User talk:Keeg-Turner

A

October 2019[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 02:28, 9 October 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).

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

Request reason:

The accusation against me is false; I am very much here to help build Wikipedia, and I initially created this account after contributing anonymously to various articles (namely in the sciences) for years. I know I haven't done many significant edits on this account, but you can see that the ones I have made, whilst indeed being minor, have been respectable and in good faith. The usage of my sandbox in the way that I did was only something I intended to do once for a very brief period of time, and I was not aware that using it in such a way was in any way disallowed. With all of this in mind, it should be easy to see that your block was not even remotely necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia. I understand now that what I did was (at least in your eyes) against Wikipedia's guidelines/policy, and I apologize for that, but please, I sincerely beg of you, could I regain access to the hard work I put into my sandbox? It was honestly devastating to see it deleted so abruptly without any warning. I promise to remove it again once I copy the source code elsewhere, and then I'll continue to contribute to Wikipedia as I always did. Also, sorry for all the revisions of my appeal, I have OCD and it tends to worsen significantly under stressful situations. Keeg-Turner (talk) 04:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Aside from three extremely minor edits to articles, your only actions here have been to use Wikipedia as a webhost and protest about the deletion of your sandbox - which was, by the way, completely contrary to a whole bunch of Wikipedia policies, and was correctly deleted. Your editing history thus doesn't show evidence that you are here to contribute; it seem to indicate that you want to use Wikipedia for purposes other than encyclopedia-building. Without evidence or assurance that you have created this account to contribute constructively to the process of building an encyclopedia, there is no reason to unblock it. Yunshui ^雲 _水 06:59, 9 October 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I repeat: the original reason I created this account was to contribute to Wikipedia. I tend to do this in waves however, as I will periodically work on projects that involve me doing a lot of reading on here, making corrections to any mistakes I notice as I go along. I understand now that I did indeed go against Wikipedia's policies for using my sandbox in the way I did, and I apologize for that. Moving forward, I will only use my sandbox for information intended for use on Wikipedia, and I will also stop asking to have my source code back. I know my presence here up until this point would indeed seem to be that of an unhelpful nuisance, and I am truly sorry about that. I would, however, really appreciate a second chance to contribute to Wikipedia in my own way, despite it usually being minor and infrequent. If I make the same mistake again, then you are welcome to block me again, and I won't make any more appeals. Keeg-Turner (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm just removing this from the queue to allow you to do as Yunshui asks below. When you have done so, you may make another request. 331dot (talk) 07:56, 20 October 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.

You don't need to promise that you won't make appeals if blocked again, but what edits do you want to make if unblocked? 331dot (talk) 10:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This unblock request seems reasonable and pending a response to 331dot's question I'm in favour of unblocking. If you enable email on this account (you can do so under the Preferences page, in the top menu :↑), I'd be happy to send you a copy of the deleted content from your sandbox so that you can use it elsewhere. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to make edits such as correcting grammar mistakes/typos, making the information in tables/graphics consistent with each other, and adding features (namely Info Boxes) to articles that would usually have them, but don't. These are usually made on articles pertaining to taxonomy, nutrition, chemistry, physics, or other sciences, but if I happen to be reading something else then it can happen elsewhere as well. I've enabled email on my account. Thank you so much for offering to do this and for your consideration, and sorry again for the inconveniences I've caused. I've been trying to read up to avoid any mistakes again, but I'll admit, I've found myself getting a bit lost/overwhelmed with all of the different pages on Wikipedia's policies, and how they're so intertwined; is there some sort of "master page" that serves as an index for all of these? Keeg-Turner (talk) 16:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The best place to start would be The Five Pillars; those are really the most important things you need to know. You don't need to know every policy before you contribute, simply be willing to communicate with other editors and change once an error has been pointed out to you. Bbb23 do you find this satisfactory? 331dot (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: No, and I also object to providing the user with the contents of their sandbox. I don't trust the user. If they are serious about contributing to the project, they can come back in six months and request an unblock then.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask for what reason you feel that way? 331dot (talk) 16:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted many inappropriate sandboxes, and I have never seen one like this one. KT used our resources to create a page for some other still unnamed wiki. When the user came to my Talk page asking me to restore the sandbox, I asked them what wiki, and the first part of their response was "Are you asking this ironically to suggest that I actually was advertising, or are you serious? If you are seriously interested in knowing, I'll answer you next time." What kind of nonsense is that? They also noted in their initial post how "stressed" they were, which they go into into their first unblock request about how they are OCD, which is absolutely irrelevant to Wikipedia. I think the first unblock request, which is passive-aggressive similar to their post to my Talk page, is much more typical of who they are, and I don't see why we should extend good faith in these circumstances, absent almost any evidence they will actually edit the project constructively.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if this wasn't a good time to add to this conversation (I'm aware that you haven't yet reached consensus), but I would like to clarify some things. It was never my intention to be interpreted as passive-agressive; my comment on your page was out of a legitimate lack of understanding as to why you were asking me about the indentity of the wiki in question when a) it didn't seem relevant to helping me understand why you deleted my page, b) there were links to the wiki in the article, and c) you had just suggested to me that my previous actions qualified as advertising the wiki in question, which wasn't allowed (regardless, it's here if you're interested; feel free to remove this link if it's now allowed). As for my comments about stress/OCD, I can understand how that would be considered superfluous information, or perhaps even me trying to "play victim," but again, that genuinely was not my intention; I was just trying to explain any behaviours of mine that may be percieved as strange, but I understand if that was ultimately nothing other than unnecessary information that only worsened your perception of me. I understand now that I not only violated several policies, but that I perhaps also misstepped in several other ways that ultimately tainted your perception of me; I made thoroughly false assumptions about what constitutes fair usage of the sandbox, and then I made things worse by approaching this whole situation like a fool. I truly am sorry about all of this; the absolute last thing I wanted to accomplish by creating an account on Wikipedia was to waste the time of admins and be nothing more than an annoyance, but I understand if you don't trust that my claims or apologies are genuine. My main concern was never being able to contribute to Wikipedia again, but now that I know of your "standard offer," I will gladly come back after six months if you ultimately decide to keep me blocked. Regards, Keeg-Turner (talk) 00:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm not seeing why this user needs to wait six months at this point, they could always be blocked again. If others see it the other way, fair enough. 331dot (talk) 00:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23 and 331dot: As a compromise, how would you feel about Keeg-Turner taking the WP:SECONDCHANCE route to unblocking? They can demonstrate a willingness to improve the encyclopedia by doing so, and it saves them having to wait six months. Thoughts? Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:33, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay with me. 331dot (talk) 09:52, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, Yunshui, go ahead, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so here's the deal, Keeg-Turner: for a quick route to unblocking, please follow the steps outlined below. It's a fairly lengthy list of instructions, but the majority of the steps are fairly quick to complete. Doing this will demonstrate that you are indeed here to contribute constructively, and will speed up the process of unblocking your account. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:39, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Second chance instructions[edit]

To be unblocked you need to demonstrate that you are willing and able to contribute positively to Wikipedia. You can do this by:

Familiarizing yourself with our basic rules.
Read our guide to improving articles
Pick any pre-existing article you wish to improve.
If you have trouble choosing an article to improve, see this index of articles needing improvement for ideas. Once you have decided on the article you will propose improvements to:
1. Click the Edit tab at the top of that article;
2. Copy the portion of the prose from that article that you will be proposing changes to. However:
  - do not copy the "infobox" from the start of the article (i.e., markup like this: {{infobox name|...}});
  - do not copy any image placement code (i.e., markup like this: [[File:Name.jpg|thumb|caption]]);
  - do not copy the page's categories from the bottom of the page (i.e., markup like this: [[Category:Name]]);
  - do not copy the stub tag (if there) from the bottom of the page (i.e., markup like this: {{Foo stub}});
3. Click edit at your talk page, and paste at the bottom under a new section header (like this: == [[Article title]] ==) the copied content but do not save yet;
4. Place your cursor in the edit summary box and paste there an edit summary in the following form which specifies the name of the article you copied from and links to it (this is required for mandatory copyright attribution): "Copied content from [[exact Name of Article]]; see that article's history for attribution."
5. You can now save the page. However, if your edits will include citations to reliable sources (which they should), add the following template to the end of your prose: {{reflist-talk}}. Once you have added the template, click Publish changes.
Now, edit that content. Propose significant and well researched improvements by editing the selected portion of the article. Please note that we are not looking for basic typo corrections, or small unreferenced additions; your edits should be substantial, and reflect relevant policies.
When you are done with your work, re-request unblocking and an administrator will review your proposed edits.
- If we (including the original blocking admin) are convinced that your proposed edits will improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, you will be unblocked.

If you need help while working with your proposed edits, you may add "{{Help me|your question here ~~~~}}" to your talk page. Thank you.