User talk:Keithg2002

Welcome![edit]

Hi, Keithg2002. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. GregJackP Boomer! 20:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm GregJackP. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Raymond W. Godwin without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, you can 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. Thanks! GregJackP Boomer! 20:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013[edit]

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Nightlight Christian Adoptions, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Prolife or christian "news" sources are not reliable sources. Information from the organization itself (self-published) is also not reliable. The article has to maintain a neutral point of view, which your additions are not doing. GregJackP Boomer! 00:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Daniel M Nehrbass for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Daniel M Nehrbass is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel M Nehrbass until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. GregJackP Boomer! 01:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Raymond W. Godwin. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

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. 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.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. GregJackP Boomer! 20:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013[edit]

Your tagging Raymond W. Godwin as a WP:CSD#G10 was abusive. Apparently, you just don't like the article. Consider this a warning that if you do this again, or anything similar, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging the page doesn't have anything to do with not liking the article, but asking the wiki community to engage in discussion about a biased article which is under the control of a wiki-bully. But I see you only allowed 7 minutes for discussion before deleting the tag. And rather than engage on the merits of the article or the rationale for deletion, instead you just resort to intimidation and threats. Keithg2002 (talk) 06:22, 25 December 2013 (UTC)Keithg2002Keithg2002 (talk) 06:22, 25 December 2013 (UTC) 22:21, 24 December 2014 (PST)[reply]

There's no community discussion after a CSD tag. Nor was there any wiki-bullying. As to my warning, it still stands.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]

This account has been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Keithg2002. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans will be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Rs chen 7754 19:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]