User talk:Sir Kenneth Kho

Welcome!

Hello, Sir Kenneth Kho!

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, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome! Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 15:59, 5 June 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.

Welcome!

Hi Sir Kenneth Kho! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

I've noticed that you've expressed an interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Unfortunately, due to a history of conflict and disruptive editing it has been designated a contentious topic and is subject to some strict rules.

The rule that affects you most as a new or IP editor is the prohibition on making any edit related to the Arab–Israel conflict unless you are logged into an account and that account has extended confirmed rights (automatically granted when an account is at least 30 days old and has made at least 500 edits).

This prohibition is broadly construed, so it includes edits such as adding the reaction of a public figure concerning the conflict to their article or noting the position of a company or organization as it relates to the conflict.

The exception to this rule is that you may request a specific change to an article on the talk page of that article or at this page. Please ensure that your requested edit complies with our neutral point of view and reliable sourcing policies, and if the edit is about a living person our policies on biographies of living people as well.

Any edits you make contrary to these rules are likely to be reverted, and repeated violations can lead to you being blocked from editing.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Selfstudier (talk) 08:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editing project pages

Please don't edit policy and guideline pages until you have more tenure on the project, and no project pages should be moved without consensus at WP:RM.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ECR

Please do not violate WP:ECR as you did here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:55, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, I thought that did not apply as I avoided content. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It applies to everything except constructive edit requests on article talk pages. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for WP:ECR violations, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes"). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

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

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

Request reason:

I made an ECR violation as my edit stands at 485, that is sufficient ground for a block. However, I made the violation under the false impression that I was already an EC editor, I had received a congratulations two hours ago, that I was able to access the Wikipedia Library as I made 500 edits, but apparently that includes non en-wiki edits. As blocks are intended to be preventative, I don't think this block is needed anymore. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

This is reasonable. Remember to to wait until you reach extended-confirmed on en.wiki. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) You missed a trick here, SKK: you should've made 16 edits making and polishing your unblock request :D SerialNumber54129 21:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129 Admins Hate Them! See how they escaped EC restrictions using this one weird trick! Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ARCA statement

It is inconsistent with the policy on civility to call a fellow Wikipedian a sovereign citizen poisoning the well, as you did at WP:ARC. I have accordingly removed the comment that contains this remark.

I understand that subjective norms of what is and is not appropriate can be murky, but I wanted to let you know personally that this crosses a line. You can state that what the user did or did not do was correct or incorrect without using those unnecessarily-inflammatory words. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@L235 Thank you for pointing it out, I was about to ask whether the rpa was due to that phrase, on the one hand I felt the phrase was descriptive enough to use, on the other hand the phrase did not quite fit the bill, as here the grounds are "fairness" instead of "jurisdiction". I realized too that it could start an unnecessary back and forth, and I will not use the phrase again. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]