User talk:KRed221

December 2019

Hello, I'm Muboshgu. An edit that you recently made to Amy Klobuchar seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want to practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! – Muboshgu (talk) 15:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome KRed221!

Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are 48,285,541 registered editors!

Hello, KRed221. Welcome to Wikipedia!

I'm S0091, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.

To help get you started, you may find these useful:

The Five Pillars (fundamental principles) of Wikipedia

A Primer for Newcomers

Introduction to Wikipedia

Wikipedia Training Modules

Simplified Manual of Style

Creating a new article via the Article Wizard

When editing, follow the 3 Core Content Policies:

1. Neutral point of view: represent significant views fairly

2. Verifiability: claims should cite reliable, published sources

3. No original research: no originality; reference published sources

Brochures: Editing Wikipedia & Illustrating Wikipedia
Ask a Question about How to Use Wikipedia
Help

Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp.

Sincerely, S0091 (talk) 15:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC) (Leave me a message)[reply]

January 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at John Delaney (Maryland politician). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 2020 United States presidential election. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 21:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.—David O. Johnson (talk) 13:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

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 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 ~~~~}}.

I have blocked you for persistent vandalism and because you are obviously not here to build an encyclopedia. Neutrality^talk 18:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

KRed221 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I believe I should be unblocked or at least, have the my suspension be lifted on a certain date instead of indefinitely. I do understand that many of the edits I made were not educational. I am very passionate about my political beliefs and it can get the best of me sometimes. However, I have also tried to make edits that do give the reader of the page more information such as my edits on Michigan’s 2020 house elections. I promise that I will only continue to make constructive edits to pages moving forward. With that being said, I am requesting that I be unblocked from wikipedia right now, or that my suspension not be indefinite. KRed221 (talk) 19:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Based on your pledge to avoid political articles, I will remove the block. I won't log this as a formal topic ban, as I hope the pledge will be sufficient. 331dot (talk) 22:25, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks are not "reduced", you will be unblocked when you make a successful unblock request. If you are unable to control your passions about political topics, you should probably avoid editing articles related to US politics. Are there any other topics you want to edit about? 331dot (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, anything to do with film, movies, animals, there are lots of other things that I could edit. I will stay away from editing political articles at all. My request still stands.

Neutrality Do you have any comment on this, if they agree to stay away from political articles? 331dot (talk) 19:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

331dot: I'm OK with an unblock on that condition (that the user stays away from all politics-related articles and edits). Neutrality^talk 21:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then. I will stay away from all political articles and edits if I’m unblocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KRed221 (talk • contribs) 17:45, April 18, 2020 (UTC)

So much for your promise to "stay away from all political articles" if you're unblocked, huh? Do not make edits to Joe Biden's article without a talk page consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ping 331dot FYI. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ping 331dot Eccekevin (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Biden lead

This edit appears to violate your unblock pledge. This has been extensively discussed with no consensus to put it in the lead. Please self-revert. SPECIFICO talk 16:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have also edited the House members list. I or someone else will restore the block should you continue. 331dot (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed an error on the house pages, that’s all. It won’t happen again. If it does, you can block me.

June 2020

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Rian Johnson, 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. Nemov (talk) 12:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The information on Rian Johnson’s page is factually incorrect. Audiences did not mostly like this film, in fact this film was very divisive among audiences as it got a 43 percent score on Rotten Tomatoes. At least correct this mistake because many people did not like The Last Jedi, even though the critics did. It is misleading to insinuate that this film was mostly well received from audiences because it was not. I hope that someone may fix this problem, because it doesn’t have to be me. This is also not my personal opinion because many fans have gone online to either say it was a good movie, or it was a terribel movie. The critics may have liked it, but the audience was split on it. Please correct this factual error.21:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)~

This topic has been discussed extensively at the that talk page for Star Wars: The Last Jedi. If you have an issue with the consensus you can take it there, but you'll find very little support for your position. It's important to remember that "people online" isn't always representative of general audience. Every scientific study of what people actually thought of the film shows that the overwhelming majority of people liked it. This reflected in every sample and in the box office. You're free to disagree of course, but the available evidence supports an alternative conclusion. Happy editing. - Nemov (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do not add successor parameter until succession takes place.

See guidlines at Template:Infobox_officeholder and discussion about successor parameter at Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder#RfC:_Interim_use_of_successor=\. Eccekevin (talk) 21:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating your agreement to avoid political articles.

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=UnfairnessKRed221 (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC) ~~~~}}. 331dot (talk) 21:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

:(

No one will see your unblock request unless you highlight and copy it when viewing this page, then open the edit window and paste it outside the block notice. 331dot (talk) 18:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfairness

Now I will acknowledge that I have rightfully been blocked. However, this is an issue that I think deserves discussion as the editors on Wikipedia are very very wrong here. I demand an audience with Eccekevin and the editors who have gotten rid of the inteirm succession edits and who frankly, seem uninterested in educating people on the talk pages with the exception of Harley Rouda’s page.KRed221 (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked indefinitely before and was only lifted because you pledged to "stay away from editing political articles at all." You've broken that pledge a few times based on your edit history. I don't see how that's unfair. Nemov (talk) 13:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your response seeems to show that you only read the title because if you had actually read what I said, then you would see that I acknowledge that I have been rightfully blocked. Reread what I said and respond to what I’m actually asking. I’m not asking to be unblockdd. Do not tell me things that I already know.KRed221 (talk) 17:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your general disposition I don't believe any editor or admin owes you any kind of explanation, let alone cower to your "demand for an audience." Your edit record speaks for itself. Nemov (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You people have got to be some of the most condescending people I’ve ever seen. Even when you guys are talking amongst yourselves you still condescend toward each other. I mean jesus christ.

I'm not sure what is condescending here, or how you can tell since text communication does not easily convey emotion, but if personal attacks continue, you will lose access to this page. Either request unblock, or not. 331dot (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]