User talk:Keethan00

Welcome!

Hello, Keethan00, 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! Longhair\^talk 11:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018

Hello, I'm Yamla. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Kem Cetinay have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. --Yamla (talk) 11:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Arrow De Wilde (June 15)

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

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

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:Arrow De Wilde 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:Arrow De Wilde, 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.

KylieTastic (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Keethan00! 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! KylieTastic (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence case

Hi there, and thanks for your recent contributions. I just wanted to give you a heads-up that Wiki uses sentence case in most cases (see here). I mention it because in a couple of your recent edits to genre lists in infoboxes, you put several in all lower case, and one in all caps. This probably doesn't seem like a big deal, but it does create unnecessary work for other editors, and it's always best if the information you add is submitted with proper caps from the beginning. If I can help with anything, just let me know. Thanks! Jessicapierce (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018

Please refrain from changing genres, as you did to Nirvana (band), without providing a source or establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you. Rob van vee 11:51, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Nirvana (band). - FlightTime (open channel) 13:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Kurt Cobain. - FlightTime (open channel) 13:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 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 ~~~~}}. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Kurt Cobain has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Kurt Cobain was changed by Keethan00 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.890304 on 2018-06-18T13:34:43+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 13:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Lil Peep. 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 ~~~~}}. Longhair\^talk 13:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Luka Modrić. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Lil Peep. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, are you trying to get indeffed? If so, you are on the right track. Just so there is no misunderstanding I am going to be blunt here. You are exactly one disruptive edit from a long term (maybe indef) block. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:00, 22 July 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 XXXTentacion. Rob van vee 08:14, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks 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 ~~~~}}. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. 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 ~~~~}}. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 16:30, 6 August 2018 (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).

Keethan00 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hey there, I'm quite confused as of why I have been blocked. I have been putting genuine information in the pages I have edited and cited then with sources and tried to be as professional as possible with them. Now that I know I shouldn't be doing this, may I please be unblocked. I understand that I shouldn't do a lot of changes on to a page which is what I have been doing, I apologise for that. I will make sure that I will not be doing any more edits and realise the consequences of it.

Decline reason:

I have examined your editing history since the last block. You have sometimes added content simply without sources, but worse still you have repeatedly added content with "references" which don't in fact support the statements to which you have attached them. Far from indicating that you understand the problem and will not repeat it, your unblock request gives the clear impression that you actually haven't a clue what is wrong with your editing: that indeed, as you yourself say, you are "quite confused" about why you are blocked. That being so, it is unlikely that you will be able to avoid making the same mistakes again. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:41, 8 August 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.