Welcome!
Hello, DraKyry, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on
my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}}
before the question. Again, welcome! --
A Nobody
My talk
22:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. The
recent edit you made to
Dokka Umarov has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the
sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative
edit summary. You may also wish to read the
introduction to editing. Thank you.
Shadowjams (
talk)
07:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to
2010 Moscow Metro bombings, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Lihaas (
talk)
05:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article
Kurdistan Workers' Party, please cite a
reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of
verifiability. Take a look at
Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Active
Banana (
bananaphone
21:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
This edit removed good content [1] that accurately summarizes the entire bottom section of the Abu_Bakr_al-Baghdadi article. Statements in the lede that summarize heavily sourced content in the body are not required to be sourced in the lede. Russian claims to have killed Bagdadi have not been confirm or reported in RS. If Bagdadi is really dead it would be worldwide news like bin Laden's death. I request you restore the sentences you removed. You also need to remove this edit [2] and not threaten to edit war. Legacypac ( talk) 16:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.
General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
Legacypac ( talk) 18:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
Please do not remove
maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to
CNN blackmail controversy, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the
edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been
reverted. Thank you.
General Ization
Talk
03:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Seriously, you're up to six or seven reverts in less than an hour and half of these AFTER you've been notified of Wikipedia's 3RR policy [3]. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 03:46, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
CNN blackmail controversy. 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.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. Sky Warrior 04:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
By the way, I'm not sure if you've seen this yet since your last edit overrode the original notice: there is currently a discussion at the edit war noticeboard involving you. Sky Warrior 04:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)]]
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you
vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at
CNN controversies.
NorthBySouthBaranof (
talk)
07:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Trump gif maker apologises for racist posts, the source cited in the article, explicitly says But CNN has been accused of "blackmail"
— not Kaczynski. Similarly, the other articles explicitly say "CNN," not Kaczynski himself. Your failure to comprehend these sources can only be viewed as a deliberate attempt to misrepresent the reliable sources.
NorthBySouthBaranof (
talk)
07:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
CNN was accused of blackmailing a Reddit user when they implied that they might reveal the identity of the user if he continued to post inflammatory content.
The incident was widely criticized across the political spectrum - including Vox, due to it being seen as blackmail and an attack on his pro-Trump views.
So either Vox is not a source, and CNN equalls Kaczinsky, or u are making a strawman to use for your vandalism defence. But instead of reading the sources i've provided, or even, to that matter, removing this sentence, you have decided to destroy the article in it's entirety, probably to speed up it's removal. Nice try, shillo --
DraKyry (
talk)
07:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
After blackmailing him with that information, the user was forced to post an apology) or you're simply trolling. Either way, you're going to end up blocked, so have a nice day. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 08:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at CNN blackmail controversy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 331dot ( talk) 08:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
You need to listen to the BLP concerns of others - in this case, in my view, well-founded BLP concerns. If you don't start listening and editing collaboratively, you're headed for a topic ban from all post-1932 American Politics. GoldenRing ( talk) 10:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "CNN blackmail controversy". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 13 July 2017.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee.
08:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Floquenbeam (
talk)
15:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DraKyry, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
Marianna251 TALK 16:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning CNN blackmail controversy, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
TransporterMan (
TALK)
16:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
{{
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.Welcome!
Hello, DraKyry, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on
my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}}
before the question. Again, welcome! --
A Nobody
My talk
22:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. The
recent edit you made to
Dokka Umarov has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the
sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative
edit summary. You may also wish to read the
introduction to editing. Thank you.
Shadowjams (
talk)
07:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to
2010 Moscow Metro bombings, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Lihaas (
talk)
05:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article
Kurdistan Workers' Party, please cite a
reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of
verifiability. Take a look at
Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Active
Banana (
bananaphone
21:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
This edit removed good content [1] that accurately summarizes the entire bottom section of the Abu_Bakr_al-Baghdadi article. Statements in the lede that summarize heavily sourced content in the body are not required to be sourced in the lede. Russian claims to have killed Bagdadi have not been confirm or reported in RS. If Bagdadi is really dead it would be worldwide news like bin Laden's death. I request you restore the sentences you removed. You also need to remove this edit [2] and not threaten to edit war. Legacypac ( talk) 16:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.
General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
Legacypac ( talk) 18:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
Please do not remove
maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to
CNN blackmail controversy, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the
edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been
reverted. Thank you.
General Ization
Talk
03:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Seriously, you're up to six or seven reverts in less than an hour and half of these AFTER you've been notified of Wikipedia's 3RR policy [3]. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 03:46, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
CNN blackmail controversy. 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.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. Sky Warrior 04:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
By the way, I'm not sure if you've seen this yet since your last edit overrode the original notice: there is currently a discussion at the edit war noticeboard involving you. Sky Warrior 04:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)]]
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you
vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at
CNN controversies.
NorthBySouthBaranof (
talk)
07:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Trump gif maker apologises for racist posts, the source cited in the article, explicitly says But CNN has been accused of "blackmail"
— not Kaczynski. Similarly, the other articles explicitly say "CNN," not Kaczynski himself. Your failure to comprehend these sources can only be viewed as a deliberate attempt to misrepresent the reliable sources.
NorthBySouthBaranof (
talk)
07:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
CNN was accused of blackmailing a Reddit user when they implied that they might reveal the identity of the user if he continued to post inflammatory content.
The incident was widely criticized across the political spectrum - including Vox, due to it being seen as blackmail and an attack on his pro-Trump views.
So either Vox is not a source, and CNN equalls Kaczinsky, or u are making a strawman to use for your vandalism defence. But instead of reading the sources i've provided, or even, to that matter, removing this sentence, you have decided to destroy the article in it's entirety, probably to speed up it's removal. Nice try, shillo --
DraKyry (
talk)
07:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
After blackmailing him with that information, the user was forced to post an apology) or you're simply trolling. Either way, you're going to end up blocked, so have a nice day. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 08:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at CNN blackmail controversy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 331dot ( talk) 08:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
You need to listen to the BLP concerns of others - in this case, in my view, well-founded BLP concerns. If you don't start listening and editing collaboratively, you're headed for a topic ban from all post-1932 American Politics. GoldenRing ( talk) 10:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "CNN blackmail controversy". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 13 July 2017.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee.
08:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Floquenbeam (
talk)
15:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DraKyry, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
Marianna251 TALK 16:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning CNN blackmail controversy, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
TransporterMan (
TALK)
16:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
{{
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.