AlexVegaEsquire

Kevin Deutsch

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kevin Deutsch (November 11)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Kevin Deutsch and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

AlexVegaEsquire, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi AlexVegaEsquire! 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 Cordless Larry (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kevin Deutsch has been accepted

Kevin Deutsch, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 04:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Stop edit warring and discuss your reversions

I have started a section at Talk:Kevin_Deutsch#Dispute for you and the other user to discuss your disagreements, since apparently neither one of you know how to do that. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Kevin Deutsch Revision as of 23:32, 18 September 2017

You reverted my edit to Kevin Deutsch with the comment, Undid edit because it ciolates Wiki's living person's policies. Deutsch has written thousands of articles and a fraction of them have been qstnd. Revision contains other inaccuracies. However, my edit, on which I commented Typo, merely changed the words "this mother's name" to "his mother's name". Please take more care when making revisions. -- Pemilligan (talk) 13:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

ANI discussion

I am having a difficult time keeping my sourced information in the article, particularly in the introduction. The information re: the article subject specializing in stories about "gangs and drug trafficking" is at the heart of the article, and had been part of it for months. SnowFire, a user who recently began making major revisions to the article, continues to undo my sourced and accurate revisions without good cause. Can a moderate please resolve our dispute? I work a sixty hour week and consider contributory encyclopedias an interesting/valuable hobby, but having my edits wiped out by someone who seems to have a serious grudge about the article subject is disheartening. Thank you.

---

I have been monitoring the recent edit war and feel the party who wanted article subject denial in lead of article is correct. I cannot see how this can be avoided given seriousness of accusations. I created the page for this writer back before this controversy happened and feel he has pretty forcefully denied the allegations.

What's the rationale for not including in lead?

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. SnowFire (talk) 14:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Kevin Deutsch for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kevin Deutsch 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/Kevin Deutsch 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. Carrite (talk) 12:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

ANI Notice 2

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

• SnowFire, I don't see that discussion yet, nor do I know why you said this user was a sockpuppet of a banned user. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
• And both of you need to stop reverting. Drmies (talk) 01:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies:: Discussions have been very, very extensive on Talk:Kevin Deutsch. I've also always held back on reverts for like a month or so, often letting Ballast's edits stand, before being aggressively reverted back. That was apparently treated as weakness. Anyway, as you already tagged, AVE is a sock or meatpuppet of Ballastpointed, or the other way around. Doesn't matter. Both are WP:SPAs who are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. SnowFire (talk) 01:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

October 2017

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Drmies (talk) 01:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)