User talk:Zilkinc

May 2018

Hello, I'm Moxy. I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Moxy (talk) 05:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a mistake

This is not a mistake. This is FULL of misinformation and I am correcting it on behalf of the person. Zilkinc (talk) 05:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

Hello, I'm Moxy. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Moxy (talk) 05:52, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Randy Jackson (The Jacksons). Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block.

The material you are removing cites sources, so your claims of a BLP violation do not appear to be in good faith. Accordingly, any further reverts will be dealt with under 3RR. I suggest you discuss the matter at the talk page, get consensus for the removal, and also provide counter-sources that disprove the sources currently cited. —C.Fred (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, C.Fred (talk). However, I am CORRECTING the information on this page. The version that Wikipedia keeps reverting back to is full of libelous, harmful and false information. The user providing this defamatory information should be blocked. Providing truthful information should be given priority. How do I stop the defamatory and false information from being perpetuated on this page? I appreciate any advice and information you can provide concerning this matter. Zilkinc (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to provide counter-sources for each source given in the text to show how they have misrepresented the facts, or how are text misrepresents the text. In other words, don't just blank sourced material. —C.Fred (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, C.Fred (talk). Counter sources are not always available as some references that are blatantly false have been reported only as such. Also, things such as the number of children he has or who he has been married to are falsely stated, however, there is no evidence to support these incorrect facts... why are they being protected? Again, How do I stop the defamatory and false information from being perpetuated on this page? Zilkinc (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, you should start by expressing your concerns on the talk page and seeing if other editors agree. —C.Fred (talk) 23:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

Your recent editing history at Randy Jackson (The Jacksons) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 18:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Jackson's page is being used as an attack page and I am being blocked for correcting it - as per Wikipedia's instructions!

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).

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

Request reason:

Randy Jackson's page is being used as an attack page and any attempt to correct it is being met with bullying behavior by wiki contributors. "An attack page is a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject; or biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced." I am reporting a libelous ‘Biography of a Living Person’ and Wiki Contributors that are using this page as an attack page, refusing to allow editing and truthful information to be posted. Randy Jackson’s Wikipedia bio is undoubtedly libelous. It primarily consists of lies, inconsistencies, tabloid quality information with obvious intent to harm his reputation. It does not include a great deal of pertinent, interesting, truthful and relevant information about the subject. I have continually tried to post well-sourced, truthful information. Each time it is reverted back, wholly and entirely, to the libelous version, completely deleting every word of my version, even including the correction I added on the number of children and marriages this subject has had in the ‘info’ box. I have tried to follow Wikipedia standards and best practices to the letter. The users who are overriding me are not. Wikipedia states the following: “We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[1] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[b] The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material.” Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons I have come to understand that people will use Wikipedia as a way of smearing someone’s reputation and it is most certainly the situation in this case. I would appreciate the community's help and intervention in stopping this attack. Zilkinc (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. In particular, you need to demonstrate that you understand how WP:EW, WP:AGF, and WP:CIVIL apply to your behavior. Talking about other users will not help at all. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2018 (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 were advised to discuss your concerns about sources at the talk page. You didn't. Instead, not only did you put unsourced information into the article, but you did so persistently (see WP:Edit warring).

I suggest that, after your block expires, you present your proposed changes at Talk:Randy Jackson for discussion. I also strongly suggest you present the changes in smaller portions. It's easier to review one change rather than a whole article's worth at once. (Which means, yes, there may be some baby being thrown out with the bathwater, where good changes are lost amidst all the bad changes you've made.)

As a show of good faith, I will consider unblocking your account if you do the following in reply here:

Propose one specific change to be made to made to the article.
Provide the reliable source(s) that support the changed information.
Provide a specific reason to challenge the reliability of the source that supports the material currently in the article (if applicable).

I await your reply here. —C.Fred (talk) 21:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The loyalty to slander is confusing me. The following is Wikipedia's policy. The current version violates every single part of the following statement. Why are you allowing it?

“We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[1] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.

Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[b] The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material.” Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

— Zilkinc (talk) 21:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to highlight the part "that is unsourced or poorly sourced." You've been removing material that had sources and replacing it with material that was source. Also, we don't allow PR accounts here. You don't get to cherry pick the parts of policy that suit you and ignore the parts that you don't like -- especially policies such as WP:PAID and WP:NOTPROMO. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Randy Jackson (The Jacksons). 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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. Binksternet (talk) 15:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

There have been two problems with this account: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group or a web site, which is also against policy, as an account must be for just one person. Because of those problems, the account has been blocked indefinitely from editing.

If you intend to make useful contributions about some topic other than your business or organisation, you may request an unblock. To do so, post the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:CentralAuth to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In that reason, you must:

Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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

Requested username:

Gracegrace357 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

My username was not intended to promote anything. I didn't want it to promote or be identified with anything. I have no problem changing it. I will pursue dispute resolution avenues. I attempted this in the past but I was overridden simply because I lack Wikipedia seniority. The content of my contribution was not fairly considered. However, I will try again on the dispute resolution link you suggested.

Decline reason:

You have forgotten to address your inappropriate edits and have forgotten to describe in general terms, the contributions you intend to make if you are unblocked. Yamla (talk) 21:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You were "overridden" because you didn't pay attention to anything anyone said and didn't show any interest in following our policies or guidelines except where it suited you. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]