User talk:Midwestman1986

Hi Midwestman1986! 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 experienced editors like Mz7 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok thanks for letting me know. Hope it’s ok that I remove this from my own talk page Idk.

Yep, it's perfectly ok for you to remove posts from your talk page. The exception is that you shouldn't remove parts of a discussion, but deleting an entire discussion from your own talk page is fine. --bonadea contributions talk 15:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok

No that was a total glitch, I was adding the county and the info box disappeared when I published it . Really weird Midwestman1986 (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I suspected it might have been a glitch after seeing your contribution history. Probably to do with mobile visual editing. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 21:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Mvcg66b3r. I noticed that you recently removed content from KCTV 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. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I specifically said “removed unsourced sentences”. I added a reference to its proper location. Most of that page is a run on sentence without 1 source on the entire thing

Why do you always misspell in article edits and edit summaries? And why the “curly quotes?” Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it was a typo in the edit summary. I’m on my phone and can’t see the entire summary when I post it.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on KCTV; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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:

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.

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. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{unblock1|reason= I was recently blocked around 2 days ago for sockpuppetry. I have spent the last 2 days reading Wikipedia’s policy and guidelines. I do admit that I deserved the ban. I was unaware that you were not alowed to have multiple accounts without putting them on your user page. I was not using these accounts to be manipulative or get what I wanted. I was , however using multiple accounts to edit the same page which I apologize for. I would greatly appreciate if you would review my edits on the account Midwestman1986. I truly was trying to add to Wikipedia and added well referenced information. On the accounts Kansas City 1225 that was vandalism and was well before I knew how Wikipedia worked. I just thought you could wright anything you wanted as people in public had told me. I then created the accounts midwestman1986 and historybuff1111, which I used to add referenced information to pages. I also created many other accounts which I apologize for. As far as the page listed Kansas City metropolitan area and Kansas City international airport I truly was trying to make it completely factual and non opinionated. I was bothered when I read the pages because they were created 10 years ago by Missourians and were completely biased. Every time I would try to add a referenced statement in favor of Kansas on one of these pages, they would be removed by users from Missouri like Grey Wanderer who has gone back and undone all of my referenced material and also has created false information. For example he Just edited the Tom Watson (golfer page) I clearly put on that page that the Kansas City country club is in Mission Hills, Kansas then user Grey Wanderer came and put that it is in Kansas City Missouri which is not true and is a total lie. I would like for the Kansas City related articles to not be biased and to be completely factually based which is what I was trying to do. For example you reverted the Kansas City metropolitan area page. Now it is a false page with false information. I had edited it to make it completely non biased. It is not a 15 county metropolitan area , it is a 14 county metropolitan area I added the reason and references to every edit I made. I also put statistics such as labor percentages in each state and which county was the most populated and most densely populated. I truly apologize for using multiple accounts and hope that we can come to an agreement where I agree to only edit with one account. I also know now it is not Ok to evade bans or logging out to use your IP address. I truly want to add referenced material to Wikipedia and hope to regain the trust of the community}} Midwestman1986 (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose You'll be doing the same things you did before. And you can't even format an unblock statement right! You should stay blocked, for the sake of the community. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Oppose Hey there Midwestman1986, I’ve reviewed the edit you disked on Tom Watson (golfer). In undertaking the lengthy task of reviewing your edits it’s possible I made some errors, if I did you’re welcome to addresses me at my talk page and I’ll do my best to fix them. There were many many articles that you simply added Johnson County, Kansas links to in addition to the city already there. This is unwieldy and is not how we normally talk about places, usually it’s just “Witchita, Kansas” not “Witchita, Kansas within Sedgwick County, Kansas” considering the reader already knew a general location I didn’t think any location info was that helpful. So many of your edits seems to try to draw attention to Johnson County in awkward places I just had to use my best judgement, I didn’t delete them all! On Kansas City metropolitan area you are correct, the latest census definition was updated to 14 counties, previously 15, thanks for bringing that to my attention, it’s fixed. I’m happy to engage you directly about the Kansas/Missouri balance, but may I suggest you examine your own beliefs about some things? Maybe you can live up to that user name of Historybuff1111. As one, you should know that the Kansas River defined the border between the two states. The mouth of the Kansas (where it meets the Missouri) set the original western border of the Missouri Territory when it became a state. It’s mouth has moved west since the 18th century, rivers do that. The border was in the middle of the river. Kansas City was named after the Kansas River, it was the big port just downstream of the confluence. The Kansas Indianas had been largely expatriated from the area by the time. So yes, Kansas City takes its name from the tribe, but indirectly via the river. In fact, Missouri and Kansas have this etymological process in common! As for your block, I think a longer cool off period than a day is probably warrented, but I have no strong opinion. However either way make sure you understand that you can’t just revert edits you disagree with. It’d be better to use the talk page, there are often good logical reasons. I would also recommend you review the accounts you have over at Commons, like [1] that have copyrighted matieral, Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Finally there were multiple instances on talk pages where you replied to yourself, backing yourself up, pretending to be a different person contrary to what you’ve claimed below. At this point, you’ve not even really adknowledged that you understand the problem. Grey Wanderer (talk) 02:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I only recall pretending to be someone else intentionally one time which was with the flying squirrel account. I now understand that it’s frowned on by Wikipedia. I can’t talk on your talk page currently because I’m banned. Anyways , you could let me calm down for a few days then unban me that would be great. I just wasn’t really familiar with how Wikipedia worked. I also think you should re add the picture I had on the Kansas City metropolitan area page. I made it myself. The old one is outdated and shows the 15 county area. I was honestly trying to make it more accurate. Since these pages have been created Johnson county has gained a lot of people. It has more people and the same amount of business as KCMO. It is also the most densely populated county. Hopefully when I’m unbanned I can coordinate with you to make it more accurate. You seem to have a large biased towards Missouri Obviously. I live on the Missouri side and my entire family is from clay county. I still think Joco and the Kansas side is very un represented in these pages. The Kansas side is 40% of the population btw and Missouri accounts for only 56% of employment. Hopefully you can help me make these pages more accurate when I’m unbanned and we can work together in doing so. Midwestman1986 (talk) 02:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've clearly not respected the ban, despite claiming so above, new account and anon edits will continue to be reported. Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it’s harder on my phone. But you have to admit, that I never pretended to be different people when I was talking to you. I was just editing from multiple accounts. The things I added there are well sourced and it should be an encyclopedia. I think it’s unnecessary to say Kansas City Missouri in the Johnson county page. Kansas City Missouri has less people and Johnson county has more density than any others. I would appreciate if you would re add some of the things I added such as it being the most densely populated in the area I don’t want to be a dick. I just think it’s to geared towards Missouri when almost half the population and business is in Kansas. I would greatly appreciate you re adding some of the things I had. Sorry I was ingnorant of how Wikipedia worked. I didn’t know the guidelines man. Midwestman1986 (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

6 months before making an unblock request. During that time you shouldn't make any edits, even to your talk page. And you might still get turned down based on your behavior. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:29, 14 January 2019 (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).

Midwestman1986 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was blocked for sock puppetry a long while ago because I was unaware you couldn’t use multiple accounts when I first started Wikipedia. I waited a long time before trying to be unblocked for over 6 months but then was told that I could only be unblocked, if it was a topic ban. I have read Wikipedia’s guidelines and realize that only one account should be used so it doesn’t distort consensus. For some reason some of my edits were reverted as biased, misleading or false. It is a well known fact that Kansas City has had decades of white flight and gradual urban decay and many of the jobs and population and wealth have gone to Johnson county Kansas along with the kcmo pre WW2 being mostly destroyed by roadways and highways. There is also higher density in cities like Overland Park than Kansas City Missouri. Cities such as Overland Park and Lenexa Kansas have higher job densities and have a lower percentage of detached single family housing than Kansas City Missouri. I also read Wikipedia’s civility and want to work cooperatively with others and treat other editors with respect and apologize for any incivility in the past. I now know that putting the word “wealthiest” in the intro is against community consensus. I have evaded the block many times recently using IP addresses trying to make constructive edits. I have learned more to see things from others points of view. Hopefully you can give me another chance. I have much knowledge I can share about different cities in the Midwest along the lines of economy and demographics as every city developed differently. When I removed information and vandalized at the beginning I was just doing that because I didn’t know how Wikipedia worked. I would like to use this account, I can put on this accounts talk page that I was previously a sock puppet. Hopefully you can give me a second chance thanks. Keep in mind this started 5 years ago when I was much younger and basically since then I’ve just been trying to get unblockedMidwestman1986 (talk) 11:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Closing as stale. You may make a new, hopefully more persuasive, request. 331dot (talk) 11:18, 6 March 2023 (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.

Some rather strange comments were left on my talk page in 2021 by this user (diff diff diff diff). There has been continued editing on the usual pages in the last month, as recently as last week, all pushing the usual agenda of the last five years and all have been reverted by myself and others. They continued creating sock puppets long after they read the policy against it, some much more recently than admitted. An unblock seems ill-advised. They have always feigned ignorance of policy and have little interest in building an encyclopedia. Grey Wanderer (talk) 22:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No I clearly do want to Build an encyclopedia. And yes I admitted above I have circumvented the block previously. There is no “agenda””. You can see on the Kansas City, Missouri and economy of Kansas City and Overland Park pages than my edits were indeed constructive. Midwestman1986 (talk) 23:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the way to anyone reading this Kansas City Missouri is a completely car dependent and mostly post-WW2 city with only 2.9% of workers getting to work with transit most of whom can’t afford cars and use the city bus. I would appreciate questions to how I could improve articles and can supply plenty of reliable references Midwestman1986 (talk) 08:09, 21 January 2023 (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).

Midwestman1986 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hi I was blocked for sock puppetry a long while ago because I was unaware you couldn’t use multiple accounts when I first started Wikipedia. I realize that doing this and bypassing a block are a serious breach of Wikipedia policies. I hope I can convince you or you can let me know what I can do to convince the community to give me a second chance. I understand that I was blocked for sock puppetry, using multiple accounts and also for evading blocks. I realize that I have violated many of Wikipedias policies. I will not do it again and genuinely do want to make constructive edits to Wikipedia. I have read Wikipedia’s guidelines and realize that only one account should be used so it doesn’t distort consensus. I have read wikipedias civility and realize there should be no personal attacks or harassment. Although it did bother me that some of my edits were reverted as biased, misleading or false and it is a well known fact that Kansas City has had decades of white flight and gradual urban decay. Hopefully you can give me another chance. I believe the block is no longer necessary because I do not intend harm to Wikipedia and I will follow the guidelines. I am also older now and have come a long way with properly interacting with others and developing better social skills. I have much knowledge I can share about different cities in the Midwest along the lines of economy and demographics as every city developed differently and I want to make constructive edits. When I removed information and vandalized at the beginning years ago I was just doing that because I didn’t know how Wikipedia worked. It has been 5 months since I edited on Wikipedia and I haven’t bypassed the block. I would like to use this account, I can put on this accounts talk page that I was previously a sock puppet and I want to work cooperatively with others and not cause disruption to the project and instead build an encyclopedia cooperatively. Thanks for taking the time to read

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. 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. Yamla (talk) 10:22, 13 June 2023 (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.

@331dot: thanks for volunteering on Wikipedia. I now know that admins are volunteers so I don’t want to waste your time. I was just curious how I could make my appeal more persuasive to you and the community as you previously stated on my last unblock request to try to be more persuasive. Hopefully this one is better, I really do like learning and want to contribute to the encyclopedia. Thanks for taking the time to read.

@Deepfriedokra: Hi thank you for volunteering on Wikipedia. I don’t mean to waste much of your time or be disruptive but would greatly appreciated a response. I think you were my handling administrator on the UTRS appeals. It has been 3 and a half months since I edited Wikipedia. I now understand that one user one account should be followed and blocks shouldn’t be bypassed. Do you think this unblock request is more convincing? Or would you like me to wait a certain amount of time and post a new unblock request. I want to work together with others and see things from others points of view also. Thank you

Pings do not work unless you sign the same post in which you ping(with ~~~~). As this is a checkuser block only a checkuser may authorize its removal. 331dot (talk) 12:37, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Materialscientist: are you a checkuser? I was told that my block was a checkuser block and only a checkuser can authorize its removal. I have previously been blocked and would appreciate you reading my unblock request. I have had distruptive editing in the past and have evaded blocks. I promise to only use one account and not be disruptive and instead work on consensus building and listening to others points of views and not evade my block. I promise to be a rule abiding editor as I wasn’t aware of the rules when I first started. It would be greatly appreciated if I could get a second chance. Midwestman1986 (talk) 02:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Materialscientist: I think you should deny Midwestman1986's unblock request and revoke their talk page access, as they have been spamming their own talk page for over four years now with unblock requests that have gone nowhere. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:57, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is updating how many months it’s been since I edited Wikipedia spamming? They clearly said I could make a new unblock request Midwestman1986 (talk) 07:39, 4 June 2023 (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).

Midwestman1986 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hi I understand that I was blocked for using multiple accounts and bypassing blocks which I now know after reading the guidelines is seen as disruptive editing on Wikipedia. I also didn’t know that using the world wealthiest or affluent in an article is against policy. I promise if I get unblocked I will only use one account. I will make useful contributions to pages. For some reason some of my edits were reverted as biased misleading or false such as density and wealth statistics on the Johnson county page and white flight and urban decay statistics along with economical facts as you can see here the references clearly support my statements. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Johnson_County,_Kansas&diff=prev&oldid=874081850 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Johnson_County,_Kansas&diff=919085398 Also all of my edits were removed and information was obscured for some reason as can be seen here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sbmeirow&diff=prev&oldid=1006629691 For some reason me putting Johnson County (the most important and most populous county/largest employer in the state of Kansas) in the lead of the Kansas article was seen as somehow promoting Johnson county. This is probably because, as you don’t know people from rural Kansas and the state of Missouri have a distain towards Johnson county KS due to its high wealth, education and superior attitude and racist past. I want to work cooperatively with others with respect and civility to build an encyclopedia and add my bit of knowledge to the internet. It is a fact that Johnson county Kansas has the most jobs, largest economy and highest density along with the lowest percentage of single family homes (currently tied) in the Kansas City area due to decades of white flight. I was also accused of dissociating Kansas City Mo and Johnson County KS when their borders and data are collected as completely separate entities. I also see there is a big misunderstanding of what American metropolitan areas are and how they are delineated according to the OMB and US census and people don’t even seem to know what the core of a core based statistical area is or that an area can have multiple central counties in different states. I would love to join in conversations and improve articles. Thanks for reading; I haven’t been given a second chance and it has been almost 6 months since I edited Wikipedia. Midwestman1986 (talk) 08:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I suggest you wait 6 months with no logged out editing or new accounts. PhilKnight (talk) 05:44, 9 July 2023 (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.

Hi @

Sorry, but after declining a request, I am not eligible to review another. PhilKnight (talk) 07:41, 9 July 2023 (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).

Midwestman1986 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hi can I please be unblocked I clearly do want to build an encyclopedia and I have been trying to get unblocked for 5 years now

Decline reason:

CU sweep found logged out editing. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2023 (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.

• @GeneralNotability: request for a CU sweep. If it is acceptable then I plan to submit it for community review, since we've been bouncing around for years and the last few sockpuppet accusations from a user above are indicated as not connected. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Nosebagbear CU sweep shows clear logged-out editing as recently as last week. Veto from me. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well that's obligingly simple Nosebagbear (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @

It was the absence of the 6 month bit here that led to me declining - otherwise by now I'd have asked you to write an appeal for the community and sent it there for an unblock review. That nicely combines the reasons for all your 2023 declines. Two, including mine, were on the basis of logged-out editing while blocked. The other two were closed as stale, bluntly, because your case was blurred enough that individual admins found it hard to come to a clear decision. That was why the "ask the community" was a good

Gordian knot

way of resolving that issue.

If you want to improve your odds in the future, don't edit here, try productively editing Simple English wikipedia (assuming you aren't also sanctioned there). Please note that they employ a "one strike and you're out" rule for en-wiki blocked editors. Nosebagbear (talk) 06:28, 7 August 2023 (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).

Midwestman1986 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hi I’ve waited 6 months on 2 different occasions in the last 5 years and still not been unblocked. I’ve been trying to get unblocked for 5 years. I clearly do want to build an encyclopedia and am interested in demographics and economy. I currently just made an edit to Kansas City metropolitan area which I know is bypassing the block. I do want to make constructive edits but don’t know how to because I haven’t been unblocked in years. If I could just be given a second chance I would greatly help improve the project. I don’t expect to be unblocked right now but my question is that after waiting for 6 months could I please be unblocked? I want to work cooperatively with others which is impossible when I’m blocked because I don’t know if my edits are removed because I’m blocked or because of my edits in general which I realize I shouldn’t be doing anyways. I know I’m disruptive when I bypass blocks but do want to make constructive edits but just end up getting re-blocked. I guess the only reason I bypassed the blocks is because I feel I have no hope of being unblocked no matter what I do. But I hope you can help get me unblocked so I can edit constructively Midwestman1986 (talk) 01:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There's zero chance you'll be unblocked while you continue to evade your block. You appear to be deliberately wasting our time with an unblock request you had to know had no chance of succeeding, given your abusive editing via block evasion. You are working hard to demonstrate you don't wish to be constructive and you don't plan to follow our policies. This makes it even harder for you to be unblocked if you ever do follow

WP:SO. To help you out, I will protect this page for six months. Yamla (talk) 10:18, 10 October 2023 (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.