 331dot (talk) 08:50, 5 November 2022 (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.

Come on. A new account that was created one day after I blocked your old accounts. Same geolocation, same topics, even some of the same articles, where you fixed your old edits. For example: Special:Diff/962642256 and Special:Diff/967556398. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:05, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I live on a college campus, there are literally hundreds if not thousands of users concentrated in this area. How am I supposed to know if I have the same interest as some other user? I've been an active user for over two years, never had a single problem with admin, and made plenty of constructive edits. Then suddenly, without warning, you block my account, because I apparently have some overlap in articles with another user.

Furthermore, I don't see how me making a couple minor edits to an article that some bad user had made earlier is supposed to mean anything, especially when there was nearly a month between me and that other user, by at least three other users in the intermediary. Yet they still have their accounts.

I'm sorry, but this is patently unfair, and I think I'm entitled to a bit more faith from Wikipedia Admins than this. KenzoShibata (talk) 05:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]