User talk:Kingdamian1

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)

Speedy deletion nomination of Nicholas Einhorn

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)[reply]

December 2017

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)[reply]

Methods of magic tricks

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)[reply]

My mistake. And yes, this has been discussed repeatedly over the years. It's perfectly fine to show how tricks are done. Check the talk pages. Czolgolz (talk) 04:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suing wikipedia? Been suggested. Free speech. Czolgolz (talk) 04:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you honestly saying Wikipedia is the only place on the internet that shows how tricks are done? This is why magicians keep developing better tricks: so people will wonder how it's done. Czolgolz (talk) 04:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely doubt it. If a guy can go on TV and expose magic tricks (I never watched those), then it's unlikely anything could or should be done. But don't take it too hard. If you don't want to know who Luke Skywalker's father is, then don't read the plot summary. Those who choose to be amazed by stage magic will not try to peek behind the curtain, and those who want to ruin the trick would have found out elsewhere. As a magician, you'd do more good building a better mousetrap. Come up with a trick that no one can explain. I know you can do it. Czolgolz (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're not a professional magician...yet. And believe it or not, I know where you're coming from. I'm an author and I can't count the number of websites that have illegally posted my books. Czolgolz (talk) 13:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

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)[reply]

Additionally, "I am just going to ignore you on the first part, since I do not understand what you say" is a really inappropriate response to reasonable criticism of your understanding of Wikipedia's sourcing policies. Acroterion (talk) 02:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And this [1] very definitely isn't acceptable referencing practice. Everything must have a reference, preferably better than the one you added here [2]. If you can't reference it, don't edit it. Acroterion (talk) 02:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Edit summaries

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)[reply]

Ok --Kingdamian1 (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on Bobby Fischer

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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
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; 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)[reply]

I've closed this report with a warning to you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ok. It wasn't my intention to start an edit war... I Understand. Thanks Kingdamian1 (talk) 13:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conservapedia business

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)[reply]

Loris Karius

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)[reply]

Oh... Ok... I thought you were a vandal... I will try! --Kingdamian1 (talk) 04:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oh... Ok... Sorry... --Kingdamian1 (talk) 04:52, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coins Through Table

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)[reply]

Corrected. --Kingdamian1 (talk) 18:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon isn't much better, WP:AMAZON. A source which isn't a retail opportunity would be preferable. Cabayi (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is yet a better source [3]... But I am afraid that it might be unethical to use it... Since the source is a direct video... Which then would make the trick available to others for free --Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anupam

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)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	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)[reply]

Re:Barnstar

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)[reply]

User page

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)[reply]

Sorry, did not mean anything bad. Just a bit of fun, I guess. Thank you! --Kingdamian1 (talk) 01:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem and no apologies needed. Figured I'd just remove it and let you know informally - like I said, I had one too and that was the reason that I put one up as well. I didn't know either ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 26

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)[reply]

Welcome

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)[reply]

E.M.Gregory Thanks! --Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to keep an eye on the news for the next couple of days, and expand and improve this article. Assuming that the news cycle continues to cover this. You begin to get a reputation if you start a series of article that rapidly get deleted.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Anti-American sentiment in Germany for deletion

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)[reply]

Kingdamian1, I strongly urge you to upgrade this article. I added some links to scholarly articles to the AfD. The article needs material form serious journalism, serious books, and scholarly articles. It's pretty routine to start articles about a breaking - and conspicuously major - news story, stuff like a major earthquake. Or a stub about some major figure like a newly elected Prime Minsiter, or a previously unknown filmmaker who makes a blockbuster. But an article on a significan political topic needs weighty sourcing. I really can't advise you strongly enough to add some. Also, when you ivote at an AfD on an article you have just created, you need to mention that you have created it. You should make an addendum to your iVote now, saying something like, I created this article. Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

You have been blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges in relation to information which has been removed from Wikipedia's public records.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-enwikimedia.org.

Administrators: Information which has been oversighted was considered when this block was placed. Therefore the Oversight team or the Arbitration Committee must be consulted before this block can be removed. Administrators undoing oversight blocks without permission from an oversighter risk having their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee (per this announcement).

-- Beeblebrox (talk) 22:00, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	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)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

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)[reply]

"All around the mulberry bush

The monkey chased the weasel

The monkey thought 'twas all in fun

Pop! Goes the Weasel!" --Kingdamian1 (talk) 15:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PCHS-NJROTC: Wait, so I created an account in 2011, to help me in 2018? Sounds like something I would do (sarcasm). --Kingdamian1 (talk) 18:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't even receive a damn barnstar for my efforts without triggering some people. --Kingdamian1 (talk) 19:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, it's not implausible to think that a person may have been operating under multiple identities for a long period of time, because that kind of thing does happen. Do remember this is a suspected sockpuppet investigation, which I launched because it's odd to me that someone would leave a barnstar for a indef blocked user, particularly when the person leaving the barnstar has a similar user name and is praising the blocked user for righting great wrongs. We'll see what the community says. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 19:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PCHS-NJROTC: Come on, it is implausible. Also, he gave me a barnstar because he saw my arguments on the talkpage of a biased article. I put in some effort to make the article more neutral. This person saw it, and probably wanted to say "Thank You!" --Kingdamian1 (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

Kingdamian1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

1)It has been some time and I have learned my lesson. As can be seen, I waited a while before appealing my block. I brought drama from other wikis here and unconsciously used my editing privilege disruptively. I promise not to do that, should I be unblocked or should my block be shortened! *2)Me and the user for whom I got blocked have sorted things out. *3)I have made a lot of positive contributions to Wikipedia and I believe a single mistake should not keep me from being useful to this project. Kingdamian1 (talk) 18:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[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.

This may sit a while as it will require another oversighter to review, but I have to tell you at first glance this is not a great appeal. “I learned my lesson” is not compelling unless you say something about what that “lesson” was. The block is not a punishment, it is intended to stop the unacceptable behavior that you were exhibiting. If you can show some cognizance about what was unacceptable about that behavior (without repeating any of it in the appeal) this would have a better chance. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That’s at least a bit better, I’ve pinged the oversight list to let them know you have filed an appeal. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I contest his claim that "me and the user for whom I got blocked have sorted things out." I believe it is relevant and safe to talk about this inter-wiki abuse since he has himself voluntarily discussed his activity on these wikis on Wikipedia. For one thing, despite this user being a member of RationalWiki, this is not politically motivated as the user claims to be conservative and has even been accused of being a right wing extremist on RationalWiki. This is protect-the-encyclopedia-from-disruption motivated because he has more than once tried to use Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND with Conservapedia users who happen to have a presence on Wikipedia, claiming that we "hate" him for some reason, he has [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:BlockList?wpTarget=&wpOptions[]=addressblocks&wpOptions[]=rangeblocks&limit=500 created numerous sockpuppets on Conservapedia (look for blocks that say "sock of KD")] to the extent that the only thing stopping me from sending something to his ISP about it is that it would take me an entire day to format all of the CheckUser logs in a way that the abuse contact would understand what they mean, he has been subjected to sanctions on RationalWiki for disruption numerous times since being blocked here (and always says he is sorry, but his behavior never changes), and he is the subject of an open SPI case, which he seemed to mock in this edit. He has lied in his unblock appeal, he has a tract record of creating drama on every wiki he is part of, and I believe he will continue to disrupt if unblocked, so while it's ultimately the oversight team's call, I strongly oppose an unblock and I thank @Beeblebrox: for removing this disruptive user from the encyclopedia. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 21:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And to prove that this isn't just some vendetta against this user, I am unopposed to allowing the WP:Standard offer at least six months or so from now if this user refrains from the kind of disruptive sockpuppetry here that he has engaged in on Conservapedia, but I don't think he is ready to return yet because I think he will continue to disrupt if he does. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 21:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is BS... I have stopped creating socks on Conservapedia for a while now (I have NEVER created a sock on Wikipedia. EVER!). This person is bringing up an old story! I am NOT an extremist. And I have substantial edits to Wikipedia. I have undone vandalism, created articles, participated in discussions etc. While, whether I get unblocked or not is not on me, I think we should at least consider a shorter block for now. After it was pointed out to me that discussing other wikis on this site is discouraged, I stopped. I do not know why old stories and bad feelings from other sites need to be brought here. Judge me by my content here! I have been productive for Wikipedia and have helped the project. I did stupid things. I have been blocked enough. It is time to move on. And this person claims I am an extremist. How does that not qualify for "poisoning the well", or "personal attack", or "defamation"? Kingdamian1 (talk) 22:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Standard offer for indef blocked users is six months with no socks, you stopped discussing activities on other wikis when you got blocked (remember the threat that you got blocked over and what it was about), and I'm not saying you are an extremist but merely saying what RationalWiki accused you of being to establish that this is not politically motivated. We're not going to turn this into a WP:BATTLEGROUND or a WP:BLUDGEONing contest, so this will be my last reply. I wish you luck, but I will not endorse the removal of this block because I fear you will continue to disrupt if unblocked. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 22:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This individual casually mentioned that I have been "called" an extremist to poison the well, it is irrelevant to the discussion. I have NOT created any sockpuppet accounts on Wikipedia. And have not messaged people regarding other wikis since it was pointed out by none other than this individual! Kingdamian1 (talk) 22:12, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comments by MPS1992

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)[reply]

Yes. That is my point. I should be judged on my behavior on Wikipedia and its sister projects. --Kingdamian1 (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but even there, you might still be struggling, because you've gone around on this project telling people "feels good that you can't block me here" and similar things, more than once. Which, from the outside, looks a bit manic. It's not just a "bringing drama from other wikis here" thing, it's an "acting a bit crazy here" thing. I don't know what else is the problem because things are revision deleted or suppressed or whatever. (Please don't try explaining revision-deleted things to me, because I can't do anything about them.) You may need to deal with issues more than just saying you won't import drama any more. Good luck. MPS1992 (talk) 21:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When someone pointed out that sort of behavior was unwelcome, I stopped posting off wiki things. And please, remember, my off wiki postings make up a TINY amount of my positive edits. I got blocked, and it has been a while. I see no reason why I should stay blocked. I am not a vandal, OBVIOUSLY! Kingdamian1 (talk) 21:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you're not blocked for being a vandal, so shouting about it does not help. Hopefully someone on the oversight list can explain more about what you haven't understood, if this request is not acceptable in some form. MPS1992 (talk) 21:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand WHY I was blocked. I do not understand why I should not be unblocked/block shortened! Kingdamian1 (talk) 22:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comments

@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)[reply]

Also, I have no problem if @PCHS-NJROTC: has some relevant arguments against me getting unblocked. All my dealings with him here are water under the bridge. He has to go back to websites unrelated to Wikipedia to try and keep me blocked. I have been a positive contributor. I was blocked for something I did, which is in the past. I see no good arguments for me staying blocked. I do not see why anyone would be scared that I might harm this encyclopedia in any way! --Kingdamian1 (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please see WP:Standard offer, and I disagree that this is "water under the bridge." You are sounding desperate, and that does not help your cause. You're beginning to remind me of User:LovelyGirl7 in a lot of ways (strange behavior on and off-wiki and being persistent about wanting to be unblocked not long after being blocked in the first place, and no I'm not saying you are a sockpuppet) who ended up getting banned from the English Wikipedia and global locked. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 14:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PCHS-NJROTC: Honestly, I have no idea what random Wikipedia essays or random vandals have to do with me. Obviously, I am NOT a vandal, and obviously I have been helpful to Wikipedia. I love the idea of Wikipedia. Please, remember, that I am NOT blocked because of what I did repeatedly, I got blocked for a single statement. For me at least, that episode is water under the bridge. You keep referencing my "off-wiki action". It has NOTHING to do here. If you want a brief comment, the other Wiki, where I created sockpuppets, has no clear ways to appeal a block, Wikipedia does. Also, you are NOT presenting any argument of why I should be blocked. I am not a vandal, not a troublemaker, and above all, helpful. I wrote inappropriate stuff more than 2 weeks ago, that episode is over for me. This is not Conservapedia where you punish people you don't like, regardless of how helpful they might be. P.S: It's not that I am desperate, it's that I am desperately needed. There are discussion that need my opinion, articles that beg to be created, vandalisms that need to be reverted, typos that need to be fixed, grammar that needs to be corrected, New Pages that are coypright violation that need to be deleted etc etc. There is no good reason why I should stay blocked, there are all the good reasons why I should be unblocked. I offered to do the same thing on the other Wiki (which, btw, has NOTHING to do here). I offered my hand, they refused. So let them enjoy their talentless editors (who can't even update where Cristiano Ronaldo plays). This is Wikipedia. This is a serious encyclopedia, which people use for information. If you have good reasons why you are genuinely afraid that I might harm this encyclopedia, please, present it. Referencing WP:RANDOMESSAY, some other vandal etc. is not an argument. --Kingdamian1 (talk) 14:56, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When you are conversing with someone you know to be a member of another site and refer to people from that site (on Wikipedia) as "talentless editors (who can't even update where Cristiano Ronaldo plays)" while trying to get unblocked... This is why I don't think you need to return at this time. Please stop pinging me and allow the oversighters to evaluate this matter for themselves, I'm not saying this to be mean, but this discussion is not going to enrich the encyclopedia, nor is it helping you cause. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 17:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock 2

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Kingdamian1

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)[reply]

This website is not for chess

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)[reply]

The specific thing that needs to be reviewed is WP:NOTGAMEHOST. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 01:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Biden

Moved to Talk:Joe Biden

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)[reply]

@Aoi: I cited SEVERAL mainstream news articles, including VICE and Huffington post that discuss the fears that his creepy behavior around children makes him an unsuitable candidate. Can you explain, why do you feel comfortable reverting my changes without first discussing them? --Kingdamian1 (talk) 02:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BRD. Aoi (青い) (talk) 02:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoi: I will try to repeat my question. I cited several mainstream articles, that OUTSIDE of the Washington Post discuss the fears that Biden's creepy behavior could cost him the 2020 elections. Why do you revert this instead of editing it to cut out the alleged NPOV? --Kingdamian1 (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this discussion to the Joe Biden article so other editors can weigh in. Aoi (青い) (talk) 03:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing and edit warring bordering on WP:NOTHERE despite final warning when previously unblocked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock 3

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).

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)[reply]

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

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. Huon (talk) 21:50, 19 September 2018 (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.

Unblock 4

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).

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)[reply]

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)[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.

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)[reply]

If by some odd quirk of fate this proceeds to an unblock discussion in earnest, I add the condition of no more copyvios and/or unattributed quotes in user space or elsewhere. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, no edits involving biographies or post-1932 US politics.16:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Unblock 5

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).

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)[reply]

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)[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.

Jeez. Look, this is again a very noble sounding vagueness that does not address the reasons for your block. Nor does it address what you will do instead. If you do not understand these two key concepts, then unblocking you would surely prove to be fruitless.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What else can I do? I promise to accept a topic ban, or whatever you guys will decide is an appropriate punishment. --Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation needed

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)[reply]

I think by now only a sea lion would want to have this conversation with you. You could read the ANI thread about you. In summary: no you aren't blocked for some ideological reason--you're blocked because you keep violating our rules and are either unable or unwilling to try and understand them. Drmies (talk) 01:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I'll revoke talk page access since you've wasted enough of our time and resources. Drmies (talk) 01:11, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Believe me, I am a strong Trump supporter and a strong opponent of Biden; this has nothing to do with ideaology. In your defense though... @Drmies: don't you think we should have waited for the AN discussion to conclude before taking away yalk page access? KD, if you have anything worthwhile to say about the ban, follow the instructions on WP:Banning policy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by PCHS-NJROTC (talk • contribs) 03:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Out of fairness, I'd like to restore the TPA in case user is able to partake in the AN discussion. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dlohcierekim, whatever you do is fine with me. I wanted to put a stop to the ... unlikely unblock requests. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:15, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

The above self-victimization (and conspiracy theory) is either voluntary trolling or a demonstration that you still do not understand why you were blocked. I'm sorry about that, but also remember that Wikipedia is only an awesome website. There is nothing dramatic in being blocked for failure to observe its policies. Farewell for now, —Paleo Neonate – 11:30, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I (PCHS-NJROTC) initiated the community ban discussion, and not only am I (as you already know) a student of Liberty U, I am a proud student of Liberty U, hence why I deliberately didn't log in to write this (literally from the Jerry Falwell Library) and I am also a proud Trump supporter, so the claim that this is an ideological block/ban is ridiculous. Sure, some people you are interacting with on Wikipedia are liberals who can't stand Trump, but not everybody who acknowledges that your behavior here has been unacceptable falls into that category. 208.95.49.47 (talk) 19:46, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Banned

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)[reply]