User talk:Kevindk

June 2007[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Ibanez, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Tlesher 13:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Ibanez, you will be blocked from editing. Vandalized same page twice in 10 minutes ChrisLamb 13:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Ibanez S. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Thank you. ChrisLamb 13:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having vandalised after several warnings, you have been listed to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. If you feel that you have not received fair warning, type {{unblock|inadequate warning}} on this page, after you have been blocked. Momusufan 13:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STRIKEOUT NOTE: I reviewed the edits in question and strongly disagree with labelling them as vandalism. I strongly suggest the involved persons to review the policy WP:VAND. `'Miikka 16:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hint to Kevindk[edit]

If you want to contest the unblock, add the "unblock" tag after the above block info, rather than erasing it--otherwise, it looks as if you're trying to "hide" the block. Tlesher 15:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that your entire edit history can be seen here [1]. ONce your block has passed, you can edit in a way that adds to wikipedia, if you choose. We sure hope you do choose this route, as everyone has useful information accessible that they can share. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 15:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok....[edit]

I was not intentionally trying to "hide" information. Again trying to get used to this format, AND Safari beta 3 (Yes I know there is a history :) ) And it's not like Wikipedia has the easiest to use GUI out there. :)

Admins should expect mistakes by those just starting out. esp when they layout is confusing to even some seasoned pros! :)

I promised myself I wouldn't go into HIG rants or the like so enough rants.

And I appreciate the constructive criticism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevindk (talk • contribs)

Thank You[edit]

I am not one to bitch and complain at all. I choose my battles wisely. I felt I was being wronged, and obviously I was.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

soum ^talk 14:35, 26 June 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

There was no true vandalism going on. And after I was requested to provide sources for my information, I did. After fulfilling such requests it was deleted because I was told I was pushing a "POV"

regardless if my POV matches the facts that I did indeed back up my post with links and quotes DIRECTLY from the company's site.

I feel the admins either

over-stepped their bounds

don't understand the subject I was speaking about

or

just trying to pad up their "hit count'

Either way this isn't garnering support for those that say Wikipedia has changed for the worse.

Decline reason:

I understand your frustration, but I am afraid I cannot unblock you at this time. Read up on WP:POV during your block, which will end soon. — Alison ☺ 15:53, 26 June 2007 (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.

User unblocked. The block was with comment: (Vandalism and pov pushing). POV pushing is NOT blockable offense. Vandalism it was not either. I strongly suggest the admins involved to review the policies in question: WP:VAND and WP:BLOCK `'Miikka 16:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting kinda ridiculous[edit]

I know admins and such get "Awards" for blocking spam and Vandalism, which they should, but some competitive people might mark something as vandalism without actually UNDERSTANDING the subject.

I've seen my posts being blocked SECONDS after I've made them. This really shows how much though went into such decision.

My point in post said Ibanez info was to INFORM those interested in Ibanez guitars, ESP the S series, that it was no longer the same as it used to be. This isn't an OPINION. And I was forcing nothing.

I did give the opinions of the customers and their reaction to Ibanez doing such things. I am A BIG FAN of Ibanez guitars. I have owned 12 over the past decade. I would never try to vandalize any such web page.

Someone even attempting to say otherwise is making knee-jerk decisions without knowing what is going on.

I attempted to fix the problems I was asked to fix, and that still wasn't good enough.

I think the admins/mods need to take a bit more time reviewing said article before making a decision. Less than a minute, or mer seconds isn't time enough. Unless of course you are just trying to rack up "browny points"

Which seems the case of those labeling it vandalism. I am going to go home, write from scratch a complete review of this guitar, following all the rules and submit it. If it gets deleted, then there is something fishy going on.

After reading Wiki's POV link I was given, I did NOT go against such points. This again shows said admin didn't take the time to find out if I was doing so or not, and just assumed.

Comment- First to defend myslef I would like to say that I was not trying to earn "brownie points" and that I did read the content the pages that you edited. Next, while after you were warned you did include links to a online fourm which does not meet WP:RS which states that sources must be published to be reliable( there were links in the warnings to this page.) Also the content you added looked like an attack page and since the warnings apparently had no effect I asked that you be banned not as a punishment but to protect the articles also I wished to avoid an edit war. Oh and I am not admin ChrisLamb 16:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Ok, so you didn't know that people who worked for IBanez posted there and was giving you information about such problems. That isn't your fault.

But a msg could have been sent to me before labeling me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevindk (talk • contribs)

Your problems[edit]

You have two basic problems.

First, a lesser one, was your careless edits which indeed looked as vandalism for an unsuspecting person: you deleted a bunch of old text and replaced it with angry rant, look here.

Second, in wikipedia, forums, blogs, mailing lists, etc., are not valid references, especially when you write about criticism. Please read which sources are admissible in wikipedia as references.

Another advice is when you are faced with opposition, please use the article talk page, where more experienced editors may give you an advice on what is wrong. Also, you may use Wikipedia:Requests for comment to seek for an independent opinion.

I am unblocking you now, assuming you will learn from the mistake. `'Miikka 15:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WARNING[edit]

Kevin, you have some serious problem with your editor tool or with editing. You again are deleting the old text. Please look here. Please NEVER erase old content in talk pages. You may want to check your edits using the "Page history" function, where you can compare two vewrsions of the text. `'Miikka 16:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY[edit]

Sorry, I am using a beta version of Safari for OS X.. still getting used to it.

Your promise of Ibanez review[edit]

Please keep in mind that wikipedia articles must be based solely on already published texts in reputable sources. No original essays, surveys, etc., even from most respected experts are admissible, see the wikipedia policy.

You are saying you are going to write a complete review. In order to avoid the kind of problrms you have, I would suggest you to write your text in this empty page: User:Kevindk/Ibanez, I will review it and point you to places which may cause serious objections.

P.S. Please sign your texts in talk pages by typing four tildes ~~~~. They will be automatically converted by wikipedia software into your sig similar to mine. `'Miikka 17:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About editing[edit]

As a user of OS X, I know how bad Safari can be from time to time. That's why I use Firefox now. Unless, of course, you are a beta tester and require you to try things out. George Leung 07:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]