User talk:Kgelner

Victoria Jackson

Your "edits" at the article seem disruptive and with an agenda in mind. Care to explain what your end game is and what you hope to accomplish by removing sourced content and adding unreliable sources (other than possibly ending up blocked)? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am correcting edits that are inaccurate, and adding new information that someone with a political agenda has removed - claiming they "could not find titles" that are easily found on IMDB is plainly the work of someone with a political agenda. I have not removed anything that is not inaccurate or biased against Victoria Jackson, the other editor seems to be breaking the rules of neutrality. I have left many other instances of editing in place where accurate.

I do fee the motive of the other large scale changes to this page as a whole should be questioned, and the editor given a temporary ban from Wikipedia modification as they are abusing their post to make non-neutral edits and removing easily sourced content instead of annotating it properly.

Please be sure to sign your posts with four tildes ('~') in the future.

imdb is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. Please see WP:REF for more of an explanation as to what can and cannot be used as a reference. The "other editor" will not be receiving a ban, temporary or otherwise as they have done nothing disruptive. You might also want to read WP:VERIFY as it pertains to what you are claiming is happening with the article. I'm advising you as kindly as I can: tread lightly, read up on policy, and try to keep your personal agenda out of your editing. Also, be sure not to edit war. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at my talk page. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Victoria Jackson. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Victoria Jackson. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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; 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. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits, as you did at Victoria Jackson.

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 ~~~~}}. Alex Shih (talk) 04:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

I was undoing some politically motivated edits to the Victoria Jackson page (including opinion and removing valid information), and adding an IMDB reference the politically motivated editor claimed was "unable to find" in an edit.[1] On review you will find my edits were neutral and informative, while the ones I was a correcting were not. I did realize after editing that there was a three-post undo limit which I did exceed (I undid five edits), and I apologize for that oversight, it will not happen again... I would ask that Wikipedia support editors that respect the neutral nature of Wikipedia and not let a long-standing (if infrequent) contributor to Wikipedia be blocked, and also look into the actions and motivations of the user who blocked me along with other suspect edits of the Victoria Jackson page. P.S. As IMDB is apparently considered a questionable source, there is also https://www.terapeak.com/worth/twenty-questions-20q-a-film-by-benjamin-keith-mockumentary-brand-new-dvd/111240575082/ which was easily found via Google - again showing that the editor that blocked me and removed the link to 20Q had only political motivation in mind, not accuracy of content. PPS - one other edit I removed, claiming that a movie "Campin Buddies" was a direct to video release, is plainly disproved via this Facebook event at a theater that screened the movie: https://www.facebook.com/events/1632458393690120/. Again, I was editing to remove unwarranted and needlessly negative assertions.

Accept reason:

Per e-mail appeal. See rationale below. Alex Shih (talk) 07:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

Another administrator will review your request. Your series of undo from 03:45, 8 January 2018 to 03:53, 8 January 2018 were inappropriate, at which I have pointed out that you need to discuss your edits at the talk page as part of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. In this edit summary, you have characterized the "direct-to-video" text as "needless smearing" even though the film was, correct me if I am wrong, released directly to video? Your subsequent mass removal of sourced information in this edit was also dubious. Which part of your removal were targeted toward "opinions"? You need to be specific about these edits, which is the reason I have asked you to use the talk page instead. In addition, please do not use deceiving edit summaries or deceivingly mark your edits as minor, as that latest edit was far beyond both minor and grammar correction, removed extraneous "she".. For more explanation, please read Help:Edit summary and Help:Minor edit. Thank you. Alex Shih (talk) 04:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

05:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC) How can I correct your assertion that the movie was released "direct to video" when you provide no citation - there is proof it was shown in theaters, see: https://www.facebook.com/events/1632458393690120/ . That was the reason the comment was removed, because you will not cite some negative material posted. You also did not even bother to google the TV series 20Q to find a more authoritative link, several of which exist on the first page of the Google results. (I annotated my response to the block above to provide one). Looking over the body of your edits it is plain that you have a personal vendetta against Vitoria Jackson; I was merely trying to restore some aspect of neutrality to the page. I left in many of your edits that were very negative yet accurate, my only edits were to restore deleted information or to removed un-cited negative opinion. I am very sorry you consider a grammar correct as a major edit, but you should really consult struck and white before adding extraneous text to a sentence - "she" was already at the beginning of the sentence, the "she" I removed was grammatically unwarranted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgelner (talk • contribs) 05:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook and IMDB are not reliable sources because, like Wikipedia, anyone can edit them. You'll need to find something more substantial, like a mention in a newspaper, magazine, or TV news story. As for you have a personal vendetta against Vitoria Jackson: dozens of individual editors have touched Ms. Jackson's article over the years, so it isn't helpful to lump everyone into one group. You are editing from your point of view and, no doubt, some of the other editors have an opposing point of view. This is one of the reasons that we insist on discussion on an article's talk page to hash out any conflicts. —DoRD (talk) 13:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks —DoRD (talk) 13:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kgelner (talk) 02:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC) I only undid one editors contributions that showed plain bias. As to my ADDITIONS I made only ADDITIONS that were fact-based and neutral, not positive and certainly not entirely negative as all of the edits I undid were. I will await the verdict of Wikipedia editors to look over my edits and Alex, they can decide who is actually being neutral. My other link was not IMDB, it was a separate site about movies, not user edited, that showed Victoria Jackson's name and face on the cover of the DVD. The fact that Campin Buddies (which I have never seen nor want to) was also noted to have a premier on Vitcoris's page here: http://victoriajackson.com/12630/campin-buddies-nominated-for-action-on-film-award-2.. Kgelner (talk)P.S. Yet ANOTHER link that shows Victoria Jackson was actually in the movie 20Q: https://www.amazon.com/20q-Victoria-Jackson/dp/B01GKOWNLI. Can that at least go back on the page after being wrongfully removed without punishment?[reply]

The "verdict" from this Wikipedia editor is that your edits were not well written, they were unreliably sourced, you removed reliably sourced content, how you did it all was disruptive, and you had an agenda. None of that makes for a good beginning in Wikipedia. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kgelner (talk) 04:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC) 1) I am pretty sure edits were well written as I'm very careful editing public pages, and in fact I corrected grammatical mistakes that were there originally (removing an extra word "she"). Can you provide an example of the few additions I did make to the article that were not well written?. 2) I do apologize for using IMDB (I had seen another IMDB link one the same page so I thought it was sufficient), but have since provided two separate links for the 20Q movie that are not user-sourced (including Amazon) which I will note have not been applied by editors that claim they are interested in accuracy of content. 3) I totally agree I went overboard with undoing, which I apologized for in my request to unblock - in the future I defiantly would not undo without going through the talk page first, or possibly making minor edits (like re-adding 20Q with an authoritative link). 4) This is not my "start" on Wikipedia, I have been a member for a long time, I just do not edit often - and even then primarily technical articles. I have no interest in politically oriented editing and there is none in my history, I am a strict libertarian which is where my interest in neutrality comes from, and equally my sense that neutrality is not being served on the page in question. Given my history I think an indefinite block was rather a harsh treatment instead of simply explaining to me first the correct way to go about making changes to a contentious article, which I would have happily complied with and understood - the refusal to re-insert erroneously removed content with authoritative links easily found I cannot. What I do see are very negative non-neutral edits being allowed to stand while I am punished for trying to neutrally correct errors in editing, especially the aforementioned deletion of the 20Q reference which makes no sense to me at this point outside of the context of editor bias.[reply]

Unblocked

Thank you for your e-mail, and also thank you for your appeal. As you have noted, it was really just about editing against process, and since you have addressed that issue, I have lifted the block on this account. I hope nothing was taken personally. I think myself and other editors are just trying to maintain neutral of point of view; neutrality can easily be subjective, and that's why we are trying to only base the writing on what the reliable sources says and present them in their balanced weight. The subject (Victoria Jackson) was essentially promoting advocacy through her tweets, and it was against the principles of Wikipedia. Anyway, you are still welcomed to discuss the content you find problematic at Talk:Victoria Jackson, and feel free to {{ping}} me when you do so. Best wishes, Alex Shih (talk) 07:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC) Kgelner (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Thanks for the unblocking, I may revisit the page at some point to chat with the other editors about changes that need to be re-instated, but I will let things cool down first. I'll ping you if I start a conversation there. Have a bit of other updating of other pages to do before then...[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, Kgelner. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.JimH44 (talk) 05:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]