User talk:KingofFilm

This account has been blocked indefinitely because its owner is suspected of abusively using multiple accounts.

(Account information: block log · CentralAuth · suspected sockpuppets · confirmed sockpuppets)

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).

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

Request reason:

See my statement at the bottom of the page.

Decline reason:

Unblock requests must contain the reason for unblock. Sandstein 13:34, 7 March 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

Dataport was one of the many users I have welcomed to Wikipedia. If you see my contribution log, it shows that I welcomed other users that day, too.

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock 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
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. TN X Man 15:09, 8 March 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

I understand why my welcome has caused confusion and I will try to prevent confusion that wastes admin's time to do more important things that is more important than listening to my unblock request. I will try to make more useful contributions.

Decline reason:

Your unblock reason still does not address the reason for your block. This is your final warning. If you post one more unblock request that does not address your block, your talkpage access will be removed. Smashville^talk 22:59, 8 March 2010 (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.

Proposed deletion of Movies in the Berkshires

The article Movies in the Berkshires has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Only source given is the chain's own website, and there is nothing on web or news search to demonstrate notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Favonian (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Public statement

I am on my talk page to notify everybody that I was NOT sock puppeting. Dataport676 happens to be one of the many users that I've welcomed on Wikipedia. I ask for all the administrators to understand. Please. IF I AM ASSISING YOU, VISIT Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/KingofFilm TO GIVE POSITIVE FEEDBACK! 11:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's possible that this is not a case of sockpuppetry, but a case of a new and not-too-bright user giving positive feedback as this user requests in all caps in his tremendously disruptive sig. That doesn't automatically mean I think he should be unblocked; that he hasn't yet changed his tremendously disruptive sig is problematic, for one thing. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible, but the timing rather strains my AGF: Dataport676 was created at 21:19, welcomed at 21:20, and at 21:36 posted a glowing "Strong Support - the user is bold and shows a dedicated commitment to Wikipedia and the projects goals. They'll make a fine admin." to KingofFilm's RfA. JohnCD (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think he decided to go to the RfA spot in the first place because if you see my signature, it tells you to go to that page. IF I AM ASSISING YOU, VISIT Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/KingofFilm TO GIVE POSITIVE FEEDBACK! 11:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this is becoming silly, and I think you're being disingenuous. Times and logs don't joke here. It's either you, or a buddy of yours. However, your signature is wholly inappropriate: if you think that becoming in admin is about simply receiving "positive feedback", then you certainly have not got what it takes to be an admin. To try and fool new users into believing that voting on your RFA is merely providing feedback is wholly and fully preying on what you perceive to be naive newcomers. In other words, either way, you're either sock/meat or disrupting - you choose. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think you admins are making this worse than it really is. I did not sock-puppet: I welcomed this user. In your words, I'm "either sock/meat or disrupting." Believe it or not, it's neither. I AM AN INNOCENT BLOCKED USER. User talk:KingofFilm 21:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What Dataport says

I copied this from Dataport's page. If you want to officially remove my account, fine. But before you do, see what he said. {{blockedsock}}

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).

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

Request reason:

What? I only commented on User:KingofFilms request for adminship because he welcomed me on my talk page and asked for support. I am not him, do a wp:checkuser if you don't believe me.

Decline reason:

If you honestly believe that he is "prime admin material" and you weren't just commenting because you either are him or you are a friend of his, then your judgement is so seriously flawed that you probably shouldn't be editing here anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

"Flawed judgment" is not a blockable reason. I have already said I am not User:KingofFilm; it's obvious his RFA didn't stand a chance in hell, but I decided to show him some support anyway out of kindness since he welcomed me and seemed to eager to pass. Either file a request for checkuser to prove I am not him or unblock me; as it stands I'm blocked on circumstantial evidence which I contest.

Decline reason:

Looking at the contributions here, this block appears to be valid. Again, not doing a checkuser because that's not going to prove anything in your defense. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:45, 6 March 2010 (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.

Checkuser cannot prove a negative. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 22:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

English isn't my first language, I'm having trouble understanding what "prove a negative" is supposed to mean.

Simply put, Checkuser cannot prove one is not someone else because of various circumstances (work, moving house, vacation, open proxies, etc.) that can cause one's IP to change and because one who seeks to have such a CU done on him will invariably be knowledgeable enough to change his IP address through some means to hoodwink it. Thus, Checkuser cannot prove a negative. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 22:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying because I know about Checkuser I'm automatically guilty? Oh for gods sake, this is ridiculous. Looks at my edits; I was answering questions at the Reference Desk when he posted that welcome message. That is the only reason I made a comment on his RFA.

No, I'm saying that Checkuser cannot prove empirically that you aren't KingofFilm. Knowing about the Checkuser tool isn't something one gets sanctioned over. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 23:38, 5 March 2010

Q&A

My case is becoming quite unfair. So, ask me questions and I'll give you answers. I AM AN INNOCENT BLOCKED USER. User talk:KingofFilm 11:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Q. Why on earth copy things from the other blocked person's userpage: it makes you look even more guilty (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this user should be given one more chance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.193.117.66 (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Barbara Corcoran

The article Barbara Corcoran has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability questionable and was created by a now-banned user accused of sockpuppetry

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 78.55.98.200 (talk) 12:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 2010

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).

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

Request reason:

Hi everyone. It's been months since my blocking. Let me start from the beginning. I thought that to enhance my RfA, I should welcome new users. I looked in the "recent changes" page, and went to Dataport's talk page. About 15 minutes later, Dataport commented on my RfA, AND I was banned. I tried to fight for my case but I din't explain sufficiently. So that's what happened. Please look at my case carefully. I AM AN INNOCENT BLOCKED USER. User talk:KingofFilm 19:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

As per this, it would appear that you have evaded a validly-applied block, and have been editing Wikipedia contrary to the policies laid out for you]]. As such, I have no option but to decline this unblock request. If you had any serious desire to return to Wikipedia, you would not have been editing during the block. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:33, 7 December 2010 (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.

And THIS is block evasion. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That user is no part of any sock-puppeting and should be let an account back. Please; all of this is a misunderstanding. Yeah, it's me. The King of the Film. KingofFilm. KoF. 19:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Note 98.219.123.213 whose comment here has been reverted has also posted on User:Dataport676's page in the last coupple of days. I think this is a case for WP:SNOW to be invoked. S a g a C i t y (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, that IP is me. I got confused. Please revert anything by that IP as it is me and I am not allowed to post out of my talk. Yeah, it's me. The King of the Film. KingofFilm. KoF. 00:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

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).

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

Request reason:

This is all getting silly. I contributed because I had faith that my unblock would be accepted. I contributed because I don't WANT to mess with Wikipedia. I have been saddened by this. I just want to help. Yeah, it's me. The King of the Film. KingofFilm. KoF. 17:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Please explain why there are a large number of other accounts editing from your IP address, and why a number of them appear to be editing from the same computer you are using. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:21, 8 December 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

Then I suppose you can call me a sock puppeteer now, but Dataport is an entirely different person. I just want to help contribute. And I'm editing from my IP because my talk access has been revoked. My IP is different than the one I joined with because I moved. 98.219.123.213 (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Since your talk page access has been revoked, you need to send your request via email to unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org. Do not attempt any more block evasions! Favonian (talk) 20:17, 31 July 2011 (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.

May 2012

Yes, I know this was a looong time ago, but please. I am not Dataport. 68.56.250.90 (talk) 23:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 2013

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).

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

Request reason:

This indeed was a long time ago, but I would like a second chance. Dataport was not me. They just sympathized with me. That is all.

Decline reason:

Your talk page access was revoked for a reason, and this attempt does not make it more likely for you to be unblocked. Favonian (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2013 (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.

Proposed deletion of The Berkshire Record

The article The Berkshire Record has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unable to source sole claim to notability ("won many statewide awards for journalism and many other newspaper-related elements"), BEFORE identifies no coverage to meet WP:ORG

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. Star Mississippi 23:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]