User talk:Klgd98

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Klgd98, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! –Gladamas (talk · contribs) 07:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jameson Blake[edit]

I noticed you worked to improve Jameson Blake. I have undone your changes but wanted to give you context and further guidance which might be helpful. While you added several new sources to the page, in Wikipedia it's reliable sources (RS) which matter and most of the sources you added weren't reliable. The key with the biography of a living person (BLP is to have RS explain how the subject is notable. Your last revision was closer to doing that but not, in my judgement, there quite yet. Hope that is helpful. If you have questions please ping me here or leave a question/comment on my talk page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Klgd98: I am trying a ping to get your attention to the above comment. Please also note that your revisions at this point are not in line with WP:3RR. 01:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Klgd98 reported by User:Barkeep49 (Result: ). Thank you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably reply at the discussion and/or self-revert your last edit if you want to avoid being blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Jameson Blake. 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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:43, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN:(talk) 15:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)hello I couldnt even imagine why you guys doesnt want me to contribute reliable info in fact they are all true. Please observe that the links or sourcea are reliable. Thank you though.[reply]

Edit warring at Jameson Blake[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston:

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).

Klgd98 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Because all my sources are all reliable kindly observe. And He is reallu notable now with many movies. Why you guys cant see it. Thank you though. klgd98 (talk)

Decline reason:

It doesn't matter whether you're right or wrong (everyone thinks they're right, right?), edit warring is not an acceptable way to solve a dispute. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2018 (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.

@Boing! said Zebedee: I came up with edit warring because a user always revise my edit which always redirect the person to a show in which he doesnt in part anymore.Please consider my reason.klgd98 (talk)

Edit warring is not allowed. Make a new unblock request if you want another admin to consider it. But be assured that if you insist on your right to edit war, it will be declined. Also, if you do not change your attitude and accept Wikipedia's rules about edit warring, you stand a chance of having your block extended. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been told by both EdJohnston and Boing! said Zebedee to stop edit warring so why are you still edit warring ? ....... –Davey2010^Talk 17:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:13, 29 April 2018 (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).

Klgd98 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

What I did is maked it simplier, specified and more reliable article.Klgd98 (talk) 17:28, 29 April 2018 (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. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2018 (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.

What you didn't do is discuss as you were directed to. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN:(talk) 19:53, 6 May 2018 (UTC)hi mate I think my block warring was already expired. Can you please unblock me. Thank you very much.[reply]

May 2018[edit]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Jameson Blake, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:37, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 months for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And you're blocked again seeing as the second edit you made after your block expired was to go back to edit warring on Jameson Blake. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]