User talk:PanamanianBlanco

PanamanianBlanco, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi PanamanianBlanco! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Dathus (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Overlinking

Hi, I noticed that you have been adding links to capital city in the definition sentences of a lot of capital city articles. Please review MOS:OVERLINK, which states that "everyday words understood by most readers in context" should generally not be linked. These intro sentences are already quite link-heavy anyway, so it's not really a good idea to cram yet more links into them. Thank you, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok

I thought it would be helpful since some of the other ones had it

Please quit using bare link

As I previously have told you, please don't use bare URL references, such as the following...

<ref>https://www.bestplaces.net/economy/county/kansas/wyandotte</ref>

because "https://www.bestplaces.net/economy/county/kansas/wyandotte" shows up in the reference section instead of a text description.

Read:

Wikipedia:Citing sources
Help:Wikipedia:_The_Missing_Manual/Editing,_creating,_and_maintaining_articles/Documenting_your_sources#Creating_footnotes
how other references are constructed in articles.

Please go back and fix all of your recent edits.

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 17:31, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but it’ll take me a little bit of time to figure out how to do that. It kinda just all looks the same on mobile view. I don’t even know what text description means. I thought there was only refrences PanamanianBlanco (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Imma take a little break For a little while and then I’ll fix those references before I add anymore references. Maybe in like a week PanamanianBlanco (talk) 06:02, 28 November 2019 (UTC))[reply]

I feel like you’re just looking for what else you can remove. I don’t see why you were so triggered by the chiefs but not the airport. I don’t even watch those games or care about football. PanamanianBlanco (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2019 (UTC))[reply]

I’ll go fix them next week PanamanianBlanco (talk) 06:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC))[reply]

December 2019

Your recent editing history at Kansas City Chiefs 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Registered users and several IPs have removed your addition to the Chiefs page, please use the article's talk page instead of edit warring. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:07, 9 December 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).

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

Request reason:

Unblock request ? They unblocked me, this is the only account I’ve been using, why did you block me again? PanamanianBlanco (talk) 15:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. SQL ^{Query me!} 16:37, 9 December 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.

@Eagles247: They unblocked me already, please unblock me and go back and undo what you removed. PanamanianBlanco (talk) 15:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The block on your IP address may have expired or your IP has changed, but your main account and all of your sockpuppets are still blocked. In accordance with the blocking policy, you may not edit Wikipedia through IP addresses or registered accounts unless and until you successfully appeal the original block from your main account. Based on your disruptive editing with this new account, I doubt that will be the case anytime soon. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagles247: my main account isn’t even blocked. I didn’t know the log in , they unlocked it. That was only the second edit war I’ve been in after More than 500 edits. PanamanianBlanco (talk) 15:34, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagles247: They told me just to put that I was sock pup-petting before on my user page. That’s why I specifically stated that on my user page. PanamanianBlanco (talk) 15:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is your main account username? And your userpage did not say anything about socking in the past, only that you previous used an IP address that kept changing. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagles247: That’s the first edit warring warning I’ve gotten give me a few minutes to see if I can find that original account PanamanianBlanco (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagles247: Kansascitt1225 That’s the name of the account they unblocked. PanamanianBlanco (talk) 15:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kansascitt1225 has been blocked since January. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagles247: No, seriously they unblocked me and that’s the only edit war I’ve been in. This is the only account I’ve used. It doesn’t say blocked on the front page of that. PanamanianBlanco (talk) 15:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out, I've fixed the template to show the account has been blocked indefinitely as shown here. Send me a link to where an administrator unblocked you. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagles247: Just ask the guy who originally blocked me for sock puppeting. I haven’t used a different account since January so all my edits are legit. That’s the only time I’ve edit warred, it’s kind of controversial on the front of a sports team. PanamanianBlanco (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagles247: There’s no need to remove stuff, you can see the other accounts haven’t been logged into in a long time. I just have 1 other account on commons for photos. PanamanianBlanco (talk) 16:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your absurd/false claim, I've revoked TPA.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]