User talk:Karen Kho

July 2019

Hello, I'm CAPTAIN MEDUSA. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Syrian Civil War— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:22, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What was unconstructive about that edit, genius? Karen Kho (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Mortar 60mm M57. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 22:39, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What was unconstructive about that edit? Karen Kho (talk) 22:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Kho, namely removing other wars in which the weapon was used, as well as moving the prose away from an encyclopedic Tone. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 22:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not what I aimed for, this is what I aimed for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karen Kho (talk • contribs)

That's far better. Is there any reason not to include the page in both Category:Weapons of Serbia and Category:Mortars of Yugoslavia? ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 22:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind. Karen Kho (talk) 23:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 22:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIV

People never get notified about being reported at WP:AIV, the multitude of warnings you have received here on your talk page is notification enough. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How kind of you, honest and fair. Nice work, bravo. Karen Kho (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lazar BVT

The machine gun is the weapon, not the vehicle it's mounted on. Lots of countries use "technicals", Toyota Landcruiser pickups with machine guns mounted on the cargo bed, but that doesn't make the Toyota Landcruiser a weapon. If you don't know anything about a certain subject, as you obviously don't do in this case, do not edit articles about it. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You really are knowledgeable that is why you are comparing Lazar BVT to a technical. Good job, you sure know a lot about this subject. Also keep up with the insults, I want people to see what kind of constructive user you are. Karen Kho (talk) 16:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

I am not VJ-Yugo. Because that is what it says on my user page now.

Decline reason:

Behavioural and/or technical evidence strongly suggests that this account is a sockpuppet. Simple denial is not considered a sufficient reason to unblock the account. In order to be unblocked, you will need to convince the reviewing administrator that there is a better explanation for this apparent connection than the abuse of multiple accounts. Yunshui ^雲 _水 15:40, 14 November 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).

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

Request reason:

Well, that's fucking retarded. How am I supposed to prove that I am not VJ-Yugo? Also "strongly suggests" is horseshit.

Decline reason:

Try again, this time without being so offensive. WP:GAB will help you craft an acceptable unblock request. Anything more like this and you'll lose access to your talk page. Yamla (talk) 18:12, 14 November 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).

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

Request reason:

Threatening me with further censorship because I said a no-no word on my own talk page? Excellent, I knew this place is improving every day in every aspect. According to the WP:GAB I was given it seems - I was not blocked to prevent any damage or disruption because I have yet to see if I have done any - If I understand right I was blocked because I was accused of being account called VJ-Yugo, an account created in 2011. I was still in school back then and did not even know how to edit pages here. No, I am not that person - And I think "my conduct is not connected in any way with the block".

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. ST47 (talk) 23:11, 14 November 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.

Can you explain why you created this account and and this one? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you exlain why aren't you answering my request and unblocking me? Karen Kho (talk) 22:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]