User talk:BankOfKnowledge

Welcome!

Hello, BankOfKnowledge, 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! Greyjoy^talk 05:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An extended welcome

Hi BankOfKnowledge. Welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Ronz (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

Hello, I'm Ronz. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. 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! --Ronz (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Please note that WP:BLP places the burden of adding new material to articles on those editors adding the material. Consensus should be reached on article talk pages before restoring the material. --Ronz (talk) 18:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond

Hi BankOfKnowledge. If you're not going to address any of the comments above or the concerns in the edit summaries where your edits have been reverted, and are instead going to continue as you have been, then you are putting yourself at risk of being blocked. Could you please take some time to respond? Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 22:02, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ronz, sorry I didn't respond to the comments. I forgot to check my notifications! I noticed that a lot of my edits were reverted even though all of them were sourced. Why is this the case?

Thanks for responding.

BLP requires strict adherence to all three core content policies. Having a source is not enough, especially if the source is poor or the proposed content contentious. You're a new editor here, and as I've indicated, editing controversial topics is extremely difficult even when editors have good understanding of Wikipedia's policies. Please be careful going forward. --Ronz (talk) 23:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary Sanctions Notification - American Politics

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

Hello, I'm Tacyarg. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, London Breed, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tacyarg (talk) 06:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to George W. Bush, 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. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Rose Cleveland. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Jusdafax (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Scott Pruitt. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 08:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Bill Owens (Colorado politician). Much of your edit was not supported by the source cited. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Paul Newman. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Sakaimover (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Paul Newman. The claims you are adding to the article are not found at the Country Living source (and your citation mis-describes the source). General Ization ^Talk 22:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

September 2018

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Bill Clinton. I've noticed several edits of BLPs where you have added wholly inappropriate sources such as Wikipedia itself and google searches. Please do not continue to do this. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:47, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 ~~~~}}. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Indefinite" does not mean "forever". Any admin is free to unblock you once you acknowledge and start to address the concerns about your editing left all over your talk page. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:10, 25 September 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).

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

Request reason:

Hi, I made some mistakes. I was new to wikipedia. I used reliable sources, but I didn't always quote them. I'll adhere to proper editing policies in the future.

Decline reason:

This unblock request has been declined due to your history of vandalism and/or disruption to this encyclopedia. However, we are willing to give you another chance provided that you can earn back the trust of the Wikipedia community. To be unblocked you need to demonstrate that you are willing and able to contribute positively to Wikipedia. You can do this by:

Familiarizing yourself with our basic rules.
Read our guide to improving articles
Pick any pre-existing article you wish to improve.
If you have trouble choosing an article to improve, see this index of articles needing improvement for ideas. Once you have decided on the article you will propose improvements to:
1. Click the Edit tab at the top of that article;
2. Copy the portion of the prose from that article that you will be proposing changes to. However:
  - do not copy the "infobox" from the start of the article (i.e., markup like this: {{infobox name|...}});
  - do not copy any image placement code (i.e., markup like this: [[File:Name.jpg|thumb|caption]]);
  - do not copy the page's categories from the bottom of the page (i.e., markup like this: [[Category:Name]]);
  - do not copy the stub tag (if there) from the bottom of the page (i.e., markup like this: {{Foo stub}});
3. Click edit at your talk page, and paste at the bottom under a new section header (like this: == [[Article title]] ==) the copied content but do not save yet;
4. Place your cursor in the edit summary box and paste there an edit summary in the following form which specifies the name of the article you copied from and links to it (this is required for mandatory copyright attribution): "Copied content from [[exact Name of Article]]; see that article's history for attribution."
5. You can now save the page. However, if your edits will include citations to reliable sources (which they should), add the following template to the end of your prose: {{reflist-talk}}. Once you have added the template, click Publish changes.
Now, edit that content. Propose significant and well researched improvements by editing the selected portion of the article. Please note that we are not looking for basic typo corrections, or small unreferenced additions; your edits should be substantial, and reflect relevant policies.
When you are done with your work, re-request unblocking and an administrator will review your proposed edits.
- If we (including the original blocking admin) are convinced that your proposed edits will improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, you will be unblocked.

If you need help while working with your proposed edits, you may add "{{Help me|your question here ~~~~}}" to your talk page. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 21:54, 14 November 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.

Comment: I turned BankOfKnowledge's comment from 29 October 2018‎ into an unblock request, as I assume that's what they meant to do. I don't personally know this editor, so otherwise I have no opinion. - Alexis Jazz 18:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Kevin Stitt (Oklahoma Politician)

Hello, BankOfKnowledge. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Kevin Stitt".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Dolotta (talk) 12:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]