User talk:Kevt2002

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Kevt2002, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Seed of Andromeda, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Ochilov (talk) 04:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Seed of Andromeda[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Seed of Andromeda, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Ochilov (talk) 04:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Seed of Andromeda for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Seed of Andromeda 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/Seed of Andromeda 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. Bbb23 (talk) 16:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 63 Cetus[edit]

The article 63 Cetus has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet requirements of a stub, may not meet WP:N, no references. Unwikified

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. War wizard90 (talk) 03:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NGC 124[edit]

What is it? Please make the article clearer. If you look at the other items linked from List of NGC objects (1–1000), they all start "NGC nn is a ...", which is the way to go. Thanks. PamD 00:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ashikaga Yoshinori, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fujiwara no Yoshiko (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changing established date formats[edit]

Per MOS:DATEVAR, please do not change a clearly established date format when you add info boxes to articles, as you did with the this edit at Jean Mariette and this edit at François Hédelin, abbé d'Aubignac. Perhaps you don't realize that one can add the option "df=y" to Template:Death date and age to display the day-first date format. --Robert.Allen (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I came to say the same thing: European topics should have day/month/year date format, which you achieve in templates by adding parameter df=y. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: No, not necessarily European topics, just ""articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country", and also "If an article has evolved using predominantly one date format, this format should be used throughout the article". Infoboxes generally aren't used in classical music articles so I've reverted your attempts to add them where other established classical music edditors (e.g. Gerda at Jean-Philippe Rameau) haven't intervened already. Infoboxes are actually very controversial on Wikipedia ... there was an arbitration case about them, and many users object to their use for various reasons. Graham87 03:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is becoming clear that this editor is disruptive, altho in my opinion the user tries to obscure it by intermixing valid edits with subtly invalid ones, such as removing accepted accents and using incorrect date and number formats. The result in any case is that it wastes other editors' time. He has been warned. If it continues, he should be blocked. --Robert.Allen (talk) 06:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More concern about your edits[edit]

I've gone and mass-rollbacked almost all your edits because of stuff like this, where you removed a cedilla from a name, and these edits, where you changed meaning. Any more of this and you'll be blocked. Graham87 04:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And this ... you don't capitalise "von" in a name like that. Detrimental copyediting with misleading edit summaries is not a good mix. Graham87 05:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I took a closer look at your edit to Jean-Philippe Rameau and wholesale-reverted it. You removed spelling-out of numbers in violation of the Manual of Style and also added parents who are not notable in their own terms to the infobox, in violation of the documentaion at Template:Infobox person. If you haven't read and understood the documentation of an infobox, you shouldn't use it. Graham87 05:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How about we try first to educate a young contributor, before we talk of blocking? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC) Trying:[reply]

  1. Kev, don't put more than one thing in one edit. We are lazy, and will revert all for one thing we dislike.
  2. The topic of infoboxes has been discussed controversially, especially for composers of classical music. Instead of long explanations, just read Talk:Mozart. This was written in 2020. Hard to believe but that's the world we are in. There's also Beethoven, a good model which found community consensus, but I advise caution in the field of classical composers, period.
  3. If you want to add infoboxes, there's plenty of room: Category:Wikipedia infobox backlog.
  4. Keep in mind the thought by one of our greatest editors, Brianboulton: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-07-10/Dispatches. His articles about classical composers often come with an infobox, see Percy Grainger. In a nutshell: keep them concise.

I hope that helps. Needless to say, articles on classical composers I write or expand come with an infobox, such as Dmitri Smirnov. The latest wisdom is "live and let live" (2018), in other words: do articles you create as you please, and leave those that others created alone. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC) Trying also some thought for reverters, Graham, Jerome Kohl, others:[reply]

  1. It would be nice per the "live and let live" (by Voceditenore) to revert only when you were a major contributor to an article, and otherwise try to repair. None of the changes I saw were an imminent danger ;) - Too many details in an infobox? Remove those. Wrong date format? Correct. Wrong names? Correct. I tried, but now you reverted me as well ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gerda Arendt: I generally live and let live when an established editor who often edits these articles (e.g. yourself) adds an infobox. I do not believe in "live and let live" when relatively inexperienced users who don't understand why classical music articles (and some others) generally don't have infoboxes waltzes in and tries to add one. If we did that, a lot of classical music articles would have infoboxes by fiat, just because we pandered to relatively new users; also see Wikipedia:Fait accompli. Graham87 10:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Graham, firstly. I think your premise is wrong. "classical music articles (and some others) generally don't have infoboxes", - you may mean classical composers when you say "classical music". And even for composers: look at Bach, Handel. Beethoven, Schumann, Reger, Pärt, - to mention only a few big names. I don't think "generally" is true. There is a guideline from 2010 which tries to handle classical composers differently from the rest of creative minds, but it's not binding, and makes little sense (to me) because most of these people were also performers and/or teachers, in other words, persons. So, back to our case, if one of the major contributors to Rameau objects and reverts an addition, fine, but you and I who never edited the article could simply correct. To my understanding, the 2013 (and never changed) arb ruling about "find consensus on each article's talk page" even ended the guideline for classical composers, - all articles were equal under that ruling, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gerda Arendt: No, I mean all classical music articles. I don't feel like checking into the history of that guideline but it's been there for a long time, as far as I can remember. In my experience the only classical music articles containing infoboxes I've read on the English Wikipedia are ones that you've had a hand in (either the article or helping create/find consensus for the infobox); I know you mentioned Brianboulton up above, and there are probably other classical music editors who use or used them. I'm not happy about mentioning this because of how much I respect you in general, but I feel the need to point out that there are remedies involving you in the infobox arbitration case, so I don't think you are completely neutral in this. I myself am generally meh about infoboxes; I'm only enforcing guidelines and general practices as I understand them.
    Graham, if you mean all classical music articles, you are years behind. Nobody has argued about musical compositions or operas in a long time, the last time for the former was beginning of 2018, and opera even before. Completely wrong that it's only "my" articles. The remedies you mention were rescinded in 2015. I'm really tired of it all, do you understand? That arb case was (or should have been) only about opera, and now every opera I care about has an infobox, and not only by me ;) - + musical compositions, + around 200 Bach compositions. - Last word: a guideline is only a guideline, nothing to be "enforced". Please enforce only violations of the Manual od style, and vandalism. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry to see you blocked, Kev. I was never blocked so far, so am not experoenced with the procedure. I don't think you should change whatever was written, but word a new unblock request. If I was you, I'd talk to Graham in prose, below what he said. He's an old good friend of mine, and listens. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Kev, the reason I may be seeming to be hard on you is not just that you're adding infoboxes to classical music articles, but also because, along with your infobox additions to a wide range of pages, you're making disruptive edits (ranging from invalid date format changes to the introduction of spelling errors). You have made so many changes in such a short period of time that the only practical way to deal with them efficiently , as I understand it, is to wholesale revert your edits. If you continue down this road and don't demonstrate that you've read these messages, a block will unfortunately be in order. If you do take this advice on board, you can continue editing and become a more productive member of the Wikipedia community. Graham87 16:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    While I'm here, may I ask why are you making these edits, and how are you figuring out which articles to edit? Graham87 16:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.
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 ~~~~}}.

Graham87 17:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have just been revertingedits and not communicating, I had no choice but to block you. Graham87 17:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since you have just been revertingedits and not communicating, I had no choice but to block you. Graham87 17:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problems were not just with the European pages, they were with all of them; for example, in this edit to Ashikaga Yoshikatsu, you introduced a Manual of Style violation. Your attempted unblock request above didn't work; I'm not going to fix it because that wouldn't be productive for any of us. Graham87 18:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you've figured out how to request an unblock. I'll leave what to do with this request to another admin,now that you've actually succeeded in getting the attention of one. They can feel free to take whatever action they like without consulting me first. Graham87 05:06, 14 May 2020 (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).

Kevt2002 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

When you undid the edits to the European pages, you also undid the edits to pages that had nothing to do with Europe. I was undoing the edits to the non-european pages such as Japan and keeping the European edits be.Kevt2002 (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2020 (UTC). I was changing the letters of some names because those letters werent in the English alphabet. I wasnt thinking it would be a problem. I will go back to the articles I changed and fix these problems such as changing Shogun to Shōgun. For example, when I saw there were spelling errors in Jedidiah Preble, I corrected them. Im sorry for my previous actions and it wont happen again.Kevt2002 (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2020 (UTC) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2020 (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've fixed your unblock request. You copy the unblock template to the bottom of the page, not edit it inside the block message, and you don't make duplicate copies of the whole block message. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked[edit]

Stop hand
Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Graham87 03:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resubmitting exactly the same block request as clearly shown by this diff wastes the time of administrators and also violates the clear instructions given to you by Yamla in their decline notice. For these reasons, I have revoked your access to this talk page. Graham87 03:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Graham87, just as a heads up I've restored their TPA so they can appeal again on-wiki based on UTRS. If they continue to be disruptive you or any other administrator can revoke it again. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for giving me back TPA TonyBallioni (talk)! I will make a new unblock request based on the one on UTRS. Kevt2002 22:17, 23 June 2020 (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).

Kevt2002 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was editing articles mainly by adding infoboxes. I was then told by Grahm that I was making spelling errors and other problems. After I found this out, I started going to previous artilcles I visited and fixing the articles. As proof of this, I went back and fixed the spelling errors in the Jedidiah Preble article. I will fix the mistakes I have made and improve the articles in the process.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:19, 6 August 2020 (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.

Non-admin question: I see you undid Graham87's edits 28 times from 16:43, 3 May 2020 to 17:14, 3 May 2020. What happened here? SQLQuery me! 15:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was fixing the problems with the articles that I have edited in the past. After I undid the revisions, I was going to fix the incorrect dates and other errors. Kevt2002 0:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

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).

Kevt2002 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Grahm told me that I made spelling errors and other unneeded edits. I was in the proccess of fixing my previous edits when I was blocked. I was not intentially trying to mess up those pages.

Decline reason:

No thanks, better we leave you blocked. Yamla (talk) 10:52, 13 August 2020 (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.

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).

Kevt2002 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Yamla, what makes you think that it would be better if I was blocked?

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. only (talk) 23:33, 24 August 2020 (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.

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).

Kevt2002 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Here is a list of things I did wrong. 1. MOS:DATEVAR: I changed date formats from dd,mm,yyyy to mm,dd,yyyy on multiple articles. Example: [1].
2. Replacing non-english characters with ones in characters. Example: [2].
3.Capitalizing the first letter in peoples names where they should be lower case. Example: [3]
4. Not spelling out numbers less than 10. Example: [4]
5. Adding infoboxes to composers. I didn't know at the time that they usually shouldn't get them.
6. Not reading and replying the stuff in my talk page before I was blocked: I had a list of like 30 articles I wanted to add to, and wanted to finish those before reading the stuff in my talk page (huge mistake).
7. Reverting edits: I saw that Graham was reverting my edits and told me why. My plan was to revert them all back and fix the spelling mistakes I made in them.
8. Using an alt account: I previously requested to get unblocked 4 times. The first 2 got no response. The next 2 were rejected but gave no reason. After that, I gave up and assumed I wouldn't get unblocked. Then, User:Deepfriedokra gave me some advice on how to get unblocked.

Wikipedia:Unblocks are cheap Wikipedia:One last chance

Decline reason:

Your only hope here is the standard offer. Your block evasion with multiple accounts is sufficient to decline this block. You are eligible for reconsideration of this block on February 18, 2023 at the earliest. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 05:50, 22 August 2022 (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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevt2002 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You also failed to sign your comment and modified another user's comments in violation of the relevant guideline. More importantly for this request, you actually created several sockpuppets. Graham87 04:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Deepfriedokra used a double space in his reply. I removed it since it is more grammatically correct and didn't think much of it afterwords. Sentence_spacing#Controversy. Kevt2002 (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Damn these essential tremors. 😀 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
House style is to live and let live re one or two spaces after sentences. As it says there, it doesn't make a difference to the output anyway. Graham87 16:03, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham87: When I created the Laharmo account, it said the name was already taken. I added a 1 to it, and said the same thing again. I then replaced the 1 with a 2 and it worked. This is why they were made around the same time and didn't edit anything. Kevt2002 (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This stretchs the bounds of credibility. Graham87 16:03, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also see the talk page for one of said sockpuppets. Graham87 04:28, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
--jpgordon can I do the standard offer? Kevt2002 (talk) 16:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock discussion[edit]

I did what? Where? When? The only UTRS I see for this account-- UTRS appeal #30710 was not handled by me. I also would have told you to describe what you did to merit a block, what you would do differently, and what constructive edits you would make. The current unblock request falls far short of that. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have not addressed your abuse of multiple accounts. Perhaps it was a UTRS for one of them? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:49, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I made a new account since I didnt think I would get unblocked. I requested to get unblocked 4 times. The first 2 got no response. The next 2 were rejected but gave no reason (@Yamla and @Only). Kevt2002 (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You said "You should request unblocking via your original account." on User talk:Laharmo1. Kevt2002 (talk) 00:09, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User has indeed been evading their block. Evading a block because "I didn't think I would get unblocked" is a sure sign the user should remain blocked. I strongly suggest their open unblock request is declined, given their demonstrated unwillingness to abide by our policies. --Yamla (talk) 09:17, 19 August 2022 (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).

Kevt2002 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Here is a list of things I did wrong. #MOS:DATEVAR: I changed date formats from dd,mm,yyyy to mm,dd,yyyy on multiple articles. #Replacing non-english characters with ones in characters. #Capitalizing the first letter in peoples names where they should be lower case. #Not spelling out numbers less than 10. #Adding infoboxes to composers. I didn't know at the time that they usually shouldn't get them. # Not reading and replying the stuff in my talk page before I was blocked: I had a list of like 30 articles I wanted to add to, and wanted to finish those before reading the stuff in my talk page. #Reverting edits: I saw that Graham was reverting my edits and told me why. My plan was to revert them all back and fix the spelling mistakes I made in them. #Using an alt account: I previously requested to get unblocked 4 times. The first 2 got no response. The next 2 were rejected but gave no reason. After that, I gave up and assumed I wouldn't get unblocked. Then, User:Deepfriedokra gave me some advice on how to get unblocked. Response to RickinBaltimore: I was doing the Wikipedia:Standard offer that jpgordon suggested I do. It says to "Wait at least six months, without sockpuppetry or block evasion; i.e. having made no edit, using any account or anonymously, on the English Wikipedia." In this case, I needed to wait until 18 February 2023 which I did. Also, Graham87 unreverted one of my edits in the 2010 Connecticut House of Representatives election. They said "probaly aright, this topic is a specialty of this user, it seems" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2010_Connecticut_House_of_Representatives_election&diff=954590469&oldid=954572229. Lastly, I suggest looking at the edits I made before 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Kevt2002&target=Kevt2002&offset=20190915153251. These are examples of constructive edits I would make.

Decline reason:

No response to query below in 10 days. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:17, 2 August 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.

Yamla I made a new request. Kevt2002 (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note to reviewing admin: checkuser shows no evidence of problematic behavior. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 18:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know if my request will get reviewed or not? Some of my previous requests werent reviewed. Kevt2002 (talk) 23:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited your request to make it more readable; this will increase the likelihood one of the admin volunteers will consider it. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 23:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kevt2002, a couple of questions:

  1. It seems like you have made numerous mistakes on Wikipedia where you did not conform to Wikipedia concensus and manuals of style. What will you do differently to ensure that your edits are appropriate?
  2. Why is it important for editors to respond to talk page messages before continuing to make edits?
  3. One of the concerns that led to your block was reverting Graham87's reversion of your edits, with your stated goal of making changes to your original edits. Instead of doing this, how can an editor ensure that the appropriate text is in the article? Hint, it is not by having multiple edits.
  4. Why is it inappropriate for blocked editors to create or use alternative accounts? What should editors do instead?

Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1: I will maintain consistency within an article unless there is a good reason to do otherwise. Specifically, Replacing non-english characters and changing date formats.
2: It is important for editors to read and respond to talk page messages. This is so if an editor does something wrong, you can let them know. If the editor in question doesn't read their talk page, they would have know way of knowing that they are doing something wrong.
3: If you are unsure of which format to use, you should check the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If you make a mistake, someone will tell you on your talk page.
4. It is inappropriate for blocked editors to create or use alternative accounts since you will no longer be facing the consequenses of your actions. If it was an appropriate thing to do, blocks wouldn't be as usefull. Instead, you should make an unblock request on your talk page or use UTRS. Kevt2002 (talk) 23:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case: Here is my response to the query. Kevt2002 (talk) 21:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Pinging @Graham87:, the original blocking admin, for input. Daniel Case (talk) 06:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Kevt2002/sandbox[edit]

Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing hoaxes, such as User:Kevt2002/sandbox, is considered to be vandalism and is prohibited. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia—and then to correct them if possible. If you would like to make test edits, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked[edit]

Stop hand
Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Graham87 23:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked[edit]

Hi Kev, I've unblocked you per the above discussion, as an absolute last second chance. Be good and don't rush through things. Graham87 (talk) 07:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! You won't be dissapointed. Kevt2002 (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reblocked[edit]

So this edit shows you going back to your old tricks again ... changes of spelling of numbers and failure to read infobox documentation (search for "parents" above). You cannot be trusted. Graham87 (talk) 07:23, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers of nine or greater are spelled as a number. "Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred). When written as words, integers from 21 to 99 that are not multiples of 10 are hyphenated (including when part of a larger number): fifty-six and fifty-six thousand but five hundred and five thousand are not." Kevt2002 (talk) 13:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added the parents for genealogical reasons. See Henry Percy (Hotspur) and Edmond de Burgh for examples. Kevt2002 (talk) 13:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lastly, if someone does something wrong, you should let them know on their talk page. You did this when I was blocked previously. You just blocked me without warning. Kevt2002 (talk) 13:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, they arent "old tricks." I am not trying to be distruptive. Wikipedia:Assume good faith Kevt2002 (talk) 14:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the Manual of Style gives you two options, it doesn't mean you have the right to impose the one you prefer on the encyclopedia, as you have done. This situation goes well beyond assuming good faith, more like giving them enough rope; your rope has run out. Graham87 (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for not following the changing of numbers from one style to another. I read the style for numbers and assumed that it wouldn't matter what style you could have chose. Kevt2002 (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why didn't you tell me on my talk page? I know that if "an editor does something wrong, you can let them know." Kevt2002 (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia:Unblocks are cheap essay says that the editor can be given additional feedback for minor issues. Kevt2002 (talk) 22:06, 7 October 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).

Kevt2002 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

MOS numbers. I changed the spelling of numbers greater than nine from words to numerals. The reason I did this was in order to be more concise. Secondly, I added parents and children to infoboxes when they wern't notable. I added them because it is present on other pages like Thomas Bourke and Edmond de Burgh. I thought that if someone disliked what I was doing, they could have told me on my talk page. An example of a productive edit I made was when Graham87 said that this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simon_Wing&diff=1176413519&oldid=1104816436 was OK. Other recent good edits I made were made to Paul the Deacon https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_the_Deacon&diff=1177250052&oldid=1177231100 and Abe no Sadato https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abe_no_Sadato&diff=1177640764&oldid=1075945845 . In the future, I will not change numbers spelled out in words to numerals, or add parents and/or children to infoboxes when they arent notable.

Decline reason:

You had a 2nd chance and went back to what got you blocked in the first place. RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:53, 8 October 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.

Response to RickinBaltimore: Graham previously tole me to not "rush through things". What I thought he meant by this was to make only a few edits over a few days so he could give me feedback. I started changing the spelling of numbers but nobody, not even Graham told me it was wrong on my talk page so I assumed what I was doing was ok. The reason I was blocked in the first place was because I didn't read my talk page. The only person to give me feedback on my edits was User:Aza24. I continued this for around 2 weeks, and then without warning, Graham blocked me.Kevt2002 (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot speak to the user's other edits, but their edits of the Guido of Arezzo page seem to have been in good faith, and once I explained their mistake (on part of the edits), they appropriately accepted it. Aza24 (talk) 03:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure![edit]

Hi Kevt2002! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 22:34, Wednesday, October 18, 2023 (UTC)

Mission 1 Mission 2 Mission 3 Mission 4 Mission 5 Mission 6 Mission 7
Say Hello to the World An Invitation to Earth Small Changes, Big Impact The Neutral Point of View The Veil of Verifiability The Civility Code Looking Good Together
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kevt2002&oldid=1180799239"