User talk:Kezollinger

Welcome[edit]

Hello Kezollinger, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.
Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard — a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.
Guide to Wikipedia — A thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia.

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.

Community portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Kezollinger, good luck, and have fun. -- Dillard 421♂♂ ^{(talk to me)} 23:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 2013[edit]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Tiderolls 22:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot edit from any IP address or registered account while you are blocked. While the conditions I set for your unblock remain the same, I would say that you will have to be very convincing since your first act with this account was to return to the article you offered to stay away from. Tiderolls 22:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A solution, if you choose to do it, is to lock the Season 3 page, and unblock me because I help out a lot with the Chopped and Top Chef pages, and they are both on tonight and tomorrow. Any possible way? Thanks! Kezollinger (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Kezollinger[reply]

I cannot unblock an editor that refuses discussion and ignores policy. Besides, as I've stated above, you've already violated your own proposal while blocked. Tiderolls 00:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ignore it, because I left a note on my 50.81.90.92 talk page, stating that Melissa should be the in HIGH group in an episode, and when I was unblocked, I just did that. I didn't ignore policies because I talked with you about it. And I didn't offer to stay away from it. I just said that I would make reasonable edits, and follow what you have put already, and that you could watch what I do on the page. The reason that I ignore messages is because I didn't realize that they were at the bottom, and I thought that it was the words at the top. I don't understand why I'm blocked for a week because when I visited the page on Sunday, there was someone who completely vandalized the table, and put fake data for the episodes all the way until the finale. So, I reverted it, being helpful. After about 2 or 3 edits, I know not to edit it again, if you guys revert it. I try to take in what you guys put along with what I have in mind, maybe being disruptive or not. Please consider this. Thanks! Kezollinger (talk) 01:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Kezollinger[reply]

Unconvincing. Before this last block the last time you edited a talk page was June 27. You have never responded on your IP user talk to any message before this latest block. This edit requests a ban from the article; I interpret that as an offer to avoid editing there. There was no vandalism reverted by your edits; at most there was a difference of opinion on content and format. Disputes are resolved by discussion. You thought new messages were at the top of a page although the top of a page never changes? See how that sounds? Read WP:Vandalism, WP:Identifying reliable sources, WP:Consensus, WP:Bold, revert, discuss and WP:Dispute resolution. I'm still open to unblocking you but you will have to exhibit much more comprehension of Wikipedia's editing guidelines before that will happen. Tiderolls 02:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I realize when it says new messages, but I was just confused. If you unblock me, I will stay away from the Next Great Baker page until January 8 (the amount of time of the block), but I don't understand why other pages have to suffer because of this. I set the baseline for the data on the Chopped page that helps admins build off of that, and I bring more information to the Top Chef page, that is helpful. If I go back to edit the Next Great Baker page before January 8, or anything past that date that is disruptive, you have full freedom to block me if I do not use the talk page or an edit summary. I do understand Wikipedia's editing guidelines, and I've been using edit summaries ever since I was blocked in June. I may have just forgotten about using a talk page because I think edit summaries are faster. Consider unblocking me? I will stay away from the Next Great Baker page until January 8. Thanks! Kezollinger (talk) 02:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Kezollinger[reply]

Other pages have to suffer because you are unable, or unwilling, to edit within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Let me be clear about something; administrators do not judge content with the exception of very strict circumstances. In general, when it comes to content we have no more "power" than any other editor. Let me be clear about the conditions of unblock; I do not care what article you edit, you will have to convince me that you will respond to the inquiries of other editors and use sources to support your changes and additions. Here's a hint; "I forgot" will not suffice as an explanation. Tiderolls 03:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you're coming from, but, I don't know if there is much more I can say. I gave you some ideas (locking Season 3 temporarily, observing me on the Next Great Baker [won't edit until January 8, and will use edit summaries and talk pages more after that]) I am definately aware of Wikipedia's editing policies, and I respect them. I guess in the heat of the moment, I forgot to go down and look at my messages. (I'm not trying to use this as an excuse.) I don't know. I have learned from my lesson, and I have given you, if you unblock me, full freedom to block me if I do an edit that doesn't make sense without using an edit summary or a talk page. I know my obnoxious, repetitive editing made the Next Great Baker page suffer, but I will try my hardest for that not to happen again. Because I made one page suffer, now about three or four are, and I know that is my fault. I am aware that everyone has an equal amount of power, but I am saying that with the same amount of power, I help out other pages and add on to them, without being disruptive. I have given you all I have to say. Please consider unblocking me, I am very sorry. I am aware of the policies and will follow them, and will use more of the talk page if the edit summary isn't enough. I will be sure to respond to messages. I would greatly appreciate it if you unblocked me. Thanks very much! Kezollinger (talk) 04:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Kezollinger[reply]

From what account do you plan to edit? Tiderolls 04:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably 50.81.90.92. It's just easier for me. Kezollinger (talk) 04:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Kezollinger[reply]

You have inquiries that are pending at User talk:50.81.90.92 that I expect to be addressed before you make any edits to the mainspace. If you edit an article before sufficiently addressing the concerns on your talk page, I will reinstate your block. Tiderolls 04:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Thank you! Kezollinger (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Kezollinger[reply]

Are you going to unblock this account, or should it wait? Kezollinger (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Kezollinger[reply]

Block[edit]

The block on this accoount is now indefinite. Tiderolls 05:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why won't you guys respond to my unblock request? Kezollinger (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Kezollinger[reply]

Unblocked[edit]

Please remember your unblock conditions and remember that your editing privilege is dependent upon your observation of them. Now, mentorship. You have been editing here long enough to acquire the editing basics. If you are unclear on any of the fundamentals, please ask. The basic problem you need to address is use of talk pages. When an editor requests comment or explanation regarding your edits, you will be expected to respond. When an editor reverts an edit you have made, you will expected to start or participate in a discussion on the article talk page. Participation in discussion does not entitle an editor to undo the reversion of their edits (see WP:Edit warring). When one of your edits is challenged, you should attempt to build a consensus before returning to edit the article (see WP:Consensus). Tiderolls 21:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Thank a lot Tiderolls! I really appreciate it! Kezollinger (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Kezollinger[reply]

Kezollinger, I've offered to help you over and over on your talk page; mentorship is going to be key to your avoiding another indefinite block. Find a good mentor; in the meantime, you must, must, must start by understanding how much your behavior frustrates other editors and by reading the basic editing rules. For all you claim you understand them, actions speak louder than words, and your actions suggest you don't. Please take the time to read carefully, and if you have questions, I'm happy to help along with Tide Rolls. --Drmargi (talk) 07:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Kezollinger (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)Kezollinger[reply]

Sources[edit]

Of the eleven edits you've made in the article mainspace since your unblock, you've not added a single source to support these edits. While capitalizing "c" in "Challenge" does not need sourcing you have made several changes of fact without citing your source. Stop. Locate sources. This is important. Tiderolls 00:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However, capitalising the "c" in "Challenge" is inappropriate. Wikipedia uses sentence case in headings. It's also preferable to use edit summaries in every edit. You've only used 2 edit summaries in the 17 edits that you've made. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry about this guys. I will use edit summaries. It's just when I'm done editing something, another thing stands out. I will keep the way that you guys have things with the notes, however episode 4 should not go after episode 1. And episode 6 should be added with Gretel-Ann as the MVP. If you don't like the way I do it, just revert it. Talk with me if you want to know why I am doing this, or what I should do better. Thanks a lot guys, I really appreciate it! Kezollinger (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Kezollinger[reply]

Source? Tiderolls 18:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know how to cite a source, but I keep the sources that you guys already have. I will, and you have full freedom to again talk with me about this, change the order of episodes 1 and 4 in the notes, and add episode 6. It just seems a little bit more neat and tidy. I will keep the way you guys have the ref list in your notes. Thanks! Kezollinger (talk) 21:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Kezollinger[reply]

Perhaps you missed my instruction to stop until you can cite a source. I will take it that that is the case and not block you now. If you make another change of content without citing your source, I will block you. If you read WP:Identifying reliable sources and WP:Citing sources and have any questions, please post them here. Tiderolls 22:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum. Do not use my name as a justification for your edits. You are continuing to edit the article mainspace without posting to the article talk pages. This was an express condition of your unblock. Do you not understand or are you deliberately refusing to abide by the conditions to which you agreed? Tiderolls 22:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the edit mentioned by Tide rolls, yesterday I reverted your capitalisation of a heading and directed you to MOS:CAPS in the edit summary, before explaining that we use sentence case. Today your edit inappropriately capitalised a number of words, which I've since fixed.[1] --AussieLegend (✉) 00:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kezollinger, including AussieLegend's post you have broken your unblock conditions on two occasions. This makes it very difficult for me not to block you. It's time for you to understand the seriousness of your predicament. How will the next admin respond to an unblock request if you have proven that you cannot be trusted? Tiderolls 00:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever I've capitalized something, I have given you full responsibility to change it again. I haven't changed it since. And Tiderolls, you shouldn't block me again, because I'm learning with you as my mentor. Maybe I should read how to cite sources, and read the conditions of my unblcok before I make any edits to the mainspace again. Sorry guys. Kezollinger (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)Kezollinger[reply]

Here's the thing, other editors do not need your clearance to make changes to your edits. Likewise, you do not need the permission of others to edit. We all have to follow the same policies and guidelines. You have not been doing that, even since your latest unblock. If you edit the mainspace once more without discussing your edit here, I will block you. Tiderolls 03:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean on my talk page, or an edit summary? If that's not what you mean, what edit? The Next Great Baker? Kezollinger (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)Kezollinger[reply]

Oh okay, I understand. Gretel-Ann being the MVP in Episode 6. Am I wrong? Kezollinger (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)Kezollinger[reply]

What do I mean? Why, I mean what I say. I want you to discuss your next mainspace edit here. I want to see your proposed edits here before you make them in the article mainspace. We will have to follow this process until I am satisfied that you understand how to edit here. If this is not how you wish to proceed, let me know. Tiderolls 00:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this is not how I want to proceed. I think that if I edit something, I should be able to learn from it after I do it, showing that once you guys talk to me, I am capable of doing what you are asking. Thanks! Kezollinger (talk) 04:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Kezollinger[reply]

So, having made a lot of mistakes previously that have been explained to you, and from which you haven't learned, you think it's OK to continue making mistakes, all the while expecting other editors to waste their time fixing up those mistakes and then waste more time explaining what the problems are? Really, you need to be the one making the extra effort here. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kezollinger, you have already shown me that you cannot progress with the method you describe. If you do not want to continue with my instruction, I understand. If you remember, I told you before we started that you probably would not like it. You will have to understand that your choice would include re-blocking until such time as you find another mentor. I would also consider leaving you unblocked as long as you did not edit in the article mainspace until you acquire a mentor and your instruction has begun. Which of these options would you want to pursue? Tiderolls 05:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I want to continue with you as my mentor. Which edit would you like to discuss? All of them? Kezollinger (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Kezollinger[reply]

Read this again. Tiderolls 21:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I understand. The things I am planning to edit for today are the number of episodes total of Next Great Baker from 25 to 26 because of the new episode yesterday, my usual Chopped edits (episode numbers and episode data for tonight's episode), and Rachael vs. Guy: Celebrity Cook-Off (Some vandals put Celebrity Cocaine Cook-off). Thanks! Kezollinger (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Kezollinger[reply]

What is your source for the episode data edits? Tiderolls 00:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC) PS: I took care of the vandalism; thanks for the heads up. Tiderolls 00:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is really no source for the episode data (i.e. bakset ingredients, because you can't really find that on Food Network's website). As for as episode numbers go, I think we have already sourced an episode list on both Chopped and Next Great Baker. Thanks, and no problem with the vandalism! Kezollinger (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Kezollinger[reply]

I do not see anything controversial in the episode numbers; I am not well versed in the updating editing on such articles. You can probably proceed with the numbers update and be prepared to answer any request for explanation or clarification from editors that are watching the articles. Wikipedia:Verifiability states "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable." You need to find sources that support your edisode data or the content cannot be added. Tiderolls 01:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure that we have sources on the episode numbers on both Next Great Baker and Chopped. Am I free to edit when it comes time? Kezollinger (talk) 02:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Kezollinger[reply]

Being "pretty sure" doesn't meet the standard of reliable sourcing. You must find the source yourself and provide a link to it in the article when you add new episode information, which you never do. If you need an example how that's done, go look at the List of Iron Chef America episodes article, and see how I link the episode information from the Food Network website. It's perfectly simple to do. I continue to find it troubling that you feel you should be able to add what you want, then leave the burden on others to find evidence that it is/isn't correct. That simply is not acceptable. --Drmargi (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am totally set with the idea of sourcing. Everything has to be variable, and you must provide a source. I've got it now, and have a better idea. Kezollinger (talk) 02:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Kezollinger[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Tiderolls 04:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No source cited for the changes made here. I cannot mentor anyone that is incapable of following simple, unambiguous instruction. Tiderolls 04:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You said I should cite my sources. When in fact, there was already a source cited. I used a clear edit summary to explain that, yet you still blocked me. Let's talk. Kezollinger (talk) 05:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Kezollinger[reply]

Tiderolls was right to block you again. You did not cite a source for the new episode of Chopped. I gave you a link and directions how to do exactly the sort of sourcing you needed to do by modeling what I do on Iron Chef America, yet you blew it off. Telling us you have a source in an edit summary then playing "take my word for it" isn't how sourcing works. You've demonstrated that you are incapable of following Wikipedia policies, for all your proclaimed willingness to do so. --Drmargi (talk) 05:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have been editing Chopped for almost 2 years now, and I have never seen any admin or contributor cite a source in the episode data. It seems to be the biggest deal right now (and I know I've been causing lots of trouble) that I cite a source, when in reality, there are sources on there already that seem perfectly fine. I said there were sources to the episode list, and there were! On both the series and episode pages! Could we talk more? Kezollinger (talk) 05:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Kezollinger[reply]

Doesn't matter. The terms of your unblock were clear: a) you must discuss any upcoming edits here, with your mentor and; b) you must provide sources for your edits. Telling us you have a source and someone can contact you is not sourcing your edits. I've directed you to essays on how to edit, source, and more which you clearly haven't read. Tiderolls offered you all sorts of help and what did you do? Not what you were asked. Blocking was the only choice Tiderolls had left. --Drmargi (talk) 05:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tiderolls had suggested to me earlier that I could do an adoption with an administrator, and I am willing to do that. I would like for someone that is completely new to see what I do on Wikipedia, and see their take on it. Tiderolls did warn me that he was going to be tough as a mentor, and he was right. I did understand most of the things Tiderolls said, but it just seemed like it wasn't going anywhere, and that may be because of me. But definitely consider what Tiderolls said about the adoption. If you say yes, I will let you know who I would want to be with. Thanks! Kezollinger (talk) 05:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Kezollinger[reply]

I'm not an administrator and you don't have to account to me. I'm just trying to help you understand where you went wrong. Tiderolls is the blocking administrator as well as your mentor, and will have to decide what happens next. You had the chance to take advantage of his support, and the offer of mine, and I can see no evidence you did anything you were asked to do. Two other administrators have looked at your work, and the terms of your block were laid out by an impartial administrator. I'm not sure another admin will see things much differently that the three who have looked at your editing already have. Let me ask you a question: did you look List of Iron Chef America episodes to see how I sourced and referenced upcoming episodes or not? --Drmargi (talk) 06:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did Drmargi. It was very helpful. Try and see if you can get Tiderolls to agree on the adoption. It was his idea, and I think it will be fine. So, when Chopped Champions: Part 2 premieres, you would take out the source for that, and do the next one for part 3, right? Just curious. I want to learn from my mistakes. Kezollinger (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Kezollinger[reply]

So why didn't you do what I did? The whole point of my suggesting you check what I did for ICA was that you would have a model. As for Tiderolls, that's up to you. He's given you specific guidelines to follow and so far, you've followed none of them. I can't see how he's going to unblock you yet again. You haven't demonstrated your capable, or willing, to follow even the simplest procedures. --Drmargi (talk) 05:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I am FULLY AWARE of Wikipedia's Guidelines. You must use a veriable source. I've got it now. I just read the ICA a couple of days ago, (I should've read it like a week and a half ago) and I get what you're saying. If you can, please consider unblocking me. Thanks! Kezollinger (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)Kezollinger[reply]

I'm not an administrator, so an unblock is not up to me. --Drmargi (talk) 01:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tiderolls told me that, I was just saying that maybe Tiderolls could know. But I think it would be best of me to just make an unblock request tomorrow or something for someone like Dennis Brown and Tiderolls to review. I am all for the adoption. Thanks Kezollinger (talk) 04:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Kezollinger[reply]

Good luck. --Drmargi (talk) 06:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Kezollinger (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Kezollinger[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).

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

Request reason:

Please unblock me because I have decided to do the adoption that TideRolls suggested to me a while ago, for my mentorship. Could you contact Imagine Wizard? He/She sound like they would be a fine mentor. I am FULLY AWARE about what you guys and Drmargi want me to do for citing sources. Kezollinger (talk) 04:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Considering how you royally screwed up your last mentoring program, it is vital that you find a mentor, and have an agreed-to mentorship agreement in place before requesting to be unblocked. Most mentors have the "e-mail me" function enabled, so you should be able to contact them. From my perusal, I'm afraid that it will also be unsuccessful - you were unable to follow simple instructions from Tiderolls, so I'm not certain how you expect your next one to be any different - his request was standard practice, and certainyl had nothing to do with being "tough" - you will need to recognize that an AGREEMENT is an AGREEMENT (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:23, 22 January 2013 (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.

I understand that an agreement is an agreement. I will try and contact him. Where is the email-me? And, when I asked Drmargi about unblock, even though he/she are not an admin, he/she seemed fine about it. I have learned my lesson about citing sources and will do it the way Drmargi wants me to do it. Kezollinger (talk) 21:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Kezollinger[reply]

Wait a minute; don't put words in my mouth. I said nothing about the appropriateness of your being unblocked. I'm not an administrator and it's not appropriate for me to do so. I simply tried to elaborate what steps you need to be taking to be an editor in good standing who follows Wikipedia policy, then informed you in wholly neutral language that I did not have the power to block/unblock. --Drmargi (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You said "I am not an administrator, so an unblock is not up to me". I'm not saying things that you didn't say, that was just my interpretation of it, even if you can't unblock. Sorry if I may have offended you. That was just what I thought. Where is the "e-mail me"? Kezollinger (talk) 00:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Kezollinger[reply]