User talk:DraKyry

Welcome!

Hello, DraKyry, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Dokka Umarov has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Shadowjams (talk) 07:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to 2010 Moscow Metro bombings, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Lihaas (talk) 05:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Kurdistan Workers' Party, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 21:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate edit

This edit removed good content [1] that accurately summarizes the entire bottom section of the Abu_Bakr_al-Baghdadi article. Statements in the lede that summarize heavily sourced content in the body are not required to be sourced in the lede. Russian claims to have killed Bagdadi have not been confirm or reported in RS. If Bagdadi is really dead it would be worldwide news like bin Laden's death. I request you restore the sentences you removed. You also need to remove this edit [2] and not threaten to edit war. Legacypac (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. First of all, please, don't be so agressive. I am sorry you took it as if I threatened an edit war. I said that due to agreed that he is, in fact, dead, that might spark an edit war. Nothing more. Secondly, I will say in my defense that I am really new to Wikipedia. If the administration thinks that it is too soon to call him dead - that;s understandable, but then I think that we should create a section (or paragraph, or whatever it's called) detailing this newest development about Russia and Iran's claim that he is really dead. This section surely needs to include also the previous (wrong) reports about his death. Finally, I understand that you disagree with me, but I don;t take "Russian claims to have killed Bagdadi have not been confirm or reported in RS. If Bagdadi is really dead it would be worldwide news like bin Laden's death." as an argument (also, what is RS?). Mr. Putin recently said this: imagine what would have happened if the US military said that al-Baghdadi is dead? It would be all over the news. But when Russia says the same - it's 'a claim', unconfirmed, and the western media ignores it. You can think about Putin whatever you want, but what is this believe that the Western media pro-eminent to all others? The chinese news reported his death as a fact all other the place. The Russian media did the same. The iranian media, as far as I understand, also did the same. Why do we/you believe, that Western media is better than chinese then? --DraKyry (talk) 21:31, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of general sanctions

Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Legacypac (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some dude writing something

If you are really new to Wikipedia, edit warring (as you are doing on CNN blackmail controversy) is not a good way to get your feet wet. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry? Come again? --DraKyry (talk) 03:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll come again, but please don't essentialize gender. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

OK--you can't go around making false accusations of vandalism; it's unbecoming, especially in sensitive areas governed by those knowitalls at ArbCom. I suggest you self-revert and take back those words. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not engaging in making false accusations of vandalism. Here are just some of the screenshots I took. These screenshots record the edits I did, the edits I call vandalism, and you - don't. I also published these screenshots in the discussion page where I was also accused of making false vandalism claims. I am already getting tired of replying to all the shills - I suggest you do your math first, before accusing someone of making false accusations of vandalism http://imgur.com/a/auaEa & http://imgur.com/a/LCyyb
  - Not a question of math, but of reading: WP:VANDAL. Drmies (talk) 12:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to CNN blackmail controversy, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. General Ization ^Talk 03:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the edits of the guy who was vandalising, removing the whole page, or removing big chunks of it and replacing with his pov statements. You should read my edits carefully, my friend. --DraKyry (talk) 03:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you removed maintenance templates, and you are now at ~~5RR~~ ~~6RR~~ 7RR. I suggest you cool your jets. General Ization ^Talk 03:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, you're up to six or seven reverts in less than an hour and half of these AFTER you've been notified of Wikipedia's 3RR policy [3].Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:46, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First, I removed all our vandalism-related contributions. Which means that you broke the rules that are far more significant than 6RR You can look at the screenshots above. Second, the policy itself states that removing vandalism is fine as long as it's vandalism. Now go look at those screenshots (seriously, we are at the point now where I have to take screenshots of me removing vandalism?) and tell me whether they constitute vandalism or not. --DraKyry (talk) 03:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You really don't want to call other users' edits "vandalism", as that constitutes a personal attack (as do your comments in your edit summaries). You're up to ... nine? reverts now. You've had plenty of warning and you are edit warring against multiple users and appear unwilling to listen.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry i am not going to engage in an argument with you before u either disprove the arguments i provided in the most above, or apologize and stop vandalizing wikipedia. T-DraKyry (talk) 03:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on CNN blackmail controversy. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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. SkyWarrior 04:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the level of colaboration of your part is superb. Thanks for destroying my faith in this project. This is not a neutral encyclopedia, this is a joke. --DraKyry (talk) 04:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I'm not sure if you've seen this yet since your last edit overrode the original notice: there is currently a discussion at the edit war noticeboard involving you. SkyWarrior 04:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)]][reply]

Thanks! --DraKyry (talk) 04:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at CNN controversies. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You refuse to read the cited sources

Trump gif maker apologises for racist posts, the source cited in the article, explicitly says But CNN has been accused of "blackmail" — not Kaczynski. Similarly, the other articles explicitly say "CNN," not Kaczynski himself. Your failure to comprehend these sources can only be viewed as a deliberate attempt to misrepresent the reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that the article uses both CNN, and the name of the article's creator - mr. Kaczynski - as interchangeables. Besides, the article on CNN's website that created this whole controversy was authored by Kaczynski. In his twitter, he attempted to defend himself by saying that HE knew the guy was not 15, and that HE contacted him personally. Also, I'll have you know it that I am requesting help from Wiki Admins, because u simply do not seem to give a shit about others and just plain revert everyone's edits because they do not fit ur narrative --DraKyry (talk) 07:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You now edited the article to state, as fact, without a single reliable source, that Kaczynski "blackmailed" the unknown user. That is outright defamatory and libelous, and entirely prohibited by policy. Feel free to go ask for help, because you're going to end up blocked. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First, nice strawmen. I did not write that, the sentence u refer to goes as follows:

CNN was accused of blackmailing a Reddit user when they implied that they might reveal the identity of the user if he continued to post inflammatory content.

The incident was widely criticized across the political spectrum - including Vox, due to it being seen as blackmail and an attack on his pro-Trump views.

So either Vox is not a source, and CNN equalls Kaczinsky, or u are making a strawman to use for your vandalism defence. But instead of reading the sources i've provided, or even, to that matter, removing this sentence, you have decided to destroy the article in it's entirety, probably to speed up it's removal. Nice try, shillo --DraKyry (talk) 07:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Either you can't even read what you wrote in the article in the version which contains blatant BLP violations (After blackmailing him with that information, the user was forced to post an apology) or you're simply trolling. Either way, you're going to end up blocked, so have a nice day. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, obviously, accuse someone of trolling if he disagrees with your views. According to u Vox now is an unreliable source, because they state that CNN's actions constitute blackmail. Jesus christ, how old are u? --DraKyry (talk) 08:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of disagreement, it's a matter of the fact that you're adding unsourced libelous claims about a living person (to wit, that they blackmailed someone) into a Wikipedia article, which is strictly forbidden by policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are obviously trolling. I am not going to argue with u about sources - you are trying to remove 5 of those because u don't like them. If those are not sources - what are? But don't answer this question, I have better things to do than to argue with a shill/troll/useful idiot --DraKyry (talk) 08:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, no, "CNN" and "Kaczynski" are not "interchangeable." One directly refers to a single living person as being responsible for something, while the other refers to an organization as a whole. The reliable sources cited by this article do not use them interchangeably, they use them specifically, because what is published on a major news website is rarely the sole province of a single person. Articles go through editorial processes, and it is apparent that, at the very least, it is unclear who wrote the (admittedly-really-stupid) line in question — it may have been editors reviewing the article after Kaczynski filed it. Thus, reliable sources discuss the issue in the context of CNN as a whole and are not blaming Kaczynski specifically. The sources cited in the particular sections say "CNN" for a reason, and you don't get to decide not to follow the reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Either you have a source for the factual statement that Kaczynski blackmailed the unknown user, which is what you wrote here: "After blackmailing him with that information, the user was forced to post an apology," or you don't. If you don't, then it has no place in the encyclopedia. Same with the other edits where you misrepresent what sources say, when they say that CNN is responsible, not Kaczynski personally. Misrepresentation of sources and defamation of living people is treated very seriously on Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

Your recent editing history at CNN blackmail controversy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 331dot (talk) 08:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will withdraw from editing the article the moment u explain to me this: The article had about 9k bytes, than some people came and started to remove huge chunks of it. I was trying to engage with them in a conversation thru edit summaries for good three hours. Now, I understand that we both were wrong and should have stopped due to the 3 edits rule. But why am I supposed to stop first? If we are trying to restore the status-quo, we should revert the article to it's original state before the edit war. While the people editing it seem to be doing this: they came, ruined the article, and now want me to stop editing it, while preserving the article in it's ruined state. Also, I don't see you giving the same message you just gave me to all the other participants in the edit war. Nice nautrality, hah. --DraKyry (talk) 08:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being correct (if you are) is not a defense to edit warring. You can only control your behavior and not that of others; if you stop and others continue, you should report them to the edit warring noticeboard. As for the others, I am in the process of examining their edits, but edits regarding BLPs are taken very seriously and that seems to be the rationale for reverting you. 331dot (talk) 08:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to wrap your head around this situation, start with a few of the first reversals I've made with this article. It was done around 3:30 Wikipedia time. Now, I obviously don't want to force you to read thru the entirety of the edit war but I just want you to know that the latest rationally about usage of the word 'blackmail' arouse late into the edit war, since the word itself war added to it only about an hour ago. TL;DR This whole edit war is not about BLP, the BLP issue arouse late into the edit war because the edit which, as my opponents claim, violates BLP was made by me less than an hour ago. --DraKyry (talk) 08:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That sort of issue is what should be discussed on the article talk page to arrive at a consensus. All I know is that you need to stop reverting; you have already been reported to the edit warring noticeboard, continuing to revert will only make things worse for you and then you will be unable to edit the page at all. If you have a legitimate case to make, you need to do so on the article talk page. As I indicated, you can only control your own behavior. I have nothing else to add here. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have already made my case in the edit summaries - I am not going to spend any more time on this idiocy. Second, if someone breaks into your hope and starts wrecking stuff you can ofcourse control your behaviour and sit tightly, or you can respond to the burglary and fight the criminal. I am going for the second choice here. Goodluck. --DraKyry (talk) 08:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You need to listen to the BLP concerns of others - in this case, in my view, well-founded BLP concerns. If you don't start listening and editing collaboratively, you're headed for a topic ban from all post-1932 American Politics. GoldenRing (talk) 10:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a new thread on the talk page. Again. Let's see how it goes --DraKyry (talk) 10:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "CNN blackmail controversy". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 13 July 2017.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 08:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Floquenbeam (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DraKyry, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Marianna251TALK 16:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning CNN blackmail controversy, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

July 2017

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

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

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

Drmies (talk) 13:07, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]