User talk:Klermodalwonfeyz

Note[edit]

First: Do you have any connection with Vivek Ramaswamy, with his presidential campaign, with any of his business ventures, or with any affiliated PAC or super PAC? I ask in relation to our policy on paid editing and conflicts of information.

Second: As a general matter, you may not reinstate edits that have been challenged by other edits. See our policy on editing warring, consensus, and [WP:ONUS|the burden to garner consensus]]. You also should use descriptive edit summaries. I suggest that you take some time to learn the basics of Wikipedia policy and practice before continuing to edit — especially in "topical" or "in the news" areas. Neutrality^talk 21:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Klermodalwonfeyz: Please respond to the First question posted above. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

English language edits[edit]

Hi. Your recent edits to Vivek Ramaswamy 2024 presidential campaign have introduced several sentences which are entirely grammatically incorrect. For example, in this edit (also, why is the edit summary written in pidgin English?), you've added the following sentences

In after thought during an interview, Ramaswamy reflected "cult like" to some affirming advocacy rights groups 'is what this LGBTQIA+ movement has become'
Ramaswamy believed supporting same-sex marriage in the United States when, for example, [...]

And in these edits, you added:

Ramaswamy did not taken a public position on the [..]

Please ensure that if you're going to edit these articles, you do not introduce these grammatical errors in future. Also, please respond to Neutrality and Specifico above - I note you've continued editing without responding on the talk page.
Thanks, — ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 20:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, again on this topic; I understand that you want to improve the article but your repeated additions of sentences that are either grammatically tenuous or outright incorrect are worsening the article. For example, in this edit: "needs a replacement to" is not correct English. Furthermore, your edit summaries continue to be written in phonetically-spelt or garbled English ("muv tu top. remuv:", "prezent tens.", "semplir entro") which is hard for other editors to understand. Please start writing edit summaries correctly. On one final point; you have been repeatedly re-inserting these often grammatically incorrect changes (such as the "needs a replacement to" one) when reverted by other editors; when you are reverted, you should go to the talk page and discuss it rather than again re-inserting the content. Please take notice of this, as it's becoming increasingly time-consuming having to repeatedly make your edits grammatically correct. Thank you. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 15:50, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. I also think that many if not most of these edits change the framing of the narrative or omit context that compromises NPOV text. It is serious enough that I have been wondering whether a revert to the version before these long series of edits -- so that they can be parsed on the article talk page -- might be the best approach. SPECIFICO talk 18:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, me again. You are again making changes to the page that introduce garbled English - in this edit, you added: Polls find Ramaswamy, nearly to Desantis, as the second choice candidate - this is not correct. As this is now at least the fifth incorrect statement in the English language you have added, could I sincerely suggest you use the talk page to suggest your changes rather than immediately editing the page? I understand you want to edit the page (as you have now edited it nearly 100 times over the last week) but you have to understand that these edits are worsening the page for readers. Please either respond or start taking this onboard because I really do not want to have to escalate this any further, but your constant refusal to communicate or listen to what other editors tell you is really leaving me very few other choices. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 14:00, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 16:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

I do not have a close connection with this subject nor Ramaswamy, nor anyone he is close with. If that status changes, even in a small extent, I will state when any connection occurred, both here in my talk page and first in the Revision History, before making an edit: klermodalwonfeyz^talk September 14.

Notice of Administrator's noticeboard discussion[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 13:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ser!: Can you give me some insight? What is or was the issue, which I may have been involved? Is it not there anymore? klermodal wonfeyz 13:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023[edit]

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 19:23, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has consistently blanked their page and not responded, although they did give give themself a warning which suggests a competence problem. Coupled with the ANI complaint an indefinite block seems sensible, if only to get them to take the warnings seriously. To get unblocked I believe they need to show an understanding of why people have warned him, some response here to the ANI thread and what they will do going forward. Doug Weller talk 19:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: You realize, the last time I deleted anything here was "Chosen", written before editing Vivek Ramaswamy 2024 presidential campaign right? Is there something deleted on this topic though, that you are referring? In Talk:Vivek Ramaswamy 2024 presidential campaign, I replaced "I hate the talk page!" with "I don't do the talk page! ~~~~ Thanks Ser!" when responding to ser! for helping me with the signature stamp. That's it. Are you referring to that? If not, what is the repeated blanking?! klermodal wonfeyz 15:49, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #78896 [edit]

is closed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:44, 19 September 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

I want to know how I'm treated how I treat. I want everyone treated that same way. klermodal wonfeyz 16:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. 331dot (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2023 (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.

@331dot:

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).

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

Request reason:

Is the Admin Notice complaint reason for putting Youtube citations after two people stated opposition against its use? And for not checking both Talk pages earlier? klermodal wonfeyz 20:48, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 21:45, 22 September 2023 (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.

Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Klermodalwonfeyz. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Courcelles (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]