User talk:Kewldude12
Welcome
[edit]Hello Kewldude12 and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your contributions, such as the ones to the page DeMarco Murray, do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.
If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.
I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
March 2016
[edit]
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to DeMarco Murray. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. The trade is not official yet, and it will not be until tomorrow. A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 22:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Byron Maxwell, you may be blocked from editing. Seriously, stop editing articles to include information about trades that have not officially happened yet. Please read WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SPORTSTRANS. A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 23:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Kiko Alonso. WP:CRYSTAL + WP:SPORTSTRANS. Please. Read them. A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. only (talk) 00:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC){{unblock|I was blocked for editing for 31 hours... I was editing articles and users kept deleting my stuff. I was warned more than once about being blocked however, I had stopped editing the articles and got back on Wikipedia the next day and I couldn't edit because I was blocked. I understand I should not have been editing the articles at the time, and I will not do it again. I was unfairly blocked but I will not continue to edit the articles in a way that is not right. I joined Wikipedia to be able to provide the correct information to people, and I will not abuse the privilege anymore.}}
- I'm not sure why you think it's "unfair." You continued editing even after your final warning. I blocked you one hour after your last edit because you'd been editing off and on for about 3-4 hours, so it was reasonable to expect you to come back and edit more. I don't fair it unfair at all. only (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- Block has expired. MER-C 11:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
May 2016
[edit]
Hello, I'm James Allison. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Erin Gruwell 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. Regards, James (talk/contribs) 21:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
DO NOT CHANGE!
[edit]Don't put that in an edit summary, it is uncivil. First, you are daring someone to change it just to annoy you, and second, you aren't the final word on what gets in an article, the talk page is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- In complete agreement Dennis, you're absolutely right (and per Civility, Edit summaries - what to avoid, etc.). Shearonink (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Using the minor edit edit summary parameter
[edit]This edit isn't exactly a minor edit... Per Help:Minor edit the minor edit checked box should not be used when "Adding or removing references or external links in an article". Shearonink (talk) 18:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
March 2017
[edit]{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. —Bagumba (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Kewldude12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hello, I was recently blocked from editing for a 48 hour period, however I believe another student I was working next to got onto my Wikipedia account (since I was logged in), and improperly edited the article titled Steph Curry. I apologize for the misunderstanding and am committed to editing and using Wikipedia as reliable and usable source. Thanks so much!
Decline reason:
Thanks for letting us know. As per WP:COMPROMISED, your account is now blocked indefinitely. Yamla (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
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.
Kewldude12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hello again, When I appealed my previous 48 hour suspension, I was logged into my own computer, and my account was not compromised, another student was on my computer, he did not compromise my account. In my previous rebuttal, I made it seem as he improperly edited the article "Steph Curry", I made those changes, and I shouldn't have, however he was telling me what to type. I am committed to making Wikipedia a reliable and useful source for all users, and hope to continue to contribute to providing accurate information. I apologize and know what I did was wrong, and will no longer do it in the future. I have already served the 48 hour suspension, and am asking for my indefinite suspension to be removed. I apologize for the misunderstanding and am committed to editing and using Wikipedia as reliable and usable source. Thanks so much!
Decline reason:
Your previous request was absolutely clear: "another student ... got onto my Wikipedia account (since I was logged in), and improperly edited the article". There are several possible way to interpret this request:
- You were lying in your last request, in which case you are clearly willing to make up any sort of story that you believe will get you unblocked.
- You are lying in this request, in which case your account is still compromised.
- You are not the owner of this account, because it is compromised.
- You are telling the truth in this request, and therefore have been allowing others to piggyback on your account, which is a form of sockpuppetry.
None of these scenarios results in the block being lifted, so which one is actually true becomes irrelevant. Appeal declined. Yunshui 雲水 09:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
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.
Kewldude12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hello again, I would like to admit that I did lie the first time I appealed my suspension this time. My account was never compromised. I shouldn't have lied but I am well committed to editing Wikipedia and will never mis-edit and vandalize an article ever again. I am committed to making Wikipedia a reliable source. I served my 48 hour suspension, but I am asking that the WP:COMPROMISED suspension be remove because my account was never compromised. Thanks so much, and I deeply apologize for doing this. , Kewldude12 (talk) 15:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
So you lied to say your account was compromised, thinking that would allow your account to be unblocked. Now how are we to believe you are telling the truth on this? As stated earlier, this will not result in your block being lifted. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
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.
Kewldude12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hello again, I would like to apologize not properly editing and vandalizing Wikipedia, I truly apologize and will not do it again. I have long served the 48 hour suspension. I would also like to say, my account was never compromised. I lied and I shouldn't have, and will not do it in the future. I apologize for that. I just so happened to be in a study room, working by myself, and improperly edited Wikipedia. This is the only proof I can provide, because I don't have any video or image proof, but my account was never compromised. I have tried numerous times to get my account back, so I can properly edit Wikipedia correctly. Since my suspension, I have seen articles that were improperly edited and tried to fix them but have been unable to do so, due to my suspension. I will no longer improperly edit Wikipedia and am committed to making it a reliable source for all users. Once again, I apologize for doing this. Thank you and have a great day! If this is denied, I will appeal again. So if this is denied, can somebody please provide me ways to prove that my account was not compromised. Thanks! Kewldude12 (talk) 02:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
So let's get this straight. In your first request above, you said "another student I was working next to got onto my Wikipedia account", which is an example of WP:COMPROMISED. Then you said "my account was not compromised, another student was on my computer, he did not compromise my account. In my previous rebuttal, I made it seem as he improperly edited the article "Steph Curry", I made those changes, and I shouldn't have, however he was telling me what to type.", You then said in the 3rd request "I did lie the first time I appealed my suspension this time. My account was never compromised." Now you have said "If this is denied, I will appeal again. So if this is denied, can somebody please provide me ways to prove that my account was not compromised." At this point, you've lied blatantly about the fact your account was compromised, or it was and you're covering your tracks. Either way, your account will not be unblocked, and due to the comment about another appeal, talk page access is being removed. Any future unblock requests will need to be done via WP:UTRS. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
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.
Kewldude12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #18501 was submitted on Jun 13, 2017 02:16:53. This review is now closed.