User talk:Kianlolcat99

October 2014
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Capital punishment in the United Kingdom has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.


 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Capital punishment in the United Kingdom was changed by Kianlolcat99 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.959282 on 2014-10-30T01:40:32+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 01:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at English people. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.
 * If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * 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 place on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this warning: English people was changed by Kianlolcat99 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.931875 on 2014-10-30T01:43:46+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 01:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Americans, you may be blocked from editing. Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Americans was changed by Kianlolcat99 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.935524 on 2014-10-30T01:46:17+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 01:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Materialscientist (talk) 02:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Answer-


 * "Can you give us an example of a valid reliable source that you would use to show notability for an article?" - There are many valid reliable sources that I can get sources from. These are several examples- Books, PBS, discovery, yahoo, news sources, etc.
 * ":#Can you give us a more specific example of an article that you would like to create? If the article already exists, can you give us an example of what you would like to add, paired with a source that backs up the claim? " - I have multiple articles that I was thinking of creating, but one example would be a famine that happened in persia between 1917-1919. And for artices that are created, I would add more information about them, and use sources that I listed in #1.
 * "If unblocked, would you be willing to go through WP:TRAINING or WP:ADVENTURE? You can see TRAINING without an active account, but ADVENTURE would show that you've gone through the program. "- Of course :)

Can I has Cheezburger? (talk) 17:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Some comments. Firstly, you shouldn't use the unblock reviewed template to request an unblock; that will give the impression that someone already reviewed your request, and it won't be brought to the attention of administrators. Instead you should use this code: Secondly, it would probably help evaluate your request if you could give an indication of what you intend to do if you are unblocked. Above you said you "promise to not do anything anymore", which would, taken literally, mean that you don't intend to edit at all and thus don't need to be unblocked. Huon (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You say, above, that you can add a lot of articles that are not on here; also that you know a lot of stuff. Please list here the titles of, say, five articles which you feel able to create; bear in mind that it must be possible to produce valid third-party sources for each article - just knowing stuff is no good on its own. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to add the following questions.
 * Can you give us an example of a valid reliable source that you would use to show notability for an article?
 * Can you give us a more specific example of an article that you would like to create? If the article already exists, can you give us an example of what you would like to add, paired with a source that backs up the claim?
 * If unblocked, would you be willing to go through WP:TRAINING or WP:ADVENTURE? You can see TRAINING without an active account, but ADVENTURE would show that you've gone through the program.
 * We just need some specific examples of what you'd like to do. Also, you don't have to add any additional comments to the unblock request. It's actually better that you post them after the comments since it's easy for these comments to be missed by the incoming admins looking over your request. You can do this by writing the comment and signing it with four tildes ( ~ ). Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  12:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, so you want to created an article about a famine in Persia. Can you cite some (at least one) reliable source that you are going to use for that article? And, I mean to cite precise source.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  01:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify why Yahoo, Google and others are not reliable sources. They can be edited by anyone without checks and references and thus, someone could post misleading information on them and you wouldn't know unless you have seen the event firsthand. Heck, even Wikipedia is not an entirely reliable source as it can be edited by anyone, albeit with restrictions. If you want to know more about reliable sources, you can look up this page. Cheers. Zyc1174 (talk) 04:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, Yahoo News is reliable source, if that is what he meant. And he never mentioned Google as a source.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  10:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, he did, in the unblock request: "First of all, yahoo and other sites like that (i.e. America Online, Google) ARE reliable sources". Perhaps he means Google news and other proper Google editorial content and the like, which is fine. I'm getting the feeling that he does understand the basis of reliable sources, and if he can cite a reliable source for the Persian famine then I'd support an unblock. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I guess I was mistaken.Zyc1174 (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi Kianlolcat99! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

-- 02:41, Tuesday, February 2, 2016 (UTC)

Your article
Thank you for creating Wings.io.

However, there are not enough sources to prove the topic is notable, or that it's suitable for a standalone article.

Notability on Wikipedia is based on notice from the outside world. Topics have to be described in detail by several reputable sources before it can merit a standalone article. Reputable sources include news, books, and academic articles. Non-reputable sources include gossip, social networks, YouTube, and blogs.

Please add sources to prove that your topic is notable; otherwise the topic cannot be covered on Wikipedia. Here are some searches you can conduct to find them:

If you can't find sources after a search, it may be deleted. However, you may also want to consider merging or redirecting to another article even if it is not notable.

You may find the below resources to be useful:
 * Help:Referencing for beginners - a guide to adding sources to articles.
 * Notability - more detailed description of the requirement of notability.
 * Help desk - for asking questions about Wikipedia and editing.
 * Tutorial - learn the basics in under an hour.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask via a reply below. Thank you. Esquivalience  t 21:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, then. I will try to get sources then. Thanks Can I has Cheezburger? (talk) 21:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Unturned, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Washington. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Wings.io for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wings.io 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 Articles for deletion/Wings.io 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 notice from the top of the article. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

United Patriots Front - Golden Dawn
Hi, just letting you know I've reverted your description of Golden Dawn as "far-right", they are Metaxist fascist and this has been established by a huge number of academic papers.  Golden Dawn are a text book example of a modern fascist party. Bacondrum (talk) 00:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh thanks. I think I did not spot that or I confused it with another political party Can I has Cheezburger? (talk) 05:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * No worries, cheers. Bacondrum (talk) 00:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

July 2018
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Alt-right. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.''This page is under WP:1RR. Do not revert again. Gain consensus on the article's talk page.'' Grayfell (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.