User talk:MKidd9221

MKidd9221, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi MKidd9221! 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! Jtmorgan (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

How about a Doctor as a source? Can that work? Thank you for working with me.

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).

MKidd9221 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Your reason here. I don't know why I have been blocked. All the information I gave out was relevant and true to the article. Perhaps there was a disagreement. I still think I should be free to edit if all the statements are true. I did not disrupt in any way. I made sure to give out correct and helpful information. Until this person can prove there is anything wrong with my information in the edit then I should have every right to help where I can and add what are facts. If this user disagrees then there should be a logical explanation for it. There isn't one available as I can see. I also can source all my information if needed. All the information I got is available at any site that has a description of the drug Phentermine. Could you please remove the block? Thank you.

Decline reason:

You were advised repeatedly of our requirements for sourcing, and have chosen to ignore them. That you consider something a fact is completely irrelevant for the purpose of Wikipedia unless you can provide reliable sources for that fact. You have no right to add it, otherwise. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

---

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.

,

How about Fox News for a reliable source?

Take a look at WP:PROVEIT. Fox News might or might not be a reliable source. But we need much more than "I heard it on Fox News". Verifiability is critical for Wikipedia. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Phentermine

Phentermine is not part of the "Fen-Phen family", there is no such thing as the "Fen-Phen family". Phentermine was used in conjunction with Fenfluramine for the treatment of obesity until it was discovered that Fenfluramine caused heart problems. --Versageek 09:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

That is what a scientist from UT told me. Look it up. Fen phen is Fenfluramine/phentermine. Phentermine is part of fen-phen family.

January 2013

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing, as you did at Phentermine. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

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).

MKidd9221 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Your reason here.I don't know why I have been blocked. All the information I gave out was relevant and true to the article. Perhaps there was a disagreement. I still think I should be free to edit if all the statements are true. I did not disrupt in any way. I made sure to give out correct and helpful information. Until this person can prove there is anything wrong with my information in the edit then I should have every right to help where I can and add what are facts. If this user disagrees then there should be a logical explanation for it. There isn't one available as I can see. Could you please remove the block? Thank you.

Decline reason:

You apparently aren't willing or aren't capable of understanding that your blocks were the result of your behavior, not the specific content of your edits. Therefore, there is no reason to expect that your behavior will change if you are unblocked. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

---

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 have been told multiple times that you have the burden of proof ... you need to provide references - not the other way around (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)