User talk:Fekj

August 2018

Hello, I'm AntiCedros. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Kate Worley have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. AntiCedros (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits, as you did to Norwegian County Road 901. Readers looking for accurate information will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, please use the sandbox instead, where you are given a certain degree of freedom in what you write. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 15:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to List of state leaders in 1754. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Shellwood (talk) 15:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Am I Right, you may be blocked from editing. AntiCedros (talk) 15:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Pływaczewo.
Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Pływaczewo was changed by Fekj (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.939987 on 2018-08-31T15:32:50+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 15:32, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

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 shown interest in post-1992 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 the 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.

Jonathunder (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Looking at your edit history, it doesn't appear you use edit summaries. Please do so going forward. Jonathunder (talk) 15:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Quintessa Swindell. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. jp×g 00:32, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Patrick Neville. jp×g 00:32, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail reference at Killing of Harambe

Hi. Please do not use the Daily Mail as you did at Killing of Harambe. It is not a reliable source. See WP:DAILYMAIL. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 11:56, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to 2022 Florida gubernatorial election, did not appear to be constructive and have 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 your 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. Curbon7 (talk) 00:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ilhan Omar. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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. VQuakr (talk) 08:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ilhan Omar. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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. In addition to our basic policy WP:CONSENSUS, please take the time to familiarize yourself with WP:RS and WP:BLP, both of which your edits clearly violate. JBL (talk) 10:21, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Ilhan Omar) for persistent disruptive editing.

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 ~~~~}}. Black Kite (talk) 15:47, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Austin Reaves, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. —Bagumba (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Allen Iverson. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Specifically per MOS:NICKNAMETHE, a leading "the" in a nickname is typically not capitalized. —Bagumba (talk) 12:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

One of your recent edits has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at 2022 New Mexico gubernatorial election shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Henry Ruggs shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
No, you do not get to continue making your change. The article stays in the status quo unless there is consensus to make the change. Meters (talk) 04:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, the picture is the first thing a viewer sees, and it shows a story of how the person in question got to the place they were at. It is indicative of the person and will make the viewer more likely to stay on the page for longer and know more important information about the subject Fekj (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also nearly every mugshot is public domain, so it is better to use that to insure we have a true source Fekj (talk) 12:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot simply upload images you scrape from the web under invalid licenses. I have removed the invalid US Gov license from all of the images you uploads. They are not products of the US government as you claim. They are all uncredited images from copyrighted news sources, or the product of local police services, not Federal. They may indeed be free use, but you have oe provide the source and a valid licensing rationale for claiming that they are free use. As the licensing template clearly says, it "only applies to original works of the Federal Government and not to the work of any individual U.S. state, territory, commonwealth, county, municipality, or any other subdivision." Meters (talk) 20:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mugshots

Stop changing infobox images to mugshots for people who are not specifically known for being criminals. It will lead to you being blocked. Black Kite (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

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 shown interest in post-1992 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 the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

Doug Weller talk 10:47, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

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 shown interest in climate change. 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 the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

Doug Weller talk 10:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for consistent disruptive editing; nearly every edit you make is contentious or has to be reverted. I therefore surmise you are not here to build an encyclopedia, but simply to make political points..

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 ~~~~}}. Black Kite (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi sir, I don't understand the reasoning behind my block. Anybody could say they challenge world leaders. Fekj (talk) 22:06, 8 October 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).

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

Request reason:

I believe in order to create the best possible encyclopedia we need to challenge biased and partisan speech. In order to do that I have been editing that. If you had any problem with any edit I've made, please tell what I can change, and we can go through there. I still think its unfair for a block for this reason. Fekj (talk) 02:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

On at least one occasion you removed content from an article asserting that no sources used the terminology described, when they clearly do. This, along with others things, tells me that the block is correct. You aren't just challenging biased speech, you're pushing right wing talking points. I don't see a pathway to being unblocked for you unless you abandon editing about post-1992 American politics. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 08:55, 13 October 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.