Welcome

Hello, KingAttack!, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! - ^theWOLFchild 10:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory Help directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

May 2016

Hello, I'm Wani. Your recent edit to the page List of Epic Rap Battles of History episodes appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Wani (talk) 09:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Box Office

Hello, I saw that you made a edit on 2017 in film page, I undid the edition because Monster Trucks has already premiered in France & UK in december 2016, according to the Box Office Mojo source, therefor is not valid for the 2017 list. DCF94 (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, KingAttack!. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Shinedown discography, without citing a reliable source using an inline citation that clearly supports the material. The burden is on the person wishing to keep in the material to meet these requirements, as a necessary (but not always sufficient) condition. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. - Mlpearc (open channel) 19:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to List of films based on video games. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - Mlpearc (open channel) 19:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Superfast. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Green Day discography

Please do not add more columns than the recommended limit of 10 (per WP:DISCOGSTYLE and established conventions), as you did at Green Day discography. Any more than this artificially widens the page and can cause readability issues for readers, as the text has to decrease in size to accommodate the additional columns. Besides this, discographies are not meant to be repositories of all peaks achieved for a musical act. Also, if you can avoid it, please try to avoid editing discographies while using Visual Edit; it messes up the lines of peaks. Thank you. Ss 112 11:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Evil discography

It appears that you added a blank "Music Videos" section to Pop Evil discography. Can you please elaborate on this? --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

Thanks for contributing to the article Pop Evil discography. However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable, by being clearly attributed to reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. Please help by adding more sources to the article you edited, and/or by clarifying how the sources already given support the claims (see here for how to do inline referencing). Thanks! P.S. If you need any help, you can look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia or ask at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page, or just ask me. Thank you. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Dunkirk (2017 film), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 00:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Vessels (Starset album). - FlightTime (open channel) 00:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, KingAttack!. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017

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 Skillet discography 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. What should I make of this blanking? Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

Thanks for contributing to the article Pop Evil discography. However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable, by being clearly attributed to reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. Please help by adding more sources to the article you edited, and/or by clarifying how the sources already given support the claims (see here for how to do inline referencing). Thanks! P.S. If you need any help, you can look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia or ask at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page, or just ask me. Thank you. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018

Thanks for contributing to the article Ded (band) . However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable, by being clearly attributed to reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. Please help by adding more sources to the article you edited, and/or by clarifying how the sources already given support the claims (see here for how to do inline referencing). Thanks! P.S. If you need any help, you can look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia or ask at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page, or just ask me. Thank you. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Evil discography

Hello, I'm Jax 0677. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Pop Evil discography, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Falling in Reverse discography

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Falling in Reverse discography, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wild Cards books and short stories

Please do not add or change content, as you did at List of Wild Cards books and short stories, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Pop Evil discography. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Honest Trailers episodes

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at List of Honest Trailers episodes. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding adding unreferenced material to articles. The thread is User KingAttack! has added material to several Wikipedia pages without proper referencing. The discussion is about the topic referencing. Jax 0677 (talk) 15:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please update the dates when you update music charts

Good day! Please update the reference access dates when you update music charts. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Blade Runner 2049, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Johnny English (film series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Davies (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) 09:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Blade Runner 2049, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 12:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Letters from the Fire

Thanks for contributing to the article Letters from the Fire. However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. Please help by adding more sources to the article you edited, and/or by clarifying how the sources already given support the claims (see here for how to do inline referencing). Thanks! P.S. If you need further help, you can look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia or ask at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page, or just ask me. Thank you. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018

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 K.Flay 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! Ss112 08:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you stop blanking the chart positions on K.Flay? What are you doing? Ss112 11:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chart positions do not only go on the primary artist's page. I don't know where you ever got that idea from. Any artist on the song can have chart positions for that song on their own page. Ss112 00:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Honest Trailers episodes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page A Quiet Place (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, KingAttack!. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Bad Wolves, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Ss112 11:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Evil discography

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Pop Evil discography. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 2019

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Kodak Black discography. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Mötley Crüe discography. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019

You are being reported for persistent addition of unsourced content. You have been given multiple warnings for this, including two final ones, but have just done so yet again on Bad Wolves. Are you going to stop at all? Do you not feel you need to provide sources for what you add to Wikipedia, despite the fact WP:V is our most basic policy? Ss112 12:03, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}.

N.J.A. | talk 13:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I made an edit and I forgot to put in a source. I know that sources are needed. I will remember to add sources. KingAttack! (talk) 11:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If you had forgotten to add a source with one edit, you would not be blocked. You have not added sources with several of your edits. You will need to better indicate that you understand verifiability before you can be unblocked. Additionally, you have not addressed your failure to communicate with other editors or lack of otherwise explaining your edits in edit summaries or talk pages. Right now, there is not a benefit to Wikipedia in unblocking you, and as such I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 11:46, 8 September 2019 (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 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).

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

Request reason:

I've made over 30 edits in the last six months and only this one edit did I forget to add a source. I'm trying hard to remember to add sources and I'm going to try harder in the future. KingAttack! (talk) 2:30 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

See decline below. N.J.A. | talk 10:59, 9 September 2019 (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.

The warnings on your talk page date from ~~2017~~ 2016 warning you of your failure to use sources. You have generally failed to properly source your changes and otherwise explain what you were doing in an edit summary. You also ignored warnings given to you. You only came to discuss things when you were blocked indefinitely. I would deny this request unless assurances are given with evidence of example changes you want to make along with proper sources to see how capable and serious you are at contributing positively. N.J.A. | talk 19:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

reason=The warnings from 2016 were before I knew sources were necessary, and then I was blocked and that was when I learned my lesson. The edit summaries are optional. KingAttack! (talk) 19:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

User is further indicating that they are not here to contribute positively. They are either trolling or oblivious to the reality that they’ve been warned countless times on sources both before and after the previous block. No lesson was learned by them following the previous block or subsequent warnings. No attempt for them to discuss their editing by those warning them until they were finally blocked. As for edit summaries, while they can be optional, they are not where it may be unclear the rationale for the changes. Not providing citations and having a history of poor editing is when any discretionary use of an edit summary becomes a requirement. Regardless edit summaries are not the main reason for the block, it is part of a pattern of issues. User is warned that access to this page may be removed if they request another unblock without actually addressing the issues with their behaviour, along with, as suggested above, providing examples of edits they’d like to make along with proper sources and an example edit summary to evidence an ability to edit in a positive manner perhaps with restrictions placed on their edits until they’ve demonstrated an ability to do so without supervision. N.J.A. | talk 10:59, 9 September 2019 (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 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).

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

Request reason:

Recently, I've done 554 edits with sources. This proves that I add sources. I will add sources to all my future edits. I want to add the music video, "Goodbye" to the article "Diamante Azzura". The source is their production studio Cumbia Film's channel on Vimeo. KingAttack! (talk) 13:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Only one open unblock request at a time, please. SQL ^{Query me!} 19:13, 23 September 2019 (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 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).

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

Request reason:

NJA, I haven't got a response to my last request. I'm trying to comply with your request to show all my edits in advance. I want to add the music video, "Goodbye" to the article "Diamante (musician)". The source for the music video is their production studio Cumbia Film's channel on Vimeo. KingAttack! (talk) 08:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Only one open unblock request at a time, please. SQL ^{Query me!} 19:13, 23 September 2019 (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.

Hi, unfortunately another admin needs to review this request as I am still unwilling to amend the block. In regard to your latest unblock request you have not actually provided the link in question to review the source and further it’s questionable any new article for the video with satisfy guidelines . I have difficulty with your case because a large portion of your contributions you’ve stated you made here were not actually sourced properly and were otherwise reverted or deleted. A look at your talk page history and block log is enough to give an admin pause. You were told many many times to source your edits and engage in discussions and you never did that until the block. You then say you sourced everything and you did not. This is of course open to review by another admin, but I do not believe you’ve provided any level of assurance that you understand the issue and that you are willing and capable of editing constructively. N.J.A. | talk 10:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

NJA, you keep on misreading my requests. In regard to your last decline, you are now asking for a link. Originally you asked for a source. I gave you the source: "The source for the music video is their production studio Cumbia Film's channel on Vimeo." I never said I wanted to make a new article for the video. You keep telling me to "engage in discussions". Engaging in discussion is optional. I never said I sourced everything. I have made a positive contribution to Wikipedia. I sourced the last 554 edits, after I learned my lesson. I was complimented 8 times on my talk page. You blocked me because I made an editing mistake in good-faith. If you can't help me, where do I find another Administrator to look at my case? KingAttack! (talk) 12:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Skimming through your edits, you seem to mostly cite YouTube videos, the IMDb, etc. Please show us an edit that you would make, and include a citation to a reliable source. The source should be high quality, and the content should be encyclopedic. If you're completely lost, try checking a Featured Article for inspiration. I just want to see that you can locate reliable sources, add sourced content, etc. So don't stress out too much on what to say. But please don't cite user-generated content or primary sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:38, 12 October 2019 (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 is a reply to NinjaRobotPirate. I want edit the article titled "Dance Gavin Dance". I want to add a music video. The video is called "Blood Wolf". The video was released in 2019. The director is Mount Emult. Blood wolf is a "non-single album." The source is the YouTube video "Dance Gavin Dance - Blood Wolf (Official Music Video)". The video was uploaded by "riserecords". Rise Records is the label for Dance Gavin Dance. This is the link to the YouTube video "Dance Gavin Dance - Blood Wolf (Official Music Video)" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vIOTu_P7nmg Is this what you mean when you say: "Please show us an edit that you would make, and include a citation to a reliable source."? KingAttack! (talk) 11:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's yet another link to a primary source on a social media website. Self-published sources and primary sources can be used on Wikipedia within reason, but what I want you to do is prove that you can cite a high quality source and add encyclopedic content – in other words, no YouTube videos. If that's all you understand how to cite, it is somewhat unlikely you'll be unblocked. There is an entire world of high quality sources out there that you could be citing instead of YouTube videos. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is supposed to be based on reliable secondary sources. I'm asking you to find one and cite it. If you don't understand what I'm asking, read the guidelines I just linked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found a high quality encyclopedic source. The record label for Dance Gavin Dance is Rise Records. Here is a link to the source, https://riserecords.com/pages/videos KingAttack! (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate PR is not a high quality, encyclopedic source. It's pretty much the opposite. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reason you seem confused is you are contradicting yourself and your terminology gives implications that are not true. In any event, the requests for block reviews is currently backlogged. You could in theory add the text {{Admin help}} to your talk page, though I'd wait it out if I were you until someone gets to your requests when going through the backlog. N.J.A. | talk 14:08, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

331dot, you declined an unblock request for me. Would you reconsider unblocking me? In the last six months I made 554 edits and only 1 of those edits was missing a source. That 1 edit was a mistake in good-faith. The large number of recent edits proves that I include sources and I understand their importance. I have not communicated with other editors, added edit summaries or added to the talk page because they are all optional. But, going forward, I will add edit summaries and use the talk page to communicate with other editors. There's great benefit to unblocking me, as the recent 554 edits proves I have improved many articles. The 8 compliments on my talk page also proves my contributions benefit Wikipedia. Thank you for taking the time to review my case. KingAttack! (talk) 10:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As you need only one open request, I have reformatted your comment. My opinion on this matter is unchanged. Your request will be reviewed in due course, please have patience. 331dot (talk) 13:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KingAttack! - I feel like you’re trolling and this needs to end. You continue to say things that are untrue. For example, and as I had checked before blocking you, I can not see any references for the last dozen edits you made, which, without edit summaries to explain what you’re doing it’s even harder to figure you out when you’re changing numbers and dates on multiple articles (most if not all reverted). Turning to this page: it is littered with warnings and concerns about your editing. I don't see any compliments. Further your editing did not get better after these numerous warnings and the previous block. I would like a third admin look at this, decline, and tell you to wait a few months before trying again or your talk page access will be revoked, N.J.A. | talk 01:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Diamante Azzura

The article Diamante Azzura has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability standards. The article has been tagged for notability and sources for 9 months, and the creator has repeatedly been informed of the need for sources, but still has no suitable sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021

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).

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

Request reason:

It's been over a year since I was blocked from editing Wikipedia articles. In that time, I've studied Wikipedia guidelines, manuals, instructions and tutorials. I understand how to correctly add references to new information. Please unblock me. KingAttack! (talk) 12:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Based on checkuser evidence, there appears to have been logged-out editing in April and May this year. While this is not certain, the logged-out editing does match your area of interest and has occurred on the same sort of device you use for editing. On that basis, I'm declining the unblock request. Yamla (talk) 12:30, 20 July 2021 (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.

Appeal

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).

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

Request reason:

It's been over two years since I was blocked from editing Wikipedia articles. In that time, I've studied Wikipedia guidelines, manuals, instructions and tutorials. I understand how to correctly add references to new information. Please unblock me. KingAttack! (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Look, I'm sorry, I realize that you're trying to improve Wikipedia. That's half the battle right there. But at some point, we have to say, "You've had multiple chances to show us that you get it, but you just don't get it." We're not making any progress here. The unblock queue is filling up to unmaintainable levels because people are repeatedly posting the same bad unblock request. "I understand sourcing now" is not a useful statement. Anyone can say that. I have said so multiple times, and I have asked you to demonstrate your understanding, and each time you have posted an unreliable source. When you finally understand Wikipedia's sourcing requirements, you can make another unblock request via WP:UTRS. I have no problem with anyone restoring your talk page access, but you need to demonstrate a minimal level of competence before that happens. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:46, 14 June 2022 (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.

Can you be a bit more specific? Everyone says "I understand Wikipedia's rules now" in their unblock request. It makes trying to deal with unblock requests a bit tedious. For example, instead of saying "I understand how to add references", post an example here on your talk page. And for the sake of administrator sanity, do not copy-paste an article to your talk page. Just post the part here that you would add. For example: "I found a review of Chicken Police. Here is the content that I would add to that article: [insert proposed edit here]." NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"I found a reference for Nothing More discography. Here is the content that I would add to the Singles section of the article:

"Tired Of Winning"^[1]

References

^ "Future releases". www.allaccess.com. All Access. Retrieved 2 May 2022.

KingAttack! (talk) 18:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Just a suggestion: read WP:RS again, and then find another source, because that website is a textbook example of an unreliable source, and isn't going to help you get unblocked. It's also an unstable source, because a page with "future releases" is updated daily, so the information you're attempting to source is already gone. Matuko (talk) 00:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of adding the Reflist template to your post so it would display the conversation thread properly. Matuko (talk) 00:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

[1] "Future releases". www.allaccess.com. All Access. Retrieved 2 May 2022.

[1]