![]() | This user has been
banned indefinitely from editing the English Wikipedia by the community. Administrators, please review the
banning policy before unblocking. ( block log · contributions · discussion at AN) |
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Nicholas Einhorn requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://www.einhorn.co.uk/bio/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a
speedy deletion tag from
Nicholas Einhorn, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the
talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you.
CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
23:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Hey, Nick Einhorn, I know as a professional magician you don't like it, but it's been debated in the past. It's okay to reveal methods of stage magic tricks in Wikipedia. Czolgolz ( talk) 03:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Please do not
attack other editors, as you did at
Erwin l'Ami. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please
stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
Acroterion
(talk)
02:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive behaviour. It appears you are purposefully
harassing another editor. Wikipedia aims to provide a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users, as you did on
User talk:Carajou, potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be
blocked from editing.
PCHS-NJROTC
(Messages)Have a blessed day.
21:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Do not add personal information about other contributors to Wikipedia, as you did at
User talk:PCHS-NJROTC. Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has the right to remain completely anonymous. Posting personal information about a user is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's
harassment policy. Wikipedia policy on this issue is strictly enforced and your edits have been
reverted and/or
suppressed, not least because such information can appear on web searches. Wikipedia's privacy policy is to protect the privacy of every user, including you. Persistently adding personal information about other contributors may result in you being
blocked from editing.
PCHS-NJROTC
(Messages)Have a blessed day.
01:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for
your contributions to
Wikipedia.
When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled " Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:
Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)
I noticed your recent edit to Bobby Fischer does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.
Edit summary content is visible in:
Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting
Preferences →
Editing →
Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.
Thanks!
Strawberry4Ever (
talk)
13:58, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Bobby Fischer. 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. Strawberry4Ever ( talk) 11:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I've closed this report with a warning to you. -- NeilN talk to me 12:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Please stop bringing Conservapedia-related business onto Wikipedia. Please see WP:UP#GOALS, WP:UP#POLEMIC, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:OUTING, and WP:HARASS, all of which might be relevant. Also, removing my comment on User:1990'sguy's talk page pointing these policies out to you was inappropriate. I'm not going to report you to administration at this point, but if you keep behaving like this on Wikipedia, someone else probably will (and I see this isn't the only activities that have earned you warnings on Wikipedia). You can email me if you have questions about Conservapedia. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 00:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi
Sorry about poor grammar but I also want the article to have unbiased explaination about the mistake he made.
Since you noticed it, can you kindly edit my grammar please. Paisley Liverpool ( talk) 04:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I have made some edits from yours as Gareth Bale’s third goal came in 82th minute Paisley Liverpool ( talk) 04:49, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh... Ok... Sorry... -- Kingdamian1 ( talk) 04:52, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Do you have any better sources than vanishingincmagic.com? The page you link to is just a sales page to buy the video. I'm not going to fork out £42.25 just to check your citation. It's only purpose seems to be as an unintended WP:SPAMLINK. Cabayi ( talk) 08:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Dear User:Kingdamian1, I am most flattered by your recent request to nominate me to be an administrator. Your kind comments there have brightened my day and have deeply encouraged me as an editor here. However, at this time, I will have to respectfully decline the nomination as I do not feel currently called to serve as an administrator (nor do I have the time to do so given my professional commitments). I will let you know if this changes in the future. Thank you once again for valuing me enough that you would file a RfA. I wholeheartedly appreciate it. With warm regards, Anupam Talk 21:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar |
Dear Kingdamian, thank you for brightening my day with your recent request for adminship. I wholeheartedly appreciate your kind gesture. Please continue to make Wikipedia a better and brighter place. With regards, Anupam Talk 22:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC) |
Dear User:Kingdamian, thank you for the wonderful barnstar you added on my user page! I am glad that you have found me to be a kind and diligent user! It has truly brightened my day! With regards, Anupam Talk 22:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi Kingdamian1! I hope you're having a good day! As you already know, I had to remove that section off of your user page. Not to worry... I had one of those a long time ago as well until someone else pointed the policy out to me ;-). Cheers - ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 01:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2018 FIFA World Cup Group B, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Quaresma ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I see that's you've been here for even fewer years than I have, so I hope that you don't mind if I offer a little friendly advice and encouragement. The most effective way you can argue to keep an article like the one you created on yesterday's shooting/hostage taking in Los Angeles, is to go to build it into a good article. It is possible to do this using the stories now up on the websites of major news media. After you have done this, brirfly state that you have improved the article using WP:RS in the AfD discussion. Cheers! E.M.Gregory ( talk) 20:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Anti-American sentiment in Germany 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/Anti-American sentiment in Germany until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
For doing your utmost to stop powerful biased editors from controlling a page. King Flib ( talk) 19:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC) |
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/Kingdamian1, 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.
PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 14:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Kingdamian1 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Decline reason:
Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficiently convincing for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla ( talk) 16:18, 23 August 2018 (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.
Honestly, I feel like it has been more than enough. I think that the block should at least be shortened. I have been a good contributor on Wikipedia, and this single mistake should not cost me.
Kingdamian1 (
talk)
20:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
This is probably already obvious to anyone qualified to review the unblock request -- or shorten-block request or whatever it is -- but, for the sake of clarity, people unrelated to Kingdamian1 typing "sock of KD" on a completely separate website that not only has nothing to do with the English Wikipedia, but also has nothing to do with the WMF or any of its websites, is not in any way relevant to an unblock request here on the English Wikipedia.
It is also worth mentioning. @ PCHS-NJROTC: above you discuss some off-wiki action that you say you considered taking against another Wikipedia editor. You might want to exclude such things from your rhetoric in future, because perceived threats of off-wiki action -- legal or otherwise -- can easily be misinterpreted in a way that leads to on-wiki consequences. MPS1992 ( talk) 21:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
@ Beeblebrox: I have been waiting for a while now, and it does not look like anyone is reviewing my request. There is very little reason why I should stay blocked, and all the good reasons to get unblocked. There are articles that need to be created, articles need improvement, discussions that are ongoing about articles that need input. I have been blocked for more than 2 weeks. There is no evidence that I have vandalized Wikipedia, created socks etc. I have been blocked for things that at this point are water under the bridge. -- Kingdamian1 ( talk) 19:47, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Kingdamian1 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I was blocked here for a SINGLE offense about a month ago. Since then, I have apologized, regretted my mistake, and am more than ready to continue contributing. Please, review this request. -- Kingdamian1 ( talk) 1:13 pm, 26 August 2018, last Sunday (7 days ago) (UTC−7)
Accept reason:
Per discussion on ArbCom mailing list, user has been unblocked with the provision that any further disruption will result in the block being reinstated. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on User:Kingdamian1 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 20:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Userpages are not for games, so the rules at User:Kingdamian1 are quite specific. You could look for tables of useful templates that other people put on their userpages, or something like that, and add those.
Ultimately, also, one cannot operate a Wikipedia account just to edit userpages. Find some non-controversial article pages, and improve those. MPS1992 ( talk) 23:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I reverted your edit to Joe Biden because it is POV-pushing. The whole premise of the section you added was based on this article from the Washington Post] -- while the Post is a reliable source, the article you pulled was a humor column that really carries no weight for a biography on a living person. Even the title of the section ("Behavior around children") was ridiculously non-NPOV, as none of the sources describe Biden's behavior around children. Please do not make such insinuations in biographies, as they are not only disruptive but also pretty blatant violations of Wikipedia's policies on biographies of living persons and NPOV. Thank you. Aoi (青い) ( talk) 02:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Callanecc (
talk •
contribs •
logs)
11:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)Kingdamian1 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Ideological blocks are not allowed! Kingdamian1 ( talk) 21:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
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
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Huon ( talk) 21:50, 19 September 2018 (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.
Kingdamian1 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I am here to edit an encyclopedia. I have no intentions of causing trouble. I believe the block was made in haste. Please, review this request. Thanks Kingdamian1 ( talk) 23:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
As per Dlohcierekim. You had a second chance and you blew it. The block is appropriate. Best you find someplace else to go now. Yamla ( talk) 12:03, 20 September 2018 (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.
I am disinclined to unblock you at this time. Per the ArbCom thread above, you had a chance and misused it. Your vague assurances are unconvincing. Please edit your unblock request to address the reasons for your block, the behavior that led to your block, and your plan of action to not repeat these actions. -- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 04:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Kingdamian1 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have utmost respect for both the wikipedia project and community. I have sincerely contributed here. I assume that I was blocked because I was perceived to be a threat here. If I should be unblocked, I am willing to accept something like a topic ban, perhaps, or promise not to interact with some members here. Please, kindly, review this request. Regards! Kingdamian1 ( talk) 19:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Asked and answered. You weren't blocked because you were a "threat", but because you keep breaking the rules. Drmies ( talk) 01:10, 23 September 2018 (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.
While we are at it, can anyone explain why I was blocked? I mean I reverted twice, and stopped after I was warned... I had a bit of a heated discussion, but nothing inappropriate was said. So am I basically blocked because someone decided that I have malicious purposes? -- Kingdamian1 ( talk) 19:29, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
@ Drmies: Know what you mean. Seriously, Kingdamian1, I will restore talk page access solely for the purpose of allowing you to respond to the WP:AN discussion of a site ban. We can copy any response there for you. Any further unblock requests will likely result in removal of your talk page access. It would have to be incredibly on point regarding the issues raised at WP:AN.18:19, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I knew it was coming. I knew it. I respect Wikipedia, of course. It is a testament to how superior our Western Civilization is compared to all others. But we cannot ignore the ideological bias here. Please, stop gaslighting me. We all know that I am NOT getting blocked because of "disruptive editing" or whatever excuse people want to make up. The ONLY reason I am getting banned is because the articles I tried to edit are controlled by a small number of far-leftist editors.
One of these editors literally admits in their userboxes of detesting Donald Trump and hating conservatives... But I am sure this is a simple coincidence. In fact, let's ban my entire country from editing for suggesting that user who admits to despising nationalist conservatives might not be impartial when dealing with conservatives. We all know that 9 out of 10 people voting for me to be banned are Anti-Conservative, and NO, this is not a personal attack. I did not vandalize Wikipedia, I did not use a SINGLE obscene word and have NOT reverted more than 3 times. But it doesn't matter, because we all know why I am getting banned. I do not have much to say. My final request will be, PLEASE, do NOT gaslight me and do not try to pretend that this has nothing to do with ideology. All of us understand the bias against conservatism in some of these articles. Please! Just do what you have to do! Good luck.
Kingdamian1 (
talk)
22:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello, this message is to inform you that pursuant to this discussion, you have been indefinitely banned from Wikipedia by the community. For more information on what this means, see WP:CBAN. For information on appealing this ban, see WP:SO. Due to what I would characterize as racist/xenophobic sentiments expressed in your above message, your talk page access has been revoked again. If you wish to appeal this ban per WP:SO, you will have to request that your talk page access be re-instated via WP:UTRS. Regards, ( Swarm ♠ talk) 02:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This user has been
banned indefinitely from editing the English Wikipedia by the community. Administrators, please review the
banning policy before unblocking. ( block log · contributions · discussion at AN) |
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Nicholas Einhorn requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://www.einhorn.co.uk/bio/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a
speedy deletion tag from
Nicholas Einhorn, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the
talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you.
CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
23:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Hey, Nick Einhorn, I know as a professional magician you don't like it, but it's been debated in the past. It's okay to reveal methods of stage magic tricks in Wikipedia. Czolgolz ( talk) 03:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Please do not
attack other editors, as you did at
Erwin l'Ami. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please
stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
Acroterion
(talk)
02:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive behaviour. It appears you are purposefully
harassing another editor. Wikipedia aims to provide a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users, as you did on
User talk:Carajou, potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be
blocked from editing.
PCHS-NJROTC
(Messages)Have a blessed day.
21:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Do not add personal information about other contributors to Wikipedia, as you did at
User talk:PCHS-NJROTC. Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has the right to remain completely anonymous. Posting personal information about a user is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's
harassment policy. Wikipedia policy on this issue is strictly enforced and your edits have been
reverted and/or
suppressed, not least because such information can appear on web searches. Wikipedia's privacy policy is to protect the privacy of every user, including you. Persistently adding personal information about other contributors may result in you being
blocked from editing.
PCHS-NJROTC
(Messages)Have a blessed day.
01:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for
your contributions to
Wikipedia.
When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled " Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:
Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)
I noticed your recent edit to Bobby Fischer does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.
Edit summary content is visible in:
Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting
Preferences →
Editing →
Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.
Thanks!
Strawberry4Ever (
talk)
13:58, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Bobby Fischer. 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. Strawberry4Ever ( talk) 11:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I've closed this report with a warning to you. -- NeilN talk to me 12:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Please stop bringing Conservapedia-related business onto Wikipedia. Please see WP:UP#GOALS, WP:UP#POLEMIC, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:OUTING, and WP:HARASS, all of which might be relevant. Also, removing my comment on User:1990'sguy's talk page pointing these policies out to you was inappropriate. I'm not going to report you to administration at this point, but if you keep behaving like this on Wikipedia, someone else probably will (and I see this isn't the only activities that have earned you warnings on Wikipedia). You can email me if you have questions about Conservapedia. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 00:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi
Sorry about poor grammar but I also want the article to have unbiased explaination about the mistake he made.
Since you noticed it, can you kindly edit my grammar please. Paisley Liverpool ( talk) 04:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I have made some edits from yours as Gareth Bale’s third goal came in 82th minute Paisley Liverpool ( talk) 04:49, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh... Ok... Sorry... -- Kingdamian1 ( talk) 04:52, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Do you have any better sources than vanishingincmagic.com? The page you link to is just a sales page to buy the video. I'm not going to fork out £42.25 just to check your citation. It's only purpose seems to be as an unintended WP:SPAMLINK. Cabayi ( talk) 08:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Dear User:Kingdamian1, I am most flattered by your recent request to nominate me to be an administrator. Your kind comments there have brightened my day and have deeply encouraged me as an editor here. However, at this time, I will have to respectfully decline the nomination as I do not feel currently called to serve as an administrator (nor do I have the time to do so given my professional commitments). I will let you know if this changes in the future. Thank you once again for valuing me enough that you would file a RfA. I wholeheartedly appreciate it. With warm regards, Anupam Talk 21:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar |
Dear Kingdamian, thank you for brightening my day with your recent request for adminship. I wholeheartedly appreciate your kind gesture. Please continue to make Wikipedia a better and brighter place. With regards, Anupam Talk 22:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC) |
Dear User:Kingdamian, thank you for the wonderful barnstar you added on my user page! I am glad that you have found me to be a kind and diligent user! It has truly brightened my day! With regards, Anupam Talk 22:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi Kingdamian1! I hope you're having a good day! As you already know, I had to remove that section off of your user page. Not to worry... I had one of those a long time ago as well until someone else pointed the policy out to me ;-). Cheers - ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 01:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2018 FIFA World Cup Group B, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Quaresma ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I see that's you've been here for even fewer years than I have, so I hope that you don't mind if I offer a little friendly advice and encouragement. The most effective way you can argue to keep an article like the one you created on yesterday's shooting/hostage taking in Los Angeles, is to go to build it into a good article. It is possible to do this using the stories now up on the websites of major news media. After you have done this, brirfly state that you have improved the article using WP:RS in the AfD discussion. Cheers! E.M.Gregory ( talk) 20:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Anti-American sentiment in Germany 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/Anti-American sentiment in Germany until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
For doing your utmost to stop powerful biased editors from controlling a page. King Flib ( talk) 19:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC) |
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/Kingdamian1, 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.
PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 14:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Kingdamian1 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Decline reason:
Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficiently convincing for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla ( talk) 16:18, 23 August 2018 (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.
Honestly, I feel like it has been more than enough. I think that the block should at least be shortened. I have been a good contributor on Wikipedia, and this single mistake should not cost me.
Kingdamian1 (
talk)
20:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
This is probably already obvious to anyone qualified to review the unblock request -- or shorten-block request or whatever it is -- but, for the sake of clarity, people unrelated to Kingdamian1 typing "sock of KD" on a completely separate website that not only has nothing to do with the English Wikipedia, but also has nothing to do with the WMF or any of its websites, is not in any way relevant to an unblock request here on the English Wikipedia.
It is also worth mentioning. @ PCHS-NJROTC: above you discuss some off-wiki action that you say you considered taking against another Wikipedia editor. You might want to exclude such things from your rhetoric in future, because perceived threats of off-wiki action -- legal or otherwise -- can easily be misinterpreted in a way that leads to on-wiki consequences. MPS1992 ( talk) 21:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
@ Beeblebrox: I have been waiting for a while now, and it does not look like anyone is reviewing my request. There is very little reason why I should stay blocked, and all the good reasons to get unblocked. There are articles that need to be created, articles need improvement, discussions that are ongoing about articles that need input. I have been blocked for more than 2 weeks. There is no evidence that I have vandalized Wikipedia, created socks etc. I have been blocked for things that at this point are water under the bridge. -- Kingdamian1 ( talk) 19:47, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Kingdamian1 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I was blocked here for a SINGLE offense about a month ago. Since then, I have apologized, regretted my mistake, and am more than ready to continue contributing. Please, review this request. -- Kingdamian1 ( talk) 1:13 pm, 26 August 2018, last Sunday (7 days ago) (UTC−7)
Accept reason:
Per discussion on ArbCom mailing list, user has been unblocked with the provision that any further disruption will result in the block being reinstated. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on User:Kingdamian1 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 20:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Userpages are not for games, so the rules at User:Kingdamian1 are quite specific. You could look for tables of useful templates that other people put on their userpages, or something like that, and add those.
Ultimately, also, one cannot operate a Wikipedia account just to edit userpages. Find some non-controversial article pages, and improve those. MPS1992 ( talk) 23:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I reverted your edit to Joe Biden because it is POV-pushing. The whole premise of the section you added was based on this article from the Washington Post] -- while the Post is a reliable source, the article you pulled was a humor column that really carries no weight for a biography on a living person. Even the title of the section ("Behavior around children") was ridiculously non-NPOV, as none of the sources describe Biden's behavior around children. Please do not make such insinuations in biographies, as they are not only disruptive but also pretty blatant violations of Wikipedia's policies on biographies of living persons and NPOV. Thank you. Aoi (青い) ( talk) 02:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Callanecc (
talk •
contribs •
logs)
11:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)Kingdamian1 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Ideological blocks are not allowed! Kingdamian1 ( talk) 21:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
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
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Huon ( talk) 21:50, 19 September 2018 (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.
Kingdamian1 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I am here to edit an encyclopedia. I have no intentions of causing trouble. I believe the block was made in haste. Please, review this request. Thanks Kingdamian1 ( talk) 23:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
As per Dlohcierekim. You had a second chance and you blew it. The block is appropriate. Best you find someplace else to go now. Yamla ( talk) 12:03, 20 September 2018 (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.
I am disinclined to unblock you at this time. Per the ArbCom thread above, you had a chance and misused it. Your vague assurances are unconvincing. Please edit your unblock request to address the reasons for your block, the behavior that led to your block, and your plan of action to not repeat these actions. -- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 04:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Kingdamian1 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have utmost respect for both the wikipedia project and community. I have sincerely contributed here. I assume that I was blocked because I was perceived to be a threat here. If I should be unblocked, I am willing to accept something like a topic ban, perhaps, or promise not to interact with some members here. Please, kindly, review this request. Regards! Kingdamian1 ( talk) 19:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Asked and answered. You weren't blocked because you were a "threat", but because you keep breaking the rules. Drmies ( talk) 01:10, 23 September 2018 (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.
While we are at it, can anyone explain why I was blocked? I mean I reverted twice, and stopped after I was warned... I had a bit of a heated discussion, but nothing inappropriate was said. So am I basically blocked because someone decided that I have malicious purposes? -- Kingdamian1 ( talk) 19:29, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
@ Drmies: Know what you mean. Seriously, Kingdamian1, I will restore talk page access solely for the purpose of allowing you to respond to the WP:AN discussion of a site ban. We can copy any response there for you. Any further unblock requests will likely result in removal of your talk page access. It would have to be incredibly on point regarding the issues raised at WP:AN.18:19, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I knew it was coming. I knew it. I respect Wikipedia, of course. It is a testament to how superior our Western Civilization is compared to all others. But we cannot ignore the ideological bias here. Please, stop gaslighting me. We all know that I am NOT getting blocked because of "disruptive editing" or whatever excuse people want to make up. The ONLY reason I am getting banned is because the articles I tried to edit are controlled by a small number of far-leftist editors.
One of these editors literally admits in their userboxes of detesting Donald Trump and hating conservatives... But I am sure this is a simple coincidence. In fact, let's ban my entire country from editing for suggesting that user who admits to despising nationalist conservatives might not be impartial when dealing with conservatives. We all know that 9 out of 10 people voting for me to be banned are Anti-Conservative, and NO, this is not a personal attack. I did not vandalize Wikipedia, I did not use a SINGLE obscene word and have NOT reverted more than 3 times. But it doesn't matter, because we all know why I am getting banned. I do not have much to say. My final request will be, PLEASE, do NOT gaslight me and do not try to pretend that this has nothing to do with ideology. All of us understand the bias against conservatism in some of these articles. Please! Just do what you have to do! Good luck.
Kingdamian1 (
talk)
22:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello, this message is to inform you that pursuant to this discussion, you have been indefinitely banned from Wikipedia by the community. For more information on what this means, see WP:CBAN. For information on appealing this ban, see WP:SO. Due to what I would characterize as racist/xenophobic sentiments expressed in your above message, your talk page access has been revoked again. If you wish to appeal this ban per WP:SO, you will have to request that your talk page access be re-instated via WP:UTRS. Regards, ( Swarm ♠ talk) 02:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)