User talk:Kentucky Rain24

Welcome!

Hello, Kentucky Rain24!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 13:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Kentucky Rain24, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ariel Elkin (April 11)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CNMall41 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines for sports persons and athletes). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ariel Elkin and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CNMall41 (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting talk page comments for non-ECP editors

Could you share the policy basis for deleting talk page comments by non-ECP editors? I don't believe I see such a stipulation in Wikipedia:ECP JDiala (talk) 17:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:ECR "Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area," Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 17:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And how wasn't the Abu Obeida thing an edit request? JDiala (talk) 17:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit requests need to be structured in a specific way - see Wikipedia:Edit requests. You've been editing here for more than 10 years, shouldn't you know this by now? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should be guiding new users to format things correctly instead of deleting things as you did. It's not really in concert with WP:GF, nor is your comment above. By the way, you made a number of 1RR violations on the article. You can't manually revert as much as you want before ECP is made. JDiala (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have little incentive to be nice to users who call me a 'Zionist Shill' or a dog. Reverting edits by users who are not allowed to edit a page in the first place do not count against 1RR. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 18:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The exceptions for what constitutes a revert are outlined on WP:NOT3RR. Your conduct does not fall into those exceptions. As for your civility, I don't recall calling you anything yet you claimed I should be 'blocked' for suggesting a title change. This is quite inappropriate. JDiala (talk) 19:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ECR says Reverts made solely to enforce this restriction are not considered edit warring. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying, @ScottishFinnishRadish:. These revert exceptions are indeed confusing and I hope to get better at this as I become more experienced. JDiala (talk) 05:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prior accounts

Have you ever had an account on Wikipedia before? Selfstudier (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No prior registered accounts, I did make several edits before registering this one Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 19:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revert on Israel-Hamas war

In the future, if you feel that a source I use needs attribution, I would prefer that you add it yourself instead of reverting the entire revision, which in this case included other important edits.

Thanks. Unbandito (talk) 13:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I felt your entire edit was inappropriate, The fact that it was based on a terrible source its just part of the problem Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AGF

Please assume WP:AGF. Such a comment is not helpful.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove things that are obviously edit requests

[1] This comment you removed is obviously an edit request, even if not formatted correctly, and a completely non-controversial one at that. It does no one any favors to just delete the comment and not even fix the highlighted problem, nor tell them the correct method of requesting an edit --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 12:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Status quo stonewalling

Please do not revert changes simply due to 'no consensus', as you did here saying only "get consensus", and again here saying only "see WP:ONUS". What exactly do you object to about my edit? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit changed a long-standing version, and was misleadingly described as a "minor" change, when it is not minor.

The version you modified correctly (in my opinion) linked the territories Israel captured during the war to their pre-war status - a territory occupied by Egypt (Gaza Strip), and a territory occupied and annexed by Jordan (West Bank) - neither country was recognized internationally as the legal sovereign in those territories.

Your version glosses over that distinction by linking directly to the countries of Egypt and Jordan, implying that these were their territories.

Maybe you can convince editors that your version is better - but you need to make a case for that through discussion on the article's talk page. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 20:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Your version glosses over that distinction by linking directly to the countries of Egypt and Jordan, implying that these were their territories." Not sure what you mean by this, I simply made West Bank link to West Bank and Gaza Strip link to Gaza Strip. Not every change, especially such a small change, needs to be discussed on the talk page. And I also made a formatting change, do you object to that too or can I restore that? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with the formatting change. You can discuss the content change on the talk page. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So then why did you undo the formatting change? Also there is no need to open a talk page discussion at this time, I am already discussing it with you, the only editor who has objected to the change. Are you not willing to discuss this further? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about content should happen on the article's talk page - I explained my objection to you, above. Let's hear from others. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Discussion about content should happen on the article's talk page" Says who?

The disagreement is between just us so we can discuss it here without wasting the time of others. If you insist you are unwilling to discuss this at all, other than just stating your reason for objecting, then I will open a talk page discussion, but your seeming lack of willingness to discuss this or to collaborate/compromise on this appears rather disruptive. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Says Wikipedia "Talk page discussion is a prerequisite to almost all of Wikipedia's venues of higher dispute resolution." WP:NEGOTIATE.

I stated my reason for objecting to your change, above. If you want to discuss further, open a discussion at the article's page. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 21:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Netanyahu talk page revision

Last month, you deleted several topics in the talk page of Netanyahu, citing WP:ECP and WP:BLP. The result of your changes was, in part, the stranding of one of my talk page replys, stripping my reply of any context. Do you think that your mass deletion of text was necessary? Do you think you made a mistake by leaving my talk page response to make it look like I was out-of-the-blue defending Netanyahu? I have made a note on the article's talk page that my reply was stripped of context. Thank you in advance for your response. Closhund /talk/ 05:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, reviewing your talk page, I am at least the third editor to mention this. So it's clearly a problem. Closhund /talk/ 05:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think think this is a big problem, but you can feel free to re-add the edits I removed if you feel they make your comments seem as if they are out of the blue. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 05:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all well and good, but I already addressed that by editing it myself, as I already said. And the talk page has been archived without my change to it, so it's a bit of a mess. Can you please directly answer my questions? And address the fact that three people have mentioned the same problem to you? Closhund /talk/ 06:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your questions: No, I don't think I made a mistake as WP:ECR is quite clear that those comments are not allowed. When I edited such pages before I was ECP, my comments were unceremoniously deleted, as well, with editors telling me to stay out.

I think YOU made a mistake by responding to those edits instead of removing them.

That other editors are not happy with WP:ECR (one of them now topic banned from editing in this area altogether) and its restrictions is their problem, not mine. You, and they, can ask that WP:ECR be revised Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 06:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for answering one of my two original questions after being asked twice to answer my two original questions. This is my last comment to you. Closhund /talk/ 06:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

--Blablubbs (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 103fm

Hello, Kentucky Rain24

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Dclemens1971, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've proposed an article that you started, 103fm, for deletion because it meets one or more of our deletion criteria, and I don't think that it is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The particular issue can be found in the notice that is now visible at the top of the article.

If you wish to contest the deletion:

Edit the page
Remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
Click the Publish changes button.

If you object to the article's deletion, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the issues raised in the deletion notice. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Dclemens1971}}. And remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]