User talk:Kings Indian Defense

October 2019

Hello, I'm Aranya. I noticed that you recently removed content from Kel Seliger without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. – Aranya (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Kel Seliger, 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. – Aranya (talk) 21:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kings Indian Defense, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Kings Indian Defense! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Missvain (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

January 2021

Hello, I'm Kpgjhpjm. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Ali Alexander have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Kpg jhp jm 01:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Ali Alexander has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ali Alexander; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

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 and 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. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Important notices

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite partial block from Ali Alexander and Talk:Ali Alexander

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain areas of the encyclopedia for violations to the Biographies of living persons policy. I'm not sure why you chose to place the project at legal risk by repeatedly publishing defamatory content on a living person, but I assure you that it isn't okay.

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 ~~~~}}.

El_C 02:51, 21 January 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

Couple things:

I've been asked questions on that page for further source citations that I can provide, but I cannot post them for consideration because I've been blocked mid-discussion on the talk page.

I have acknowledged the error that occurred and it was not intentional, made efforts to correct, and continue to the discussion on the situation going forward.Kings Indian Defense (talk) 03:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I see no evidence here that you understand why you've been blocked from these pages, or that you intend to avoid such behaviour in future. I would advise you to avoid this subject completely for at least six months, per WP:SO, and prove that you can edit other areas and BLPs without problems. After six months you are welcome to make another request. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 10:01, 21 January 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.

Sorry that didn't work out...

In your shoes I'd probably take a break and try to jump back in to something less contentious. I recently started editing again like you, and immediately jumped into politics. (Bad idea for my sanity...)

I'd strongly encourage you to check out WP:5P and WP:SR for information about the goals of Wikipedia. I had to re-familiarize myself. Feel free to ping me if you want to chat some more. Jdphenix (talk) 03:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it, Jdphenix! This whole kerfuffle has shown I'm still a bit rusty. I have the citations you were seeking in the block dispute section if you'd like to review. Would've liked to still been part of the talk section, since I know the subject personally. I thought the block rather hasty, since I corrected my mistakes (both in the edits and the method I went about it). No mercy here, I guess! lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kings Indian Defense (talk • contribs)

Kings Indian Defense, if you want a realistic chance of seeing these blocks lifted, I suggest you review WP:GAB (and WP:BLP and WP:COPYVIO), because as it stands, the chance of you getting your unblock request granted approaches zero. Mind you, the whole browser story is, in and of itself, super-weird and far-fetched, but I guess parsing that will be up to another admin. El_C 03:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice El_C, after Jdphenix recommend I re-inform myself, I worked my way down the rabbit hole of WP:GAB WP:BLP and WP:COPYVIO as well, and feel confident I'm back up to speed. Not sure what was going on with page load weirdness, on any given day they cause some sort of oddity, especially on sites like Mediaite. I have 3 different content blockers and methods, I shut them off until I can triage which combo of Brave Browser, Lockdown for Mac and 1XBlocker caused today's frustrations. They were not my intention! If an admin wants me to attempt to replicate what happened, I'd be happy to oblige. Kings Indian Defense (talk) 03:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Replicate?" I'm not sure what you even mean by that, practically. Anyway, doesn't really matter. Until you are able to assert that you understand how you actually violated WP:BLP and WP:COPYVIO, and also how quotes really work, I'm sorry to say that there is little chance of you seeing those two blocks lifted. From the standpoint of the admin reviewing the unblock request, why would they want to take the risk? You are still able to edit every single other article on Wikipedia except those two pages. El_C 03:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By "replicate", meaning if the browser issue occurred once, I'm sure turning all blockers back on would cause the problem to present itself again. I have a question, if you'd be willing provide an answer, El_C? How does one demonstrate they are aware of the errors they made? Do I need to post on other pages proving I am back up-to-speed on WP:BLP and WP:COPYVIO? How do you recommend going about that in a way deemed satisfactory? Kings Indian Defense (talk) 04:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, what I'm saying is that I'm not sure how you could possibly find an admin to conduct some sort of browser replication experiment with you (whatever that means). It's just weird. But again, doesn't really matter. In answer to your question: in the unblock request above, try to explain how you violated the BLP and COPYVIO policies and how you would avoid doing so in the future. It would probably also make sense for you to demonstrate that you now understand that quoting the wrong person is not okay. El_C 04:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the WAPO article. I'd think that adding some mention of the finances, based on just the facts in the source is mentioned somewhere on either the subject's article or the section at Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election#Stop the Steal. But not to add unsupported criminal allegations to the top of the article.

We can't use this WAPO article to attempt to imply that Stop the Steal is somehow tied to a hypothetical criminal act. For the infobox change, adding his criminal past to the "Known For" would potentially imply that Stop the Steal was somehow tied with verifiable recent criminal behavior. That's a problem, especially on WP:BLP articles. We have to avoid getting Wikipedia in legal jeopardy, especially when we already know how best to avoid it.

There will be some point in the future where there's a more complete picture of Mr. Alexander's story. But it's not something urgent to worry about.

One other thing of note. "There is a duty to inform the public that they should heed caution before financially contributing to his endeavors." I'll caution you on editing articles that you feel strongly about. My own personal rule of thumb? If I find myself thinking thoughts like that, I stick to the talk page. Or just go find something else that needs improving. There's plenty. Jdphenix (talk) 04:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sound wisdom, thank you, Jdphenix! I know people who have been fleeced by this individual, who were unaware of his previous convictions until they already got hoodwinked sadly. Which is why I was attempting to place this at a location of prominence. Kings Indian Defense (talk) 04:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. Take a look at WP:NOTADVOCACY. A personal blog or social media is the appropriate place for such motivated writings. (And there's nothing wrong with that!) Just that simply stated, Wikipedia isn't the place for it. Jdphenix (talk) 04:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]