K69

Hi, this is my talk page!

Welcome!

Hello, K69, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! 

Mexican Drug War

Hi, K69. Could you please stop making political statements on Wikipedia pages like you did to Mexican Drug War or Scientology? Wikipedia is not a soapbox, blog, or discussion forum. If you want to make personal statements related to Wikipedia, then you may use your userspace to do so, as long as it complies with Wikipedia:User pages. --Apollo1758 (talk) 20:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Jj horner.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Jj horner.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, K69. You have new messages at Skier Dude's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

June 2011

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Paul Revere. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Paul Revere, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Jokestress (talk) 23:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC) [edit by Teque5 (talk) 23:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)]

Hi. I removed the links you added to Omegle and Cleverbot as, while humorous, they don't seem to belong on a serious encyclopedia like Wikipedia (in accordance with WP:NOT). Thank you. —Tommyjb Talk! (09:39, 8 June 2011)

Please unblock me

I'll be good I promise.

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

February 2012

This is your only warning; if you add defamatory content to Wikipedia again, as you did at Propofol, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

What? Those revisions were all based of fact backed up by references. I'm going to start my own Wikipedia.

Blocked

Okay, you've had your fun. Adding defamatory links to fake news sites is clearly unacceptable. For at least the last four months, every edit of yours has been trolling, and your block log goes back even further. The last block was indefinite and reversed on the "one last chance" condition. I see no reason to believe you will be a constructive editor, and have reinstated that block. Kuru (talk) 13:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

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).

K69 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hi, I wanted to start editing again. Sorry for the previous vandalism. I was on a lot of anxiety meds then but I'm clean now, so nothing like this will happen again. Please unblock me. Thanks!

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.

Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 01:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

---

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.

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).

K69 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

That's not fair. This was years ago and I didn't care about my account then, but I do now though. I have no desire to do anymore vandalism, it won't happen again. In fact, if I do anything remotely close to vandalism again, even one time, you can permaban me and I won't be back again. There's a lot of topics on Wikipedia I am interested in and I want to help build those pages out in a constructive manner. I feel bad about the vandalism I caused in the past, but that was years ago. I'm a different person now and would never do that again. I'm just asking for one more chance, please

Decline reason:

You already had one "last chance" back in 2012. You vandalized again. You were indefinitely blocked. So we dealt with you in exactly the way you say we should deal with you. And that's unfair how, exactly? That might have been years ago, but it also was for years. At this point we'll need more than nice words about how your edits were "based of fact backed up by references" (they weren't) or how you're "just misunderstood". If you want to re-gain your editing privileges, I'd suggest you pick one of those pages you're interested in building and propos a significant improvement to it - not just trivial wording or grammar changes - here on this talk page. If you can show that you indeed can help improve the encyclopedia, we may consider unblocking you. Huon (talk) 12:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

---

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.

Nomination of David Rabern for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David Rabern is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Rabern until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. DarkAudit (talk) 02:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of JJ Horner for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article JJ Horner is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JJ Horner until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Ploni (talk) 11:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)