User talk:Kelby2002

April 2014

Hello, I'm Theroadislong. Your recent edit to the page Ken Ham appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response to your post on my talk page

You are incorrect. The overwhelming scientific evidence for over a hundred years has proven him not only 'wrong', but so wrong as to not even be anywhere close to being right. Revert yourself. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Ken Ham. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Creationism. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Creationism, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Creationism was changed by Kelby2002 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.948083 on 2014-04-10T22:19:00+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 22:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Creationism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Theroadislong (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kelby2002, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who use multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please remember to disclose these connections. Theroadislong (talk) 22:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kelby2002. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may 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. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of discretionary sanctions

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to pseudoscience and fringe science. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you need to make more clear that you cant have two accounts, because the reason I had 2 is because I thought it was ok. on the create account you should put a message that states you cant.The K (talk) 23:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

if you are going to make a formal request, you need to follow the both the technical procedures outlined above so that it will be placed in the queue, and the content guidelines as Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

how?The K (talk) 02:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copy the squiggly bracket bit in the block notice and paste it below the unblock request in your edit window. Replace the "your reason here" bit with the actual reason(s) why you think you should (or could) be unblocked. Click the "Show preview" button below the edit window to preview what you've written. If you're satisfied, click "Save page." Done. Blocks are meant to be preventative (or so they always say), not punitive. So that thought might help you write something persuasive. And do what TRPoD said: follow the guide to appealing blocks. Good luck. Writegeist (talk) 03:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

deleting account

how do you delete an account? I need to delete my sockpupet kelb2002.The K (talk) 20:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot delete an account. Its blocked and harmless and will remain blocked and harmless. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining

I patrolled your page. I went through the enormously-backlogged list of newly-created pages and confirmed that your page was okay: not spam, not an attack page, not a copyright violation, not any of the other reasons for which I would delete someone's page without asking. Then I clicked "patrolled" to remove it from the list of "pages that have not yet been patrolled", and moved on to the next entry. That's all. DS (talk) 19:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, as you did at Talk:Evolution. --Mr Fink (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Ken Ham. 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. Theroadislong (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't change the format of dates, as you did to Prehistory. As a general rule, if an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the dates should be left in the format they were originally written in, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. Please also note that Wikipedia does not use ordinal suffixes (e.g., st, nd, th), articles, or leading zeros on dates.

For more information about how dates should be written on Wikipedia, please see this page.

If you have any questions about this, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Enjoy your time on Wikipedia. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Ken Ham. You've been warned enough times to know that these kind of edits are disruptive [1][2]. You are advised to stop. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 23:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you edit disruptively, as you did at Ken Ham both here and here. Writegeist (talk) 23:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Ken Ham, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. XFEM Skier (talk) 05:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Black Kite (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]