User talk:Keeg-Turner

A

October 2019
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:. Bbb23 (talk) 02:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

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)
 * 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 :&uarr;), 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)

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)
 * 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.  do you find this satisfactory? 331dot (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * May I ask for what reason you feel that way? 331dot (talk) 16:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * That's okay with me. 331dot (talk) 09:52, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That's fine,, go ahead, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

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)

Second chance instructions
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:
 * Click the Edit tab at the top of that article;
 * 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: );
 * do not copy any image placement code (i.e., markup like this: );
 * do not copy the page's categories from the bottom of the page (i.e., markup like this: );
 * do not copy the stub tag (if there) from the bottom of the page (i.e., markup like this: );
 * Click edit at your talk page, and paste at the bottom under a new section header (like this: ) the copied content but do not save yet ;
 * 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): " "
 * 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:  . Once you have added the template, click.
 * 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 " " to your talk page. Thank you.