User talk:Kdbuffalo

User:Kdbuffalo/Arch1kdbuffalo

apologetics

I'd sure like to hear what you had to say about this page on the talk page. Jonathan Tweet 19:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked one week for continuing to disrupt and troll evolution and evolution related articles. IT has been made very clear at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kdbuffalo 2 that the community is unwilling to tolerate this behaviour. Noth of your acknowledged accounts have been blocked. pschemp | talk 19:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your block has been restarted and now set to nine days, due to the block evasion. -- tariqabjotu 06:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given ongoing evidence of sockpuppetry (see User:Happy Couple2) and your lengthy prior history, I've extended your block to indefinite. You may contest it by using the {{unblock}} template, or following the steps described here. MastCell ^Talk 19:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VacuousPoet (5th) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 09:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Bible and Spade

I have nominated Bible and Spade, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bible and Spade. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. dougweller (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of The Skeptic's Annotated Bible

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is The Skeptic's Annotated Bible. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Skeptic's Annotated Bible (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change

Hi Mr. Buffalo,

You made a change here: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Duane_Gish&diff=prev&oldid=88957990

If you don't mind, I am going to undo your change. I think that that particular trivia section adds to the article. Perhaps I'll try to incorporate it into other parts of the article. If I don't hear from you by tomorrow, I'll do it.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.86.111 (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Medicine that is harmful and ineffective listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Medicine that is harmful and ineffective. Since you had some involvement with the Medicine that is harmful and ineffective redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 07:37, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request to edit Wikipedia again

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).

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

Request reason:

I apologize for my previous actions and would request an unblock per WP:LASTCHANCE. I have thought about how to become a better Wikipedia contributor during my hiatus. I would appreciate my block being removed and would like to be active on Wikipedia again. Thanks, ken (talk) 21:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

procedural decline, no response in 2 weeks. See comments below. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2017 (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.

User:Worm That Turned, or another admin, could you please review this request? I would be most grateful. Kind regards, ken (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you did a lot of block evasion and socking back in the day; a previous version of this request said you haven't edited since 2005 (I assume you mean 2006), but you edited at least thru 2009 with socks and various IP addresses, right? When was the last time you edited with any account or as an IP? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing this from the unblock request backlog by declining the request procedurally. If you return and wish to request a new unblock, you can do so. But a little research shows quite a bit of problematic editing, POV pushing, and socking. Even if it was 8 years ago, this could be quite a long negotiation (starting with answering the question above), with no guarantee of success, and - even if there is success - probably an extensive set of topic bans. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Donovan Courville for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Donovan Courville is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donovan Courville until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. jps (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Bible and Spade for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bible and Spade is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bible and Spade (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. jps (talk) 13:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]