Kauiltan

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, Kauiltan, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
• and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

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 need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Kauiltan, 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! 00:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Kauiltan. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

are we just blocking everyone who edits this page? Is there some sort of anti-natalist policy here? They are in the news every week.. is there any constructive reason these pages shouldnt be published under wikipedia guidelines? Please remove this block.. I read the notes on your talk page and to say my editing style is similar to the other editors is preposterous. We don't show close to the same level of competency on this platform. I understand you guys don't like sockpuppets but keeping his page in draft for that long and now unpublishing hers when they are actively in the news cycle for the last year is not in anyway constructive. If you don't like anything written on the pages, please use the press to validate your points and publish them. The new pages patrol has hundreds of published pages, if not 1000's that lack notability and have other issues that wikipedia editors time would be better spent on. If I am wrong and this couple is running some sort of scam or fraud that would negate the value of their inclusion, I apologize. If not, I ask you consider acting in the spirit of the website you all spend so much valiant effort protecting.

Decline reason:

 Highly likely to Doggerela77. Combined with the behavioural overlap, this is a very easy decline. Yamla (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2023 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I don't know what is going on here but since when does wikipedia allow for blocking with no CU data. Their discussion literally says there is no evidence, were blocking so we don't have to show CU data? I would appreciate it if someone took a look at this. I dont see how i could accused of being an editor who never used hotcat or the new pages patrol.

Decline reason:

There is no requirement that we Checkuser everyone we suspect of sockpuppetry ... the checkuser corps has more than enough to do anyway. Making Checkuser a requirement might make it easier for those few people with so little to do otherwise they figure out (or think they can figure out) how to beat it, as we might then have to say, well, we can't find any technical connections so you're good ... no, we wouldn't want that to happen. We have always considered behavioral evidence equally valid (as noted by Yamla above), and where it has been strong enough no CU is necessary. I'm so sorry if your latest clever scheme didn't work because you can't change your spots even when hiding in the deepest thicket. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:45, 18 June 2023 (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.

Kauiltan (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2023 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am going to make this request again and hope I get someone who doesnt think it is ok to talk to anyone like that, much less in the role of an administrator. Especially when the CU says there is no data. Apparently they ran it and his comments say the CU data does not support it. His notes even say, I am just going to block him anyway, hence my request to unblock me. Administrating has gone way, way down hill here. These two have been featured guests on Piers Morgan in May and had a Vice news segment just come out as well. 5 books, 2 foundations, a school and company arent enough or you just don't like their scientific ideals on reproduction? Either way, tell me how any of this relates to me being someone who has obvious differences in editing and wikipedia comprehension. He couldnt move an article and has never made a hot cat article.. even our templates are radically different.. Just cause I moved the article after writing the other one means I am the previous author? Where in wikipedia does it say ban people w/o any factual or circumstantial evidence. Is there some sort of black hat editing this guy is accused of? As far as I can see, there is no history of bad editing or spam on any of the sockpuppet accounts. Kauiltan (talk) 23:33, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Then they should request unblock. I can't say that I disagree with fhe declines above. 331dot (talk) 20:45, 25 June 2023 (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.

Concern regarding Draft:Simone Collins

Hello, Kauiltan. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Simone Collins, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 04:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Simone Collins

Hello, Kauiltan. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Simone Collins".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)