User talk:Keditz

Welcome!

Hello, Keditz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question from yesterday...

I notice you are new and I may be jumping to conclusions faster than an angry female, but, are those pulls straight from the article? dannymusiceditor ^oops 21:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

Hello. Some of your recent genre changes, such as the one you made to Life's a Trip, have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you seek consensus for certain edits by discussing the matter on the article's talk page. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Luka Modrić, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 11:52, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

To answer your question to another editor, your edits are being reverted because they are generally too extreme, in other words, too much, and also don’t follow wiki policy. Weaker images in infobox, too much detail in lead, plus editors have collaborated over time contributing to these articles, with a consensus often reached in how they are presented. EdChambers88 (talk) 10:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on XXXTentacion. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Your addition of Noah Cyrus was unsourced. I urge you to carefully read the links in the welcome message above. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you change genres in pages without discussion or sources, as you did at Lil Peep. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Thierry Henry. Unexplained removal of honours. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you change genres in pages without discussion or sources, as you did at Lil Pump. Magnolia677 (talk) 08:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Post Malone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pop (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:14, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Kane

Adding a reference claiming he is the best striker and at the same time deleting one that shows him to be the 5th best striker , is not balanced editing. Please try to improve things and provide balanced content . Please do not try to impose your personal opinion on the article. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Memphis Depay, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Unsourced honours. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours 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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- ferret (talk) 21:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked by ferret

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).

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

Request reason:

I don't understand how I have been disruptive, I've added sources and tried to make articles better. I was informed that I may be blocked earlier and understood now that I should source EVERYTHING. Please let me know what was disruptive.

Decline reason:

As you state that you don't understand how you have been disruptive, there is no benefit to the project in unblocking you early at this time. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 11:10, 16 October 2018 (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.

Let's look at Harry Kane.

11:29, 15 October: you remove a large chunk of content with no explanation.
11:37, 15 October: you are reverted.
13:35, 15 October: you deny removing a chunk of content and revert back.
13:37, 15 October: you are reverted again and asked not to remove sources.
13:39, 15 October: you laugh at the other editor's concerns and revert him, again denying that you've removed sources.

When you are reverted, you are expected to use dispute resolution instead of edit warring and ridiculing other editors' concerns. If you continue like this, I suspect you'll be indefinitely blocked in a week or two. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

331dot

You say 'you don't understand how you have been disruptive, there is no benefit to the project in unblocking you' so why don't you explain to me how not to be disruptive??? I'm new to this, only joined a couple of days ago so for you to say 'there is no benefit' is not helping at all.

You were given an explanation of how you were disruptive above, but the reason I did not spell it out for you is because it is not uncommon for a blocked user to simply restate what they were told, without actually demonstrating that they understand. 331dot (talk) 12:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Block

My block has expired, but I'm still unblocked from editing...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Keditz (talk • contribs)

As you state, your block is expired. If you are still unable to edit, please copy/paste the exact message that appears when you attempt to edit. 331dot (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

Should message here. You seem to have a penchant for making vast, unnecessary alterations to stable articles. The music articles I won’t touch, but adding that much detail to Nirvana could see that article get demoted from FA status. Adding over a thousand bytes to the Linkin Park article is not a “minor edit”. F8RIL (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Cobain

Please can someone get a better picture of Kurt Cobain, the current one is so poor because of how blurry it is.

XXXTentacion

I also would like to request a cropped image of XXXTentacion or a new clearer pic.

Your requests and comments are more likely to be seen if you post them on the talk page of the relevant article(such as Talk:Kurt Cobain). 331dot (talk) 20:13, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Frank Lampard, you may be blocked from editing.

Stop changing images without consensus - FlightTime (open channel) 17:10, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Steven Gerrard. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:11, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FlightTime

Stay off my talk page. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:16, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You still need to discuss any changes to genres, you have not done that. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 16:03, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flighttime

My apologies for the edits, did you see what I told you on your talk page?

You need to discuss at the threads you start on the article's talk pages, not on my talk page. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GOTHBOICLIQUE

Can someone please check my 'gothboiclique' draft and let me know how it is.

That is done here: Wikipedia:Articles for creation. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:54, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: GOTHBOICLIQUE (October 20)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Scope creep was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Insufficient coverage to determine notability. No secondary sources have been added that help to establish notability. List of names and name dropping are not particularly useful for the reader, as they provide little in the way of encyclopedic knowledge. Article reads like a fan page.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:GOTHBOICLIQUE and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:GOTHBOICLIQUE, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

scope_creep (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Keditz! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! scope_creep (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox dates

Hello, I'm Mattythewhite. Welcome to Wikipedia! I just wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions was not quite right. When updating statistics within the infobox of a footballer, please make sure you update the timestamp at the same time, so that both readers and fellow editors know when the information was last updated.

You can do this by replacing the existing timestamp within the |club-update= or |pcupdate= parameter for club stats, or the |nationalteam-update= or |ntupdate= parameter for international stats, by adding five tildes (~~~~~), which generates the specific time the update was made.

If you have any questions about this, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you, Mattythewhite (talk) 01:35, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Post Malone, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Acoustic and Pop (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you change genres in pages without discussion or sources, as you did at Post Malone. Binksternet (talk) 19:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Moore

That edit is not encyclopaedic. The third paragraph repeats a lot of the first, and too much is unreferenced. Use your sandbox to draft an edit, and then ensure everything is referenced, and nothing is repeated. The Moore article could indeed be improved, but it needs to fulfill the criteria I just mentioned. F8RIL (talk) 14:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you change genres in pages without discussion or sources, as you did at Roy Woods. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 14:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you change genres in pages without discussion or sources, as you did at Trippie Redd. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 14:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you change genres in pages without discussion or sources, as you did at Ghostemane. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 14:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 16:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flightime, what did I do to make you call me 'more trouble than worth'? I asked Mattythewhite a genuine question.

Please stop removing maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Paulo Dybala, without resolving the problem that the template refers to. This may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit to Russ (rapper)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you removed some content from Russ (rapper) without 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; I restored the removed content. 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. Thank you! Materialscientist (talk) 03:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

Your addition to XXXTentacion has been removed, 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. This edit introduced an image that is not free for use. You need to establish a fair-use rationale for every instance of the image, which rarely works with an album cover attempted to be used in a biography. Binksternet (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stop adding original research

You just stated, Philippe Coutinho “is commonly known as simply Coutinho”. That’s made up. See WP:original research. F8RIL (talk) 03:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are edit warring, a habit of yours

Cease altering the Freddie Mercury intro, adding duplicate copied detail. AvavIn (talk) 14:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Said above I wouldn’t touch music articles, but his latest football edit (making up the Coutinho name usage) drew me in. Quit ignoring editors and inserting material that has no consensus. F8RIL (talk) 23:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you change genres in pages without discussion or sources, as you did at Lil Peep. Your addition of the genre "sad trap" was unsourced. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Lil Peep. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to Lil Peep has been removed, 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. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FlightTime

FlightTime I feel like I'm being almost 'bullied' by this user. This user stated that some sort of discussion regarding me is going on which has me worried. He's also made it look like I've purposely done needless things on Wikipedia when all I'm doing is trying to help articles. Please remember that I am new to this.

That's because you're not learning very well on what is proper behavior (at least, not fast enough). He says you're a net-negative to the project, and I regretfully have to agree with that thus far. If you communicated maybe a little bit more in your edit summaries (some of your edits have removed lots of content at a time without any reason that we can tell), maybe we'd understand where you're even coming from, but we're left confused most of the time by what you do here. dannymusiceditor ^oops 19:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: GOTHBOICLIQUE (November 16)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Legacypac was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:GOTHBOICLIQUE and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:GOTHBOICLIQUE, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Legacypac (talk) 06:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lil Peep. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
- FlightTime (open channel) 15:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FlightTime

FlightTime is using aggressive language by saying 'What the hell did my edit summary say ?' which I believe there's absolutely no need to be saying 'hell' in that context when replying back to another user on this website. Please can someone tell FlightTime to stop the aggression.

November 2018

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Lil Tracy. Your addition of the genre "alternative hip hop" was unsourced. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week 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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Floquenbeam (talk) 16:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When you are new to a community, you need to listen to what the other community members are telling you. If you are unwilling to do so, please let me know now, I'll change this block to indefinite, and we can all save some time. New editor or not, it is simply not acceptable to insist you have a right to be a bull in a china shop. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not wise to go right back to genre warring on Lil Peep, Floquenbeam blocked you for disruptive editing and as soon as the block is over, here we go again. You seem to have some single purpose with this article (and others) to have information in these articles read the way you want it to read, however that's not allowed here. Your best bet is to discuss your concerns about the article's you're editing on their talk pages, that's what they're for. If you choose to be as Floquenbeam states "a bull in a china shop" you're just going to be blocked again and won't be able to edit anything. Good luck, - FlightTime (open channel) 13:29, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keditz seems to have a change of habits, however I do not believe them. - FlightTime (open channel) 13:33, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Keditz. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at XXXTentacion. - FlightTime (open channel) 14:15, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FlightTime

Please may I know what I added to XXXTentacion which was not sourced

I have not edited that article, you were reverted by Nzd. - FlightTime (open channel) 14:26, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like there was an edit conflict I was reverting your change to the associated acts in the infobox,but Nzd beat me to it. - FlightTime (open channel) 14:32, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted because you used Wikipedia as a reference. Please cite reliable sources when making changes to content. Thanks, Nzd (talk) 16:09, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lil Peep‎. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

That discussion can be found here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at XXXTentacion. - FlightTime (open channel) 14:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 'multiple shots' was not sourced but nothing was said about that. I'll put in the source for him being shot in the neck, rather than multiple times. - Keditz (talk) 14:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Laser brain (talk) 14:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand why anyone would advocate for you to continue to be allowed to edit at this point, because your contributions are disruptive and causing lots of work for others. You just now clearly edited an article against the cited source. Your personal beliefs or opinions on these subjects have no bearing on the situation. Until you learn the concepts behind WP:V you cannot be allowed to continue editing. This block is indefinite until you can demonstrate understanding of our sourcing requirements and of the necessity to edit neutrally regardless of your opinions of the subject. --Laser brain (talk) 15:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Twice at the ANI discussion I offered you a get out of jail pass conditional only on your promising to be more careful with sourcing, not make dramatic changes to articles w/o discussing them first, and not reverting experienced editors w/o discussion. All I got in reply was silence. I agree with and support Laser brain's block. I'm sorry but you need to find another hobby. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

@Mattythewhite:

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).

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

Request reason:

I have not used Wikipedia in quite long. I remember using this account which was indefinitely blocked. At the time, I was new to Wikipedia and didn't know that making multiple edits could lead to an indefinite block. Recently, I have only added updated/correct information on articles. I hope you can read the articles and see the improvements rather than believing that I've vandalised. I don't see me doing what is called sock puppetry, due to me now understanding Wikipedia more than I did when I got indefinitely blocked. Therefore, I think that there is no reason to not reverse the block.

Decline reason:

Recently? Did you make these recent accounts with a different account? Or perhaps while not signed in? Where are these edits? Yamla (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC) Yes, I made these edits on a new account "Spacexmannn" and was told that I need to sign into this account to appeal the block. Keditz (talk) 10:43, 13 May 2019 (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.

In that case, you were violating WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE. You were well aware you are not permitted to set up new accounts until this one is unblocked, but have chosen to demonstrate your unwillingness to follow the rules. It's very unlikely you'll be unblocked at this time given your deliberate violations. Your best hope is to wait six months with zero edits, then apply under WP:SO. At that time, you'll need to convince us you'll never again violate our policies. --Yamla (talk) 12:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I was not aware at all and I have not done deliberate violations. I explained that at the time I was new, I recently used a new account where I was thanked by Mattythewhite for several edits I've done. But then he also blocked me because he realised that quite long ago I got blocked on this account "Keditz". I got blocked on this account in November, and only been editing articles on Wikipedia again and don't believe I have vandalised at all. Is it necessary to wait 6 months, eventhough the timespan between this account "Keditz" and the recent one I used "Spacexmannn" is 6 months (November-May)? Keditz (talk) 12:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the first time you've violated WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE. You previously did so in December with NoUsername2018 and with Cobain1967. Six months is the minimum under WP:SO and starts from your last edit. Every edit you made with Spacexmannn was a violation of WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE, so no, the timer doesn't start from November. Come off it. --Yamla (talk) 12:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right, I forgot about those. Again I would like to say the way I was using Wikipedia then was me not being very experienced/ignorant so I understand from looking back now that I should not have made extra accounts. I have had misunderstandings about the rules/violations of Wikipedia and understand why I should not be unblocked. Keditz (talk) 13:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are there anyways of deleting these old accounts, including this one? Keditz (talk) 14:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not possible. However, you can choose to use another account once you get this account unblocked (but absolutely, categorically not before). See WP:CLEANSTART. I want to be very, very clear, though. Any further instances of you editing before this account is unblocked may lead to your indefinite ban from Wikipedia, under WP:3X. Bans are almost impossible to come back from. --Yamla (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2019 (UTC) That's fine, I've fully understood that it should take 6 months if I ever want to edit again. Keditz (talk) 15:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Offer note As you have created 8eatle to evade your block, the clock on any Standard Offer appeal is reset to December 20, 2019.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]