User talk:Kerpen~enwiki

According to this, you have written an article for the Federalist. As you are attempting to inject a site you work for into an article, this is seen as both self-promotion as a violation of the Conflict of Interest Policy. I suggest you stop this now or a block may be coming your way. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 15:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. I linked to Patheos and to NASA. And according to this, you are an obsessive fanboy with severe WP:COI problems, incapable of WP:NPOV and suffering a rather severe bout of WP:BLPZEAL. Phil Kerpen (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is your edit. It included a link to the federalist. So...how am I wrong? Also, COI only applies to somebody with a relationship to said person. I met him at a speaking engagement once and that makes me...paid by him? What? Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 15:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong diff. Try this one. You feature your hero as your profile picture; that's a much closer relationship than me sending a couple posts to a website. Unpaid of course. Phil Kerpen (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Neil deGrasse Tyson. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Neil. I was unaware of the three-revert rule; Zero Serenity has violated it. Can you block him? Thanks! Phil Kerpen (talk) 16:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a problem. I have two reversions. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 16:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the error. I have one reversion. Phil Kerpen (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't. Addition. Revert 1, Revert 2. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of those was new content I wrote, and one was adding back a picture I had inadvertently removed in response to "Unexplained content removal," as explained in edit summary. I clicked revert once. Phil Kerpen (talk) 17:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a clear revert of Zero Serenity's own revert. You added more content, but you again added content that they had removed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe one and a half. Phil Kerpen (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can call it whatever you want. If you don't revert any more, it won't matter. If you continue to revert, you'll probably have to explain your novel definition to admins. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Phil Kerpen (talk) 18:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OUTING

I have blocked your account for posting personal information about another Wikipedia editor at Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson. Gamaliel (talk) 04:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain? The photo I tweeted included no personally identifiable information and was, I thought, relevant to his COI. Phil Kerpen (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

I don't think the objectionable Tweet revealed any personal information, and the user described it as not serious. Nonetheless, as a show of good faith I have deleted the Tweet and would ask this block be lifted. Phil Kerpen (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

What you think, and what he said, are irrelevant. WP:OUTING makes it very clear that you don't post that information publicly, even when you think it's relevant to a policy violation. — Daniel Case (talk) 20:41, 19 September 2014 (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.

Thank you for deleting the tweet. Based on that I will unblock you. Please remember to treat other editors with civility as required by Wikipedia policy and to assume good faith of editors with whom you disagree. Gamaliel (talk) 22:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your account will be renamed

Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Kerpen. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Kerpen~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

00:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed

This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: Special:GlobalRenameRequest. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk)

14:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)