User talk:KodineTots

I'm new to Wikipedia but the contribution on Peñafiel was cited but I didn't know how to add the code in and I actually did research for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KodineTots (talk • contribs)

If that's what you truly believe then you fundamentally don't understand WP:CITE and WP:RS. --Yamla (talk) 11:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I researched to find out why there was arsenic in the water. I remembered a documentary on a village that couldn't drink the water because of arsenic and through research I found that areas with volcanic activity have naturally high occurring anounts of arsenic. I didn't know that the page existed for editing. But how I am wrong for doing research or is it the way I sighted a source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KodineTots (talk • contribs)

WP:CITE and WP:RS have the answers you seek. --Yamla (talk) 10:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, WP:NOR. --Yamla (talk) 10:57, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see that now but how is this of any use now since I'm apparently permanently blocked from Wikipedia edits?

July 2019

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Roseburg, Oregon. 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. 93.182.179.223 (talk) 09:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Roseburg, Oregon, you may be blocked from editing. PATH SLOPU 09:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Roseburg, Oregon. PATH SLOPU 10:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. 93.182.179.223 (talk) 11:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

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 ~~~~}}. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:13, 6 July 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

Please Unblock. I apologize for any foolishness on Roseburg, Oregon I was wrong childish fun gave way to actually liking adding real information to articles. I am making it up by adding factual information. Please see added info to Peñafiel Mineral water, attempt at adding to Crystal geyser water, and adding factual information to Roseburg, Oregon. Please have whoever is taking off info for Charles Town, WV to stop. I'm from there and the info is correct. Thank you

Decline reason:

As requested, I took a look at your contributions to Peñafiel Mineral water and Roseburg, Oregon. Those contributions were inappropriate. Either uncited, or very poorly cited. If that's what we can expect if we unblock you, it's clearly in Wikipedia's best interests to leave you blocked. Yamla (talk) 13:32, 6 July 2019 (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.

Why was my reply to this deleted? KodineTots (talk) 08:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are not permitted to modify declined unblock requests. Besides, you are the person who removed the reply. --Yamla (talk) 10:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

i don't how it was because I only deleted my response in your declined message because I didn't know there was an option to reply as it seems there's two talk pages. Wiki could make that a little easier.FYI KodineTots (talk) 11:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Town, WV

Long gone are the days when we could edit based on personal knowledge. All content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking. It's not what you know; it's what you can source.13:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC) PS Given the great effort you put into vandalization, please understand the urge to reject anything you write out-of-hand. Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Yamla:. As always, you put it so much better than I. To be less diplomatic/coy/AGFish, the pattern I see is one of edits intended to lull any reviewing admin into mindlessly unblocking you. Of attempting to mislead. You'll need to do far better than that. Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to make up for what I did. Some things I purposefully edited because it seemed like someone was following me undoing factual edits just because of previous vandalism that I did and I stopped and apologized. KodineTots (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]