Hello, I'm Addihockey10. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Krásna Hôrka Castle because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. --Addihockey10 ^e-mail 17:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Warenford! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Benzband (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article White pixelization has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails general notability guideline as it has no significant coverage in reliable sources. (Nationell idag and Sweden confidential not reliable sources. They are extreme right, xenofobic web sites. The Expressen mentions are not significant.) FYI the Swedish article was deleted for lack of notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sjö (talk) 05:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article White pixelization 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White pixelization 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. Sjö (talk) 11:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not revert back undue syntheses WP:SYNTH. Your falsely alleged reason rv, Swedish pro-immigration bias is an invalid reversion rule. Do not use it! Refer to Talk:2013 Stockholm riots before reverting unsourced statements! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 05:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you familiar with King Solomon's book? NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 08:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I hope my request was not in vain. :)--Warenford (talk) 08:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fehmarn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lechitic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chemnitz, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Kamenica and Kamenice (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please stop changing the heading you keep changing in the article Bet Shemesh, but use the talk page instead and let others have their say. You seem to be determined not to have the gender isssue mentioned. One wonders why. Ajnem (talk) 13:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule, do not copy and paste text from other sources. This includes websites of the charity or non-profit organizations, educational sources and all sources without a copyright notice. If a work does not have a copyright notice, assume it to be under copyright-protection. see Wikipedia:Copy-paste for more info thank you -- Moxy (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Human, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kohelet,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Mrajeeb Al Fhood refugee camp should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mrajeeb Al Fhood refugee camp .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Ibadibam (talk) 23:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a source for the figures you added to City of Preston, Lancashire. -- Dr Greg  talk  21:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote it was from the 2011 census, anyone can look it up. Nevertheless I have added the link.--Kohelet (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you added blatantly racist information to gang rape including a link to an improper source, apparently a report published by white supremacists? [1]. Jehochman ^Talk 09:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kohelet. Please see Talk:Gang_rape#Bad_source. There are at least three of us who think the source you have added is not good. Perhaps you are unaware of who has published the Color of Crime website, but it is not a reliable source. It is an outlet for white supremacist propaganda. Please don't redo your edit without first obtaining a consensus on the article talk page. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 18:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the section titled "White supremacist propaganda". Jehochman ^Talk 01:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See here --Slazenger (Contact Me) 01:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the information presented in the ANI thread above, I have blocked you indefinitely. There are other websites more attuned to your particular POV. Racism and bigotry are not welcome here. I am including the standard block template below. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for POV pushing. 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Floquenbeam (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2014 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I'm very surprised by the fact that I've been blocked without anyone providing any justification or showing me what rules I broke. Jehochman started personally attacking me and calling me a "white supremacist" for a couple of edits I did to the page "Gang rape." He created an ANI discussion and I was immediately blocked (indefinitely) by User:Floquenbeam. The reason given was "POV pushing." My edits were posted in the ANI discussion - judge for yourself. They contained nothing controversial. I just added an information about the rates of black on white gang rape and vice versa, and after people complained the source was "biased" and "racist" I added the direct link to the National Crime Victimization Survey. Secondly, as a person of Czech descent, I corrected some misinformation in the article about Czechs. I deleted Jews, because Jews aren't Czechs - that's an undisputable fact. Unfortunately, it was called "particularly odious POV" by User:Jehochman. I don't understand why this is happening. I don't see any wrongdoing I've done, no breaking of the rules. And even if I did something wrong, on my home Wikipedia everything is solved by reprimanding the user first, no one is banned on whim or because the mods don't agree with his style of editing.--Kohelet (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2014 (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. John (talk) 18:30, 16 February 2014 (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.

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article White pixelization 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White pixelization (2nd nomination) 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. Sjö (talk) 07:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]