User talk:KillaTrav87

September 2023

Hello, I'm Skipple. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Cruel Summer (Taylor Swift song) seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. - Skipple ☎ 03:01, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Cruel Summer (Taylor Swift song), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. If we are going to characterise the song, we will need multiple reliable sources which describe the song in this fashion. See the Critical Reception section of the article. Otherwise, this is a singular point of view. - Skipple ☎ 03:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023

Hi KillaTrav87! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Kevin McCarthy several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Kevin McCarthy, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Noah, AA^Talk 21:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why have I been blocked? I’m a relatively new editor and didn’t know about the edit warring policy. I believed my edits helped fully convey the gravity of this historical situation and I hope they are brought back soon. KillaTrav87 (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KillaTrav87, I have blocked you for 24 hours for violating Wikipedia's three-revert rule. You are welcome to continue editing tomorrow, but please do not edit-war when you do. —Bkell (talk) 21:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned earlier, I didn't know about the policy and made my account 5 days ago. Can I appeal this? I was only trying to help Wikipedia KillaTrav87 (talk) 21:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Help:I have been blocked, and Wikipedia:Appealing a block specifically for information about appealing a block. —Bkell (talk) 21:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks may be helpful. —Bkell (talk) 21:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just appealed KillaTrav87 (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

KillaTrav87 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello, Wikipedia moderators. I'm a new editor to Wikipedia (5 days old) and I added an announcement banner to the Kevin McCarthy page to signify the historical significance of the event. As you can see from my edit history, all of my edits have been in good faith and I was not aware of the three-revert rule. I understand my ban was only for a day, but I'd like to be unbanned immediately to help continue making Wikipedia the number one source for Internet users' desire to stay updated with current events. Thank you - KillaTrav87

Accept reason:

I'm going to remove this short block now as you seem to understand what was wrong with your edit warring and will act differently in the future. I trust further action will not be necessary. Pinging Bkell as a notification. 331dot (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are blocked, not banned, the two words have different meanings on Wikipedia. What will you do to avoid edit warring in the future? 331dot (talk) 22:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will utilize the talk feature on the articles themselves and try to get on level terms with fellow editors rather than simply reverting the edits. KillaTrav87 (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey 331dot. KillaTrav87 did not abide by their promise. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Kevin McCarthy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
A more formal warning that explains the process better. Jasper Deng (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing Kevin McCarthy for a period of 72 hours for restoring the same disputed edit that led to your previous block right after being unblocked. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you another chance and you blew it. 331dot (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I used the talk feature, I don't know what to say anymore. I understand why you guys aren't out to get me but I literally didn't do anything wrong and the fact that I would be banned for this while hoax articles stay online for years and get published into print publications, it's shocking that my announcement is given top priority under the file "ban-able offenses." I feel disheartened to be a member of the Wikipedia community right now and am disgusted out how unfairly I've been treated by more experienced editors. Goodbye KillaTrav87 (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)You did do something wrong: you continued to edit war to restore the disputed content right after being unblocked. Going to the talk page doesn't absolve you from the requirement to get consensus for the disputed content before restoring it. If you can't grasp the basics of avoiding edit wars and abiding by consensus, your going to have a rough road ahead of you. You are not banned, you are temporarily blocked from the one article out of 6.7 million+ articles on this website where your edits have been disruptive. You even retain access to the article talk page to continue the discussion if you choose.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're not fully blocked this time. You can edit all pages except Kevin McCarthy. What you didn't do right was restoring your edit before there was agreement (Wikipedia:Consensus) to do so. That's all. Also, nitpick: bans are not the same as blocks.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't banned, as I explained above. You are blocked from a single article. If you are aware of hoax articles, please identify them so we can take action. 331dot (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo, 331dot, and Bkell: I'm afraid we bit them too hard considering we didn't really explain things like BRD before lifting their block.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When I asked what they would do to avoid edit warring, I assumed that when they answered that it meant they would not edit war. 331dot (talk) 19:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I said, "I will utilize the talk feature on the articles themselves and try to get on level terms with fellow editors rather than simply reverting the edits." Before I had a chance to get on "level terms," I was blocked from editing the article. I didn't know I had to reach consensus before adding the announcement back to the article. KillaTrav87 (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you know, would you agree to refrain from making the edit at issue until you have a consensus for it? 331dot (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and would have in the past as well KillaTrav87 (talk) 20:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) But there was no explicit explanation that talking comes before, not after, the edit. That's a common misconception among new users that was not cleared up here. KillaTrav87, I'm trying my best to help you here but you also need to do your part; on Wikipedia experienced editors will often link policies and guidelines (whose pages begin with "Wikipedia:" or "WP:") and they assume you read them. That's probably the source of your confusion.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can certainly accept that others can think differently, but I guess I incorrectly assumed that our exchange meant that they would go straight to talking. 331dot (talk) 19:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on the content of your edit

Hi KillaTrav87, the focus in this talk page so far has been about the way that you have edited (e.g., the three-revert rule), and in addition I'd like to give you some constructive feedback on the content of your edit.

Your addition of the {{Announcement panel}} template to the top of the Kevin McCarthy article has now been reverted five times by five different editors: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. You should take this as a clear indication that other editors do not think that your edit is appropriate.

Why is this edit inappropriate? Here are some reasons, in my opinion:

The {{Announcement panel}} template is not appropriate for articles. As the template documentation says, "This panel is designed to go atop WikiProject main pages..."
You added the banner with the comment, "This article has been designated by Wikipedia as a significant historical moment." That is not something that Wikipedia does; Wikipedia is not in the business of designating events as historic. And, quite frankly, you are not in a position to be declaring things on behalf of Wikipedia. (No single editor should be declaring things on behalf of Wikipedia.)
You added the banner with the text, "Speaker Kevin McCarthy was ousted yesterday from his position in a vote by the U.S. House of Representatives, making him the first speaker in history to be removed from the role during a legislative term. To stay updated with this major event, you can browse and help update Wikipedia by accessing reliable news sources." As other editors have pointed out in their edit summaries, the {{Current person}} template that is already at the top of the article is sufficient to indicate that the article is about a person who is involved in a current event.
The historic nature of McCarthy's removal from office is already adequately stated in the text of the article and does not need to be overemphasized with a banner.
No other articles have a banner like the one you are trying to add. You are not following established style or processes.
The Kevin McCarthy article is currently a highly visible page, being linked directly from the main page. The banner you are attempting to add is prominent, large, and disruptive. To be honest, your edit comes across as trying to attract attention by taking over the top of a highly visible article.

There may be other reasons that editors feel that the content of your edit is inappropriate; I won't pretend to speak for everyone here. But I think it is clear that you are attempting to make a change that many other editors disapprove of. Consensus is crucial to the success of Wikipedia, and the core issue here is that you are insistently attempting to make a significant change that does not have consensus. That behavior is disruptive, and that is the underlying reason that you have been blocked twice now.

When you are unblocked, you must not attempt to make the same edit again. You may start a discussion on the article's talk page, Talk:Kevin McCarthy, if you would like to discuss the merits of your edit and attempt to build consensus. But I believe that the consensus of the community is opposed to the edit you are trying to make, and if so, then you need to accept that consensus and stop trying to make the edit anyway.

I am happy that you have recently joined Wikipedia, and I hope that you will contribute for many years to come. Please let me know if you have questions. —Bkell (talk) 23:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Vultures 1. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is unconstructive about that last paragraph? KillaTrav87 (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be more of a competence/edit warring issue, rather than vandalism, based on Killa's talk page. --Cjhard (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm GorillaWarfare. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Carnival (Kanye West and Ty Dolla Sign song), but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Association football has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Association football, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This IS NOT vandalism. If you can explain to me why it is it would be helpful. KillaTrav87 (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, KillaTrav87. I noticed that your recent edit to Association football added a link to an image on an external website or on your computer, or to a file name that does not exist on Wikipedia's server. For technical and policy reasons it is not possible to use images from external sources on Wikipedia. Most images you find on the internet are copyrighted and cannot be used on Wikipedia, or their use is subject to certain restrictions. If the image meets Wikipedia's image use policy, consider uploading it to Wikipedia yourself or request that someone else upload it. See the image tutorial to learn about wiki syntax used for images. Thank you. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 19:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Real Kakamora F.C. at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step III of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KillaTrav87, if you wish this nomination to proceed, you need to take care of this. If you aren't sure how, you are welcome to ping me and I'm happy to help. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: Can you help complete the entry for me? Thanks KillaTrav87 (talk) 23:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KillaTrav87, done. You can find it at WP:DYKN#Articles created/expanded on February 18. I'm not sure how long it will take for a reviewer to take up the nomination; when they do, be sure to reply to any concerns they raise. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, KillaTrav87. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Real Kakamora F.C., you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Struway2 (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Real Kakamora nickname and logo

Hello. I removed the nickname because there's no source in the article to confirm its use, and I couldn't find any mention of that nickname on any Solomon Islands-related media. If you supply a reference to a reliable published source that confirms its use, it can go back in. Without a source, it can't. As to the logo, you uploaded that yourself as your own work. There's no evidence for its use by the club, and so we're misleading our readers if we show them a logo that cannot be demonstrated in reliable sources to be that of the club.

I'm aware of your statement at User talk:Mattythewhite#What is your problem? that you're an employee of Real Kakamora FC. If that's so, then I suggest you read the notice above headed #Managing a conflict of interest.

Wikipedia isn't a free webhost for that club or its volunteers to use for promotional purposes. Struway2 (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Real Kakamora F.C.

Hello! Your submission of Real Kakamora F.C. at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond to the issues raised.--Laun chba ller 10:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]