Jump to content

User talk:Davide King/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

July 2014

Information icon Hello, I'm STATicVapor. I noticed that you recently removed some content without 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; I restored the removed content. 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! STATic message me! 17:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, and thank you for the message. I thought it was useless to put a section about dark matches. Also the part, "According to Jericho and Edge, the original plan was to put Barrett Over. At the end, Jericho and Edge would lost against Nexus. However, Cena asked for a change and he defeated Barrett and Gabriel. Jericho said that it was a bad idea, because Barrett wasn't pushed." is useless, otherwise we should write about every time when someone refuses to put over a talent, and I guess it's not even encyclopedic. 18:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Reference errors on 11 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 4 May

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 19 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Vince Russo may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • TNA Wrestling (February 17, 2010)|accessdate=2010-02-20|publisher=http://www.fanhouse.com Fanhouse]}}</ref> While working with Russo, Bischoff stated in a February 2010 interview that it is a "very

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chris Jericho, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Uncensored. 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) 10:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Undertaker

Hi there, did you "thank me" for my edits at The Undertaker or was that something different? AmericanDad86 (talk) 20:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

How nice of you to "thank me" for my edit. Yea, I just had to ask first because it's certainly not everyday a Wikipedian thanks you for your edits, its usually just drama and bickering any time there's interaction between users on this website. Also, your English and grammar skills is quite impressive. I wouldn't have guessed it wasn't your first language. The only thing I noticed was the semicolon and everything else was perfect. =) AmericanDad86 (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eric Angle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Danny Davis. 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) 11:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

John Cena

Plz add under Accomplishments, The plaque for granting 500 Make-a-Wish Wishes WWEfanatic12 (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Seth Rollins

Hi there, did you "thank me" for my edits at "Seth Rollins" (for that "Captain Morgan" edit)? Because I join that user up there who thanked you on how nice of you to "thank me" for my edit. I just had a bad week (long story) and that lifted my spirits.

P.S. It seems that the user who added that "Captain Morgan" thing in the first place added it again; I don't have time now to check it, but if you can (or know someone who can), I'll thank you. Cheers.--EdgarCabreraFariña (talk) 11:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited D-Generation X, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Road Dog. 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) 11:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

RE: Championship listing

Hello. So, yeah, the Seth Rollins thing got resolved, thankfully. Apparently, the page got blocked so that only administrators could edit it shortly after I sent you the message (for unrelated reasons), and the user in question calmed down. Also, don't worry about replying only now, I hope you solved your problems without much, well, problem.

Anyways, yeah, before I read your reasons for listing it alphabetically, I would've said that they should be listed in order of importance, but after reading your reasons (especially the first), yeah, listing them alphabetically seems more simple. It could be that the criterion was put years ago, when nobody had what you cited in your reasons in mind. (I know that the page was last edited in August 28, which is relatively recent, but maybe the editors didn't notice it. Not updating the page was something that I noticed in the Spanish version of the WikiProject: Professional wrestling, although in that case, apart from a few pages that were listed as "good articles" when they ceased to be a while ago, it has not caused major problems.) Thanks.--EdgarCabreraFariña (talk) 02:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I guess that now I'm the one who has to apologize for replying you only now, but thank you too for your reply. I find it strange that your edits were reverted, gotta guess that you'll have to find consensus in the appropriate page.

Anyway, about the championship listing things that you mentioned recently:

  1. About championships that were won with two different names... well, I'm stuck in the same page as you, I think. Kinda. Yes, I agree that championships with totally different names like the TNA Legends/Global/Television/King of the Mountain Championship can use the "/", but with names like the WWE World Heavyweight Championship it can get sticky, because as you said, with the "()" it's way more shorter, but it may not be understandable at first; conversely, with the "/" it's always understandable, but sometimes it may get very long. (I thought at first that the "()" was ingenious, too.) So... I'm not sure. I dunno, this "understandable at first" reminds me of how I saw from a while now how the terms "face" and "heel" were replaced with "hero(ic role)" and "villain(ous role)" because of the same reason; that "face" and "heel" aren't understandable at first, even more to non-wrestling fans.
  2. About the names of the WWE World Heavyweight Championship and the Intercontinental Championship, I must admit that your question also got me curious about it. Your mention about how Wikipedia states that it was called WWF World Heavyweight Championship until March 30, 1998 made me search for some videos from the time, and I found that both ring announcers and commentators; in the weeks leading to WrestleMania XIV (where Austin won it); just called it the "World Wrestling Federation Championship" (you know how back then they said the company's full name), so from the start it seems to me that the claim that it was called WWF World Heavyweight Championship doesn't ring true. So I went to the videos again and went back (the fateful Survivor Series '97, SummerSlam '97, Royal Rumble '97), and again ring announcers and commentators were already calling it WWF Championship. Went further down to the 1992 Rumble, and they called it the WWF Championship already then. Watched the Hogan/Warrior match at WrestleMania VI and they were presented as "World Wrestling Federation Champion" and "World Wrestling Federation Intercontinental Champion" respectively, which means that by April 1, 1990, the titles were already named simply "WWF Championship" and "WWF Intercontinental Championship", and also means that yes, "WWF" was part of the Intercontinental Championship's name. It wasn't until I watched the Savage/Hogan match and the Rude/Warrior match at WrestleMania V in 1989 that I found the ring announcers and commentators refering to the titles as the "WWF World Heavyweight Championship" and the "WWF Intercontinental Heavyweight Championship". And I still remember the title matches at Vengeance 2001 well enough to remember that the WWF Championship was already called the WWF Championship by then.
So to me, the final verdict is that both were called "WWF Championship" and "WWF Intercontinental Championship" since April 1, 1990 (WrestleMania VI). Now it's just a matter of finding reliable sources for that. I'll search for the old World Tag Team Championship as soon as I can.--EdgarCabreraFariña (talk) 13:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Authority (professional wrestling), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Director of Operations. 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) 11:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The McMahon-Helmsley Faction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Alliance. 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) 09:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited WWE Hardcore Championship, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Money in the Bank. 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) 09:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Spanish version of the WikiProject: Professional wrestling,

Hey may i ask why you removed the heel face list from the Spanish version of wwe page? I think it was a good ide having that on the page. Wwemeowmeow (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Shane, Stephanie, and HHH

All 3 of the 4th generation McMahons should stay on the roster as wrestlers.

They are all basically player-coaches, as they are not only people who run the team, but also play for the team as well.

All of the "legitimate sports" have historically had player-coaches, and WWE is "portrayed" as legitimate sport, so it's really the same principle.

Pete Rose didn't play in every single game for the Reds as their player-manager, but he played.

Same idea here.

Vjmlhds (talk) 00:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Not trying to beat you up or anything - just explaining that WWE is basically taking a longtime concept used in "real" sports and applying it to their own people in similar positions. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

Information icon Hi there! 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 Cara Delevingne 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. Thanks!  Rebbing  talk  18:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hulk Hogan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Muhammad Hassan. 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) 11:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

Information icon Greetings. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to List of WWE personnel, did not appear to be constructive and has been or will be reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please don't revert again. doing so would be a violation of WP:3RR Shane is just a wrestler at this point, as he has to win his match to become an authority figure. Stephanie is under a wrestler's contract, so whether she wrestles 1 time or 100 times is irrelevant...the company considers her a wrestler. Vjmlhds 23:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Stone Cold Steve Austin may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • just minutes later when he lost to Steamboat's replacement, [[Jim Duggan]], in a match that lasted [[Glossary of professional wrestling#Squash|thirty-five seconds.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Wyatt Family, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scott Dawson. 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) 10:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alexander Rusev, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The New Day. 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) 09:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Seth Rollins, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kenny King. 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) 10:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Wyatt Family, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The New Day. 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) 10:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 12 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Continued removal of WWE from titles

You need to look at the talk pages for each WWE title, there are on going talks if WWE should be in the name or not. There is no consensus to remove it so Stop removing it. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 20:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 12 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

A.J. Styles

Yes, there is a reason to have two sub-sections in the WWE section. Here's why, first his time with The Club, and now he's WWE Champion, two spans of time that are notable enough to have their own sections. It's not uncommon for someone to have multiple sub-sections that are about one year. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 02:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, here's the deal, you need to stop with the repeated edits to the A.J. Styles article. It's getting old. It doesn't look like a bad article, but do not re-work the sub-sections in the WWE section. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 02:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Undertaker, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scott Armstrong. 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) 10:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 25 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Rusev

His ring names should be bolded when mentioning a name change. Just the once though. Like when his ring name was shortened to just Miroslav. It should be (as I did) bolded. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 14:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Sasha Banks

No problem!! It's cool :D STAYFLY1992 —Preceding undated comment added 10:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Davide King. 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)

January 2017

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Roman Reigns. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been undone.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. There is no need for the over linking and Wikipedia is not a Wrestling news site. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 23:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Going to piggy back off of this real quick. Please be mindful of the edits you made at Alexa Bliss's article. Some of them were correct, but some of them weren't. Thank you. DantODB (talk) 23:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Also, please understand that named finishing moves in parentheses begin with a capital letter. DantODB (talk) 23:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

India

India is a featured article, the oldest country featured article on WP. Per WP:OWN#Featured_articles, you will need to discuss what you are doing on the talk page first, and gain consensus. Your edit has been reverted. The lead, especially, is the result of a two-month long discussion and of an FAR before that. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Please be aware that if you continue to make article-length edits on India in violation of WP:OWN#Featured_articles, WP:UNRESPONSIVE, and WP:CAUTIOUS, you risk administrative action against you. The fact that you "thank" me for my edits has no meaning if you continue to make these errors. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Universal Championship

As with the United States, Intercontinental, and brand name titles, in most cases, the "WWE" is left off. They began doing this with the Universal title about a month ago (I believe it actually started at Fastlane). --JDC808 ♫ 19:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

Information icon 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 Potential superpowers 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 → Tick Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! CityOfSilver 00:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

October 2017

I see a request for you to use edit summaries above, from April, with a very reasonable explanation of the importance of edit summaries. People have also told you about this before. You haven't responded, and you still don't use edit summaries. They're for the convenience of other editors, and systematically not using them seriously inconveniences others. For instance, I shouldn't have to guess why you removed content here and here. It's quite difficult to see what you removed and otherwise changed, since the diffs are complicated, with many changes at once. You should explain what you've done. Compare Beyond My Ken's edit summary here, with a request to use the talkpage which you have also ignored.

I see you have occasionally edited this, your own, talkpage, so seemingly you're aware that it exists — but the last time was in 2015! Please respond to me now, or else show that you have heard me by starting to use edit summaries and article talkpages. Your lack of communication is frankly becoming disruptive. Bishonen | talk 15:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC).

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Davide King. 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)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Economy of China, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg (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) 09:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Brock Lesnar

You deleted what I put on Brock Lesnars page and I never got an answer why. Why would you delete info that is actual relevant to what it is? Please leave a message of why thanks Wwemeowmeow (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 10:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Blocked

Due to your flagrant unresponsivess and your continued edits of the same nature as have been complained about above, I've blocked you indefinitely. You have been uncollaborative for the last few years. Graham87 14:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@Graham87: I would like apologise for my behavior in the past. I don't even remember or understand why I did that. All I can say is that I have had many personal issues and that there was no malice behind my behavior; these're no excuse, I'm just trying to explain and understand why I did that, because I don't understand it either in retrospect. I remember that I had several issues logging into my accout at times and I had procrastinations issues; like, I read the messages and I was going to reply because I wanted to explain my reasons, but I'm not good at summarising (you can see it by this wall of text itself now, too) and so I always thought I was going to finish to write my reply the next day, but I never did; I also didn't know or think that I could be blocked indefinetely for that. I think the edit summary issue was because I didn't know how to explain my edits (now I do; it's called copy editing and now I also know that the ce I have seen many times left as edit summary meant exactly that), or I couldn't find enough characters to fit in there; in other cases I simply forgot to write because I was so into editing (I usually edited the whole page; copy editing). Another thing was that in some cases I thought other users would check comparisions between the previous version and mine, but only now I have seen that by leaving or removing a blank space it was hard to understand what I actually changed. However, I think I have grown up and maturated ever since then and I have fixed my issues. That's why I would like to have another chance to prove it. I was mad at first and I gave up because I wanted to write this message a long time ago, but never found the time to finish it and actually do this. Now I'm trying again and I used an IP to see whether I have learned and if I would be worth of another try; I have left much more often edit summaries and reply to every discussion I got. That's why I would like to have another chance, if possible; my accoutn won't have to be unlocked now. I could use an IP which can be followed so that it can be verified I have learned from my mistakes and only then unlock my account. I just really want to be back; I don't care how much time it will take, whether one week or one month of editing with an IP would be enough to prove that I'm a changed person and more importantly a changed user.--Davide King (talk) 04:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
What was the IP address in question? And you didn't really address the issue ... the main thing that got you into this situation was not so much your lack of response but your continuing to make the same edits over and over again despite being told that they caused problems. Graham87 05:19, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
@Graham87: I don't remember the same edits I did that you're referring to, but I think I have finally learned now. I used 79.41.31.92 and now 95.248.99.191 to see if I have learned from my mistakes and if I could get my account back to edit; I have used the edit summary and also replied to talk pages to discuss and not being unresponsive ("unresponsive user" was what appear the reasons for the block), so I decided to write you if there's anything that can be done about it. Did I do any edit that caused the same problems again?--Davide King (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Your edits with the IP's seem alright; I've unblocked you to give you a second chance. Happy editing! Graham87 15:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
@Graham87: Why, thank you! That was easy/fast. I apologise once again and thank you so much!--Davide King (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Your edit to Social justice warrior

What was its point? You screwed up the footnotes by removing all blank spaces and moving punctuation from quotes to outside the citation templates. Based on a perusal of this page, and the fact that you last edited it more than two years ago, I'm probably wasting my time, but please use edit summaries to help other editors understand what you're trying to do, and please don't fuck around just for the sake of fucking around. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: I'm sorry, I don't remember why I did that. I probably wanted to recover some spaces with the footnotes and I didn't think I was screwing anything; it didn't appear any error message to me. I also improved some things, like some dates in the cite web templates. I moved the punctuation from quotes to outside because I thought that was how it was supposed to be (I have seen most pages like that) and so I probably thought it was a mistake or something. Anyway, I apologise and I have learned now.--Davide King (talk) 16:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Anarchism

Hi Davide King,

I saw your work on articles related to anarchism and wanted to say hello, as I work in the topic area too. If you haven't already, you might want to watch our noticeboard for Wikipedia's coverage of anarchism, which is a great place to ask questions, collaborate, discuss style/structure precedent, and stay informed about content related to anarchism. Take a look for yourself!

And if you're looking for other juicy places to edit, consider expanding a stub, adopting a cleanup category, or participating in one of our current formal discussions.

Feel free to say hi on my talk page and let me know if these links were helpful (or at least interesting). Hope to see you around. czar 19:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Re-blocked

I've heard it on good authority that you weren't being honest with me ... you have in fact used many more IP addresses than you claimed. Therefore, I have re-blocked you, with email and talk page access disabled. Graham87 02:28, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

  • I'm not familiar with the issue a year ago but our interactions in the last few days have been fine. @Davide King, please read through the sections I linked above and make a succinct request to the unblock ticket request system that acknowledges your understanding that IPs should not be used to evade a block (even to try to communicate with the blocking admin). You can contend, if genuine, that you didn't know this when you were originally blocked (a year ago). I think your unblock request is reasonable as long as you put it as a genuine misunderstanding and express interest in working collaboratively to improve the encyclopedia. You can point the admin reviewing the ticket to this thread, if helpful. czar 14:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm well aware of that. It just takes looking at well over twenty IPs to see the extent of block evasion and edit warring while indefinitely blocked. People seem to forget that it is the person, not just the IP or named account, that is blocked. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd like to know what continued harm anyone else sees in unblocking this editor. I went through the IP edits and if there's something troubling, it eludes me.
I'm frankly more troubled by the above characterizations. myriad IPs and extent of block evasion implies some kind of malicious intent, whereas the editor has been more than forthcoming about (1) not understanding the terms of the original block, and (2) total willingness to abide by the rules as soon as informed. Yes, he acknowledges his original error in editing as an IP, but all evidence shows that the number of IPs is due to their dynamic provision rather than some kind of elaborate scheme (as already established). The edit war at Social democracy looks like a rookie error. Neither Davide (82.53) or the other IP editor (95.102 in Slovakia) were warned about the three revert rule, and I'm fully confident that, now informed of this, Davide would be willing to avoid reverting on articles in that topic area altogether as a sign of good faith.
Acknowledging his contrition and reviewing these recent edits, I only see a net positive editor looking to collaborate and improve the encyclopedia. If anyone feels otherwise, I'd really like to see what evidence I missed. czar 01:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

If user Davide King is not unblocked, it will be, in my opinion, the victory of the letter of Wikipedia's rules over their spirit. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

A comment to clarify how far back this goes and continues even now. Davide has claimed he had only edited "for at least four weeks to show that I have learned from my mistakes," ergo since July, but I have so far tracked him using IPs with constant editing going back to March 4, and likely earlier, but it's too much work to keep tracking him down.

Even after leaving a "last message" here, he continued using an IP to edit, well-knowing he is not allowed to make any edits at Wikipedia. He is likely still editing, not just commenting. He has claimed he is allowed to reply on talk pages, just not edit, while blocked. That's not true.

The point is he isn't being honest. He also edited hundreds of different articles and templates, so this wasn't some "trial" editing for a short period. It was clear block evasion. We do not reward that behavior. I'll let admins decide if we should extend mercy in this situation. It would be rather unusual to do so.

If he's allowed back, it should be done with a topic ban on all political subjects and templates, especially those related to socialism and communism, broadly construed. Also only using this account and no editing while logged out. Sock puppetry to evade a block is not allowed, and that's what's been happening since at least March 4, and it continues. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

My replies

This will be my last message. I didn't even want to write it, but I just couldn't do otherwise after BullRangifer's response. I also wanted to personally thank @Czar: and @Гармонический Мир: for the advices and solidarity; and that as soon I read Czar's reply, I did exactly that and submitted an unblock request. I honestly really didn't know about that (the fact I wasn't given any link to appeal the block in the first place didn't help either; and if today I have still so much to learn, I can't imagine how much I didn't know back then), but I have understood and have a real interest in working collaboratively to improve the encyclopedia (there was no better way to put it, Czar). I really didn't know what to do (English wasn't and still isn't my first language) and I wasn't given any link like Czar has done for me now (even if I was unresponsive, I don't think that justifies not linking anything to help me understand what happened, why it happened and what I could do about it or/and how to appeal it; especially when I was having personal problems and I wasn't having fun being unresponsive); it all happened so suddenly, the block could have just as easily avoided if I was more responsive. I was actually preparing a reply for everyone to explain things and that I understood why certain edits of mine weren't helpful, etc., but I was blocked before I finished to write it. I didn't really know about block evasion, or that I could still reply in talk pages (I even had problems to log into my account); I wasn't given a link for an appeal in the first place. I probably should have wrote to @Graham87: first, but as I stated:

  1. I didn't know I could edit in talk pages.
  2. I had problems getting into my account.
  3. I had personal problems which only make everything worse for me.
  4. I was left only with the IP, but I didn't want to reply him with that because how could I prove it was really me? So I thought that editing for at least four weeks to show that I have learned from my mistakes would have been a better proof and a better way to appeal the block. I was lucky to get back into my account and that's when I saw I could actually reply to him here.

I didn't really know about IP or block evasion so much so that I thought my latest block was simply because I forgot to list all other IPs; I would have done that without problem. Indeed, I already acknowledged my IPs in various talk page with my account itself once I got it back. I have now actually read the block evasion thing and it states: An administrator may reset the block of a user who intentionally evades a block. I can freely say I didn't do it intentionally and I have always tried to act in good faith but the situations and things I stated above forced me to do that and use the myriad IPs (which I would like to remind to BullRangifer I had no control whatsoever over) as they automatically changed and I didn't even know why); I thought it wouldn't have been a problem as long as I would have aknowledged them, which I did. If I really wanted to evade my block, I wouldn't have even replied to Graham87 in the first place or acknowledged my IPs. I want to be clear I'm not justifying my actions in any way; I'm merely trying to explain and understand why I did that. It's a shame I had to learn so many things the hard way and I apologise wholeheartedly. Finally, I wish I could at least edit talk pages so I can reply with my account because I'm really sorry and regret my misunderstandings and mistakes; and I would like to still contribuite to Wikipedia. In the end, I would like to apologise to everyone once again, especially Graham87 because that I don't want to hear from you again really made me sad and upset. Thank you and sorry again to everyone.

P.S. As for my edit war, are you @BullRangifer: referring to the Social democracy page? Because I thought there was a consensus or no opposition for the lead section change (I actually invited you to reply there, which you did but not at first). Furthermore, the more important edit to the lead which you have most opposed wasn't even initiated by me in the first place.--95.233.145.168 (talk) 06:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  • I just would like to clarify that to show I have actually learned and understood; and that my mistakes weren't caused by malice, some kind of elaborate scheme, or bad faith but rather by same genuinely misunderstanding and naivety in my part. I have no longer used any IP to edit any page and I didn't plan to do so. My so-called "last message" was just to warn that once I was told what to do by @Czar: (once again, right after blocking me and the IP I used to reply to him because I still didn't get any actual link like Czar did, @Graham87: told me here to go through proper channels from now on without giving me any link; I wrote this before reading Czar's reply (I still wouldn't know what go[ing] through proper channels from now on meant if it wasn't for Czar), I did exactly that and used the Unblock Ticket Request System (UTRS), for which I'm still waiting for a response and willing to answer any question. I really wouldn't have replied here anymore, but I could't stand outright lies either or uniformed assumations such as that He is likely still editing, not just commenting. As for my IP going back much earlier, I have actually explained that in the message I sent to the UTRS. I have used the IP to reply here only because now I was blocked from editing my own talk page too as can be shown by this:

    This user is currently blocked. The latest block log entry is provided below for reference:
    02:25, 18 August 2019 Graham87 talk contribs blocked Davide King talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (per talk)
    View full log

  • Right now I'm just reading pages and checking talk pages; I'm not editing any page anymore with any other IP. This is all I'm doing.
  • Either way, I reiterate I'm really sorry about all this and I apologise wholeheartedly. I have understood what I did wrong and that it won't happen again. I'm asking for clemency because I believe to be in good faith and that I want to show I have learned and understood those rules, for which I would like to thank Czar because only he/she explained/linked me clearly; and that [I] understand what [I] [was] blocked for, [I] will not do it again, and [I] will make productive contributions instead. I wouldn't have a problem with a topic ban on all political subjects and templates, especially those related to socialism and communism, broadly construed [and] only using this account and no editing while logged out if it's necessary for my return. I just want to be back and contribuite properly with my account now that I have understood my mistakes.
  • To further show I have understood, I will revert and remove this comment. I just wanted to clarify that I'm not using any IP to edit anymore (which I hope it's a helpful comment) and that 82.49.228.114 and 95.233.145.168 are the only IPs I have used since Graham87 re-blocked me (I still don't understand why; was it because I didn't list all the IPs I used, or was it because of block evasion, for which I wasn't aware/informed of?); and that I have used the first IP to list other IPs and the other IP to state I followed through the UTRST (still waiting for a reply) as suggested by Czar. Now I will also log into my account with this IP to show that 87.19.152.252 is me and that I wouldn't edit anymore (I stated above why I used IPs to reply here; and I hope I was being helpful in stating that I'm not using any other IP to edit pages as argued by BullRangifer).--87.19.152.252 (talk) 16:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

A reply to this:

  • What do you even mean by how far back this goes and continues even now? I didn't use any IP to edit anymore (in this whole week, I didn't use any of it either; I have now actually understand, once I'm linked to the proper page), I only used the IP to reply here to give the update I was following the procedure, but then you had to violate my good faith by accussing me of still using IPs and of malicious intents; and even telling outright lies such as that I was likely still editing, not just commenting when I wasn't. In the text you were referring to, I was actually saying that I wasn't aware I could still use my account to edit my talk page, that's why I used the IPs; not to evade my block (which I may have techincally done so, but certainly not consciously, for what's worth it), but rather to appeal my block since I didn't know what to do and I thought that by showing good edits and contributions would have helped my cause. I lost days and night in doing that; I actually put a effort in making bold, good edits in good faith, why would I lose all the time if I simply wanted to evade my block? Why did I even send a message to Graham87 and expose myself and aknowledged the IPs I used?
  • You say I have claimed that [I] had only edited "for at least four weeks to show that I have learned from my mistakes," ergo since July, but I have so far tracked him using IPs with constant editing going back to March 4, and likely earlier, but it's too much work to keep tracking him down. I thought the at least part was clear. I considered one week to be the minimum since many discussions here usually have that as time limit, but I didn't think it was enough. I actually wanted to prove that it wasn't just smoke and mirror, I had to show consinstency, that's why.
  • Then you say that [e]ven after leaving a "last message" here, he continued using an IP to edit, well-knowing he is not allowed to make any edits at Wikipedia. He is likely still editing, not just commenting. He has claimed he is allowed to reply on talk pages, just not edit, while blocked. That's not true. Now that isn't true. I was actually allowed to reply on my own talk page, but I wasn't aware of it, that's why I used the IPs; if I knew I could edit my talk page, I would have first wrote back here to discuss and propose my idea to show that I had learned and could contribuite in good ways. It's only the second time in which I was blocked from editing my talk page too, but after I made my UTRS request I was able to edit my talk page again to make the unblock request which I will do after clarifying all this.--Davide King (talk) 08:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Unblock request (31 August 2019)

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).

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

Request reason:

I was told to keep sweet and short (however, I have re-added my replies and also added a detailed version (background and reasons; per If the background or reason isn't clear, your request may be declined out of hand, if it can be helpful), so I simply say I would like to earn my editing rights back because I have now understand that what [I] did was inappropriate for this site, and confirm that [I] won't do it again; and that the block is no longer necessary because [I] understand what [I was] blocked for, [I] will not do it again, and [I] will make productive contributions instead. I'm willing to collaborate, listen and move slowly, My IP editing was based on some genuine misunderstanding and naivety on my part—I acknowledge my mistake and apologise for it; I believe it won't happen again and I simply want to contribute to show that I'm on good behavior.--Davide King (talk) 08:12, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 12:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I have read other unblock requests and understood that simply stating that I understand, etc. isn't enough and I would like to clarify that I really did understand that I should always leave an edit summary (I have now enabled the Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary option, which I believe should be enabled as default option); that I will make my edits visually understandable by not editing blank spaces, whether adding or removing them (I believe I was in good faith because I didn't think or wasn't aware it would cause problem; indeed, I would check my own edits by showing the differences and I thought it was readable and understandable, but I will be much more careful with that to avoid any issue) and by adding an edit summary as stated above; that I will edit pages in small steps to make it easier to understand and revert bad editings while retaning good ones rather than edit it all in one single, big edit like I did; that I will be a responsive user by replying to talk pages and my own; and that once I was told and had read the Wikipedia: article about IPs, I didn't use it anymore (I didn't use any IP in this whole month even to reply to several important discussions I was having on articles' talk pages) and that my intention in using it in the first place was to show that I could contribuite and make substantive productive contributions because I didn't understand what I should have done about my block, if and how I could appeal it, etc. rather than some bad faith master plan. I would suggest always linking to the blocking policy, blocking appeal, etc. when explaining an user the blocking reasons to avoid any misunderstanding; one has to click on Edit a page other than one's own talk page, which is usually left editable unless required otherwise, to see such links:

Other useful links: Blocking policy · Username policy · Appealing blocks: policy and guide

If the block notice is unclear, or it does not appear to relate to your actions, please ask for assistance as described at Help:I have been blocked.

[originally bolded in red]

This should appear in the blocking notice as well as making clear that Even if blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page and email other editors and administrators (unless the block requires otherwise) and not to use IPs or create a new account to appeal the block. I hope this can be helpful.--Davide King (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Detailed version

Extended content
As a sign of good faith, I waited more than one week before writing this (I apologise from the length, but I want to explain everything and be clear), a week in which I didn't use any IP to show it was a misunderstanding, not some malicious plan; and to show that once I'm clearly told what to do and what not to do, I follow the rules. My main issue is with my first block. I understand and respect the decision, but I would like to understand more about it and have some answers and clarification, especially since we never had a real discussion about it; indeed, the reason for my first block was literally unresponsive user. Now that it passed exactly one year (I don't know why, I thought it was years), I hope we can continue from where we left and have that discussion we never had. I would like to clarify that I had issues in real life which impeded me from replying here starting in 2016. I didn't enjoy being unresponsive, not replying; and I didn't do it just for the sake of it. I had serious issues and the reason why I continued editing was that it was a way to help me distract from the problems themselves. I didn't want to have any quarrels, I simply wanted to enjoy my time here and contribuite in a good way. I really wanted to reply to everyone and all discussions here (I actually really do hate unanswered discussions, so I was angry at myself for not replying early), but I had these personal problems and procrastination issues which didn't allow me to finish all my replies before I was blocked back in August 2018, to my shock.

My issue is for which block should I appeal for? This is what's confusing me. Because I used the IPs to show that I was learning and I wanted to show these edits as proof of this; I had no idea I was doing something wrong. I thought that if I was doing something wrong, I would have gotten a message or something, or I thought it would have been obvious it was me so someone could explaine what I needed to do to earn my editing rights back on my account. So I thought of editing in good faith to show I have learned. I was always going to aknowledge my IPs exactly because I wanted them as proof that I learnt from my mistakes and that I was being contributive. About sockpuppeting (I'm not sure I even knew the word back then), I only knew and thought that it was about creating a new account, which I never did (if I know something to be wrong, I don't do it); and I knew very little about IPs. I didn't even know what they were exactly and I didn't understand why they kept changing. I also didn't use them to blank or valdalise pages; I used them to edit in good faith and show I understood my mistakes. It passed a long time (I honestly thought now it was years, but it was just one year ago that I was first blocked) and I don't remember everything, but what I'm sure of and what I'm sure I remember is that I was in good faith and I simply didn't know that what I was doing was wrong; I didn't read about what Czar linked me until, well, he linked me what I needed to know; and I didn't want to literally evade my block. I was always going to aknowledge the IPs I used and why I used them in the first place, i.e. I didn't know I could still edit my talk page and also had problems log back into my account; if I wasn't able to get back into my account, I was going to write the message there in the first place, but thankfully I was able to get back into my account. I didn't use the IP to write in my talk page at first because how could I prove it was me? I thought that if I was doing something wrong, I would have got a warning already or something, so I decided to edit in good faith with the IPs while I would try to get back in my account to see if I could write in the talk page from there, which is what I did. Yes, I thought one week was the minimum, but I also thought that at least four weeks would have been more adeguate to show that it wasn't just smoke and mirrors; and to show consistency.

I still haven't understand why I was blocked again. Was it because I didn't list all the IPs I used? I listed the most recent ones because they were the most recent ones and also the ones in which I added an edit summary, another reason I was blocked in the first place. Indeed, I still didn't used edit summary in many of my edit summary specifically because I didn't want other people to think that I was somebody else; I actually wished someone would have recognised me so they could have helped me with the appeal like you actaully did. I also aknoledged other IPs in the talk pages I was having, so I didn't understand how I wasn't being honest. I'm just glad I was lucky and able to get into my account and so I found out I could actually edit my talk page with it. If it was because I evaded my block, all I can say is that I'm sorry and understand it now. I wasn't aware of it and I only tried to edit in good faith to show I have learned; if I really was evading my account and doing that with malicious intents, I would have never aknowledged my IPs or even wrote back in my talk page in the first place. If the problem is the number of IPs, it's simply due to it being dynamic, which isn't based on me. I didn't even understand it or how it worked; I'm not a tech expert.

Indeed, my issue isn't with this but rather with my first block. Why wasn't I even warned I was risking getting blocked? If I was sent a block warning, I would have find a way to reply to all discussions. I didn't do that because my father had cancer and just died last September; I don't rememeber why I didn't reply, but I think I kept editing in good faith to distract myself and I had procrastinations issues because I was eventually really going to reply to everyone and all discussions once I got my reply done, if I wasn't blocked in the first place before I could send all my replies. I didn't know I could be blocked for that (indeed, I remember the literal reason for my blocking was unresponsive user) and I always thought my edits weren't block worth. I always thought that some of my edits were fine, others unhelpful, yet others a mix of both. I thought that reverting my edits, or simply keeping the good parts while removing the bad ones, was enough. I don't remember edit warring much about that; my edits were mainly just bold, or copy editing, words fixing, formatting, etc. I just didn't know it was that until recently, that's why I didn't know what to say in my edit summary. I also usually read and edited the whole page, so some of my edits were based on that and perhaps I was wrong in that, but I didn't know I could risk this much. I was always in good faith and I don't remember edit warring much, despite not knowing the three reverts rules. As I was saying, why wasn't I even warned about risking being blocked? I thought we could simply discuss it, but I had my problems and I had to procrastinate that. I just saw these days one user that was actually warned about getting blocked and then blocked for 72 hours. Why couldn't the same have been applied to me? Why couldn't I have been blocked for 72 hours or a week, rather than indefinetely? Especially when I was blocked indefinetely without leaving any link like Czar did, or even warning me not to create a new account, nor using IPs to edit, etc. One has to actually click on edit to find out about all this; and I didn't do that, or if I did, I was still confused about that and even forgot I could edit my talk page. I believe the warning and eventual time limited block would have been much better and helpful for me. As it actually happened, it seemed punitive (I thought it was a given that I had my problems for not having replied yet; I'm actually very shy and sensitive, but I was going to reply and wanted to discuss it; I just had my own personal problems and isssues) and all of this mess could have been avoided.

I don't even remember when I actually first found out about the block. I only remember I simply didn't know what to do. I have actually read sock puppetry now and I remember editing while logged out in the past and before I was blocked exactly for reasons such as not noticing that the login session had expired, changing computers, going to a Wikipedia page directly from a link, and forgetting passwords and that I never did that to actively try to deceive other editors, such as by directly saying that they do not have an account or by using the session for the inappropriate uses of alternate accounts listed earlier in this policy. I didn't obviously know about meatpuppery either, but I never used that for the purpose of [them] coming to Wikipedia and supporting [my] side of a debate. I never used different IPs in talk page to support my side of a debate either.

All I knew was that I couldn't just create an account; which I didn't do. I didn't get any warning or message in my talk page about the blocking that I couldn't use IPs, even if just to show I had learned from my mistakes and didn't know how to appeal my block for the reasons I already stated above. I'm just asking for clemency because I don't really want to be blocked forever. I actually want to earn my editing rights block. I hope I have showed that when I'm clearly told and linked about what to do or not to do, I follow the rules. I believe to have been in good faith and more than forthcoming in aknowledging all this and understand my mistakes. I'm more than willing to read the whole Wikipedia Manual to make sure this time I have got everything right and I know what to do and what not to do; that I'm really sorry about everything and I apologise again for all of this; that now I have understand that what [I] did was inappropriate for this site, and confirm that [I] won't do it again; and that the block is no longer necessary because [I] understand what [I was] blocked for, [I] will not do it again, and [I] will make productive contributions instead.

I don't know what more I can do. I just don't want to be blocked forever for this; my naivety, my misunderstanding. I hope I could have the chance to edit again to show I'm in good fath and I have learned, so that I can fullfill my idea of showing it in deeds, but this time warning about it and using my account only (you can block me from edting with IPs, if it can help). I simply want to earn my editing rights back, if possible, and not being blocked forever; that would be the worst punishment for me, this week was awful in not being able to do anything. Thank you and sorry to everyone for everything and the length of this message; I just wanted to be clear and explain everything.

  • In short and firstly, why wasn't I even issued a warning a could get blocked? If I was issued one, I would have probably find a way to reply (I was actually going to reply with a detailed reply because I wanted to explain everything, etc.) in a short way and so the block could have been avoided in the first place by simply doing that.
  • Second, why wasn't I blocked for 72 hours or even a week? I don't believe I was violating any rule, I believe I simply had to learn about editing and so on (why wasn't I told about any link to redirect me to the Manual of Style and all other rules; perhaps telling me to read that and learn from it, otherwise I could have been blocked?); I believe my edits could have been simply reverted. I don't remember edit warring about it (despite not knowing about it nor the three reverts rule) or causing massive problems that could lead to a block. Indeed, I always thought some of my edits were good and helpful; others not necessarely bad but otherwise unhelpful; and yet others a mix of both. I didn't know what to write in the edit summary because now I know my edits were mainly copy editing, formatting, things like that.
  • Third, why wasn't I told again about any link to learn and make an appeal in the talk page; one has to actually click on Edit to see that. All of this could have been avoided if I was told in the Blocked talk what to do for an appeal and that I could still edit my talk page, so I should not use IPs or create a new account. Indeed, all I know about what I now known as sockpuppeting was that I couldn't just or simply create a new account, which I didn't. I didn't understand how IPs worked (indeed, I thought that if what I was doing was wrong I could have got a warning or notification), but I thought that it wouldn't be a problem as long as I would have used it to make bold edits in good faith (my so-called plan wasn't to evade my block, but rather to show as proof that I had learned and could make good edits and so contribuite to Wikipedia in a positive way; I didn't know or forgot I could actually still use my account to reply here, otherwise I would have done that just like I'm doing now), which I believe I did; and aknowledged them, which I did.
  • My idea of showing directly my edits to show I changed, learned and was being contributive actually worked since I was unblocked (I didn't use any IP while I was unblocked; I always and only used my account to edit and also left edit summaries), so I'm confused about why I was re-blocked (this time I was actually blocked even from my own talk page; the reason why I used the IPs was that I thought I couldn't edit my talk page and I didn't know what to do).--Davide King (talk) 08:12, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry to hear about your father. I'll leave the decision of whether to unblock to another admin. Any admin is free to unblock without consulting me. To respond to your points:
    1. You weren't given a warning before being blocked because frankly you'd been given many many warnings over many years, and did not change your editing pattern. I notice that none of your warnings actually used the word "blocked", but Bishonen said "Your lack of communication is frankly becoming disruptive", which is very close to a block warning.
    2. It's standard to block indefinitely in such cases. It is very difficult to check the contributions of random accounts after they've been blocked for arbitrary amounts of time.
    3. I'm sorry about the lack of info about how to appeal the block. I'll endeavour to use an actual block template if I encounter a similar situation in the future.
    4. I re-blocked you because I didn't trust you. And, given edits like this, which were exactly the same sorts of edits complained about on your talk page before, I don't think I can even now. Also, for the record, this edit is the one that started the block in the first place. Graham87 14:37, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
    • First of all, thanks so much for your reply.
      1. I didn't take that as block warning. I simply thought we could discuss so I could understand how I could improve my edits. Unfortunately, I had issues that prevented me from giving a reply, but I would have replied eventually. I also didn't think my edits were vandalisations or so much disrupting and I thought that simply helping me understand what was wrong and revert them would have helped me; indeed, I always thought my edits were a mix of good and helpful ones; and unhelpful ones. I believe I was in good faith and I didn't think my edits were blocking worth. I didn't add obviously false informations, blanked pages, or wrote nonsense and insults.
      2. I didn't know about that. I didn't think I was doing something that could get me blocked indefinetely and I thought I would have gotten a block warning like actually using the block template. I thought that discussing would have been enough, but I had problems that prevented me from doing that.
      3. Yes, I think it's simply useful to always use the block template and add important links so that the block user can better understand what to do and avoid any issue or misunderstanding.
      4. I simply didn't know or think I could get blocked for that. Indeed, the blocking reason actually stated unresponsive user, not vandal user or disrupting user. I also thought the problem was the edit summary, which I believe I have resolved, but now it actually was my formatting, or did I understand wrong? Could you please explain me what was wrong with that edit and could you link me to the Manual of Styles that talks about this? I don't remember getting errors or something like that; the page seemed as fine as before. I simply wanted to have consistency and I thought that was the consistent formatting I have seen.
    Also, what's wrong with removing blank spaces like I did (once again, like in this talk page, I did that to keep consistency)? I added spaces in things like == Title == or in templates like Infobox person where it looks more clear and easier to edit while removing it in templates like Cite web (also fixing the dates) to gain bytes space for more text, simply having a less heavy page, etc.; I didn't know or think it was a problem, I thought I was fixing it. I simply changed from header, space, image, space, text to header, image, text. I don't know if you got it visually what I'm saying and talking about; I didn't know how to show you it without the MediaWiki syntax (the "behind the scenes" code used to add formatting to text). Could you please show me what's the consistent formatting to be adopted? Because if that's the problem, I can fix it just like I fixed my edit summary issues and I hope this could help my case in showing effort and good faith. Thank you for your time and reply. I just hope there's nothing personal because as I have stated before that I don't want to hear from you again really made me sad and upset. I'm just really sorry about all this and I would like to apologise again, especially to you. Thank you again.--Davide King (talk) 05:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Cosmetic edits—those which only affect whitespace and no actual content—are generally discouraged. White space changes through the course of regular editing are fine as long as it isn't edit warring your preferred version over the standard that the article's more regular editors use. re: the second diff, we generally encourage smaller edits that make the differences between edits easier to ascertain. Big edits that move paragraphs, consolidate refs, and rewrite sections in one fell swoop are hard to parse. I might be missing additional context but wanted to clarify the norms on those two points. czar 05:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Indeed. Maybe it's just me but I'd generally advocate doing very minimal whitespace changes while making other edits ... they can make diffs very difficult to read, as discussed in this and other sections. In this case I'd actually go so far as to advocate not doing whitespace changes at all, unless the article is written in a horifically non-standard way (e.g. with all the infobox fields on one line) ... and when doing that, carefully explain what you're doing in the edit summary. I also wonder if your use of Visual Editor is messing up the diffs even more; that tool can cause that problem. The problem with your second diff (the edit to dust bowl) is that it was too similar to edits that you had been told not to do in the past. You hadn't responded to messages on your talk page about this problem, so I couldn't think of any other choice but to block you. You don't have to undo your whitespace changes on this page; I don't mind either way. I don't have anything personally against you. Graham87 15:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
      • Thank you for explaining me this very well and for the link, I finally understood the issue with this and it makes sense. I didn't know that it could have caused me a block; I simply thought that a revert would have been fine, but I understand that my failure to understand my mistakes, even if still in good faith, forced me to get blocked. As far as the Visual Editor is concerned, I used it mainly because it was easier to check and edit text. I also usually made sure to re-check my edit and fix any problems caused by it. I don't understand why I did that, but I believe that I was so into reading and editing the page that I would click on Publish changes before copying the page to edit it from time to time rather than all at once, or adding the edit summary. I believe to have fully understood my mistakes and the rules about this one too; and that I would be much more careful about all this.--Davide King (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I support user Davide King unblocking. His edits are mostly useful. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 03:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment not sure if you addressed this yet, but were you editing with this IP prior to the block in August 2018? And why? Mark Schierbecker (talk) 01:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • First of all, thanks for your comment and time. I believe to have addressed this when I stated that I remember editing while logged out in the past and before I was blocked exactly for reasons such as not noticing that the login session had expired, changing computers, going to a Wikipedia page directly from a link, and forgetting passwords. I didn't really know much about IP addresses; I was, and still am in many ways, a tech newbie and things like that. All I wanted was editing and hopefully giving a good contribute; and all I can say now is that I know much more about rules, how they work, etc. and that's why I'm asking for some mercy and clemency because I was being genuinely naive and in good faith in my mistakes rather than malicious; that my mistakes were more based on genuinely misunderstanding and unexperience on my part; that it won't happen again; and that I would like to have a chance to show it and actually earn my editing rights back. If there's anything I can do, I'm more than willing to do that to actually earn my editing rights back, show effort rather than just talk and show how much Wikipedia means to me.--Davide King (talk) 05:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Is there any news or update about my unblocking request? Why no one replied anymore here, nor in my unblocking request above? I have waited at least one week because I see that's generally the waiting norm period, but no news or update yet? I'm always forthcoming here. Meanwhile, I took the time to further read and learn about Wikipedia: articles. To show off my good faith and my understanding, I didn't used any IP to edit here or in talk pages. I reiterate that I have understood that what [I] did was inappropriate for this site, and confirm that [I] won't do it again; and that the block is no longer necessary because [I] understand what [I was] blocked for, [I] will not do it again, and [I] will make productive contributions instead.--Davide King (talk) 03:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

It's in the queue at Category:Requests for unblock. Apologies that it's taking so long! czar 21:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Right-libertarianism

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Conte II Cabinet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Claudio Grassi (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) 07:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Libertarianism contributions

You've been doing a lot of good edits on libertarianism articles. Even that gigantic "gordion knot" bundle at right-libertarianism that I had to revert had some good stuff in it. It's pretty cool that you are so thorough about your background on your user page which helps provide an understanding. I do think that it's inevitable that you would have some difficulty understanding common libertarianism in the US. Not just because it is so different (including being giant and vague and mild) but also because the trying to use the framework and taxonomy that works so well for historical US libertarianism and for European libertarianism really doesn't work for the main giant(maybe 90,0000,00 people), vague and mild form in the US.

Also, when you make like a dozen or dozens of significant changes in single edits or make an overwhelming amount of changes rapidly, I think that you are more likely to get reverted because it's the only way a typical Wikipedian with a typical amount of time to donate can deal such large bundles and amounts. If you were to slow down and split them up I think they would fly more often because you do lot of good work. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect information notice

Information icon Hello, I'm 178.41.129.82. Your recent edit(s) to the page Social democracy appears to have added incorrect information, so it has been removed 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 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. Thank you. 178.41.129.82 (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Regarding your recent additions to the social democracy article.

Hey, Davide. I just wanted to let you know that I have finally finished correcting and polishing all of the material you inserted in a large series of edits recently. Let's just say the typos were more than I expected, but I've did what I could to make it worthy and proper for a hopefully Good Article. I trust that you have no problem with the lede now, or am I wrong? Either way, its a pleasure collaborating with you, especially since I myself have learned some historical info that I would have otherwise overlooked. Perhaps after we finalize the current revision as the final compromise for this long-standing dispute, we may nominate this article for a peer review and then prepare it for the next big step, which is a Good Article classification.178.41.129.82 (talk) 15:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Unconstructive editing at Social democracy.

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Social democracy. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. 178.41.129.82 (talk) 06:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Glancing over the recent edits to that article, I don’t see anything resembling disruptive behavior there, and I think this template warning is unwarranted. However Davide, you should probably respond to the IP editor above since unresponsiveness on talk pages is one of the things you were criticized for before. —Pfhorrest (talk) 18:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
@Pfhorrest: Thanks for the comment. I actually already replied here to the IP's talk page and I have yet to hear a reply back. Ironically, the IP did exactly the kind of edits I was criticised for when I didn't understand they were unhelpful. The IP also lied because I didn't add any "incorrect information to the article". The IP also moved paragraphs that have been structured like that for months and months (in some case this caused a dispersion of sources since the source was used to verify the entire paragraph, hence why it was like that in the first place), also adding a period in several pics' caption when it should be added only when it's a full, fledged phrase. Finally, the IP also removed [ ] in quotes which were used to clarify what some quotes were referring to or words that weren't actually in the quote itself but were added as [ ] to clarify. The IP's edits there were already reverded twice by another user and I was just trying to revert back to the version previous before the IP's edit while retaining some of the good/better wording. Other edits of the IP were also reverted, but the IP instisted and continued, that's why I didn't revert it back.--Davide King (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Libertarianism in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Friedman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed compromise for Social democracy's lede section.

Hey, Davide. It's me. I am really sorry for being so aggressively confrontational towards you, especially since this edit war has dragged on for long enough. I have drafted an proposal for a compromise that I believe should satisfy both of us, and prevent constant changes to the article that disrupt its stability at the same time. For you to review at any time:

"Social democracy is a political, social and economic philosophy that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a capitalist-oriented economy. The protocols and norms used to accomplish this involve a commitment to representative and participatory democracy, measures for income redistribution, regulation of the economy in the general interest and social welfare provisions.[1][2][3] Due to longstanding governance by social democratic parties during the post-war consensus and their influence on socioeconomic policy in the Nordic countries, it has been seen by some commentators as a synonym for "European socialism", and became associated with the Nordic model and Keynesianism within political circles in the late 20th century.[4] Social democracy thus aims to create the conditions for capitalism to lead to greater democratic, egalitarian and solidaristic outcomes.[5]

Social democracy is characterized by a commitment to policies aimed at curbing inequality, eliminating oppression of underprivileged groups, and eradicating poverty,[6] including support for universally accessible public services like care for the elderly, child care, education, health care and workers' compensation.[7] The social democratic movement often has strong connections with the labour movement and trade unions, which are supportive of collective bargaining rights for workers as well as measures to extend decision-making beyond politics into the economic sphere in the form of co-determination for employees and other economic stakeholders.[8]

Social democracy originated as an ideology within the socialist and labour movement, whose goal at different times has been a social revolution to move away from capitalism to a post-capitalist economy such as socialism, a peaceful revolution as in evolutionary socialism, or the establishment and support of a welfare state. Social democracy's origins lie in the 1860s German Empire as a form of revolutionary socialism associated with orthodox Marxism. By the 1910s, it had spread worldwide and transitioned towards advocating an evolutionary and peaceful change from capitalism to socialism using established political processes. In the late 1910s, socialist parties that were committed to revolutionary socialism renamed themselves as Marxist-Leninists, causing a split in the socialist movement between these supporting the October Revolution and those opposing it. Social democrats who were opposed to the Bolsheviks later named themselves democratic socialists to highlight their differences from Marxist-Leninists, although sharing some common ideological roots.[9] In the early post-war era in Western Europe, social democratic parties rejected the Stalinist political and economic model then current in the Soviet Union, committing themselves either to an alternative path to socialism or to a Keynesian compromise between capitalism and socialism.[10]

In the post-war period, social democrats embraced a mixed-market economy based on the predominance of private property, with only a minority of essential utilities and public services being under public ownership. As a result, social democracy became associated with Keynesian economics, state interventionism and the welfare state while abandoning the prior goal of replacing the capitalist system (as manifested in factor markets, private property and wage labour)[5] with a qualitatively different socialist economic system.[11][12][13] With the rise of popularity for neoliberalism and the New Right by the 1980s,[14] many social democratic parties incorporated the centrist Third Way ideology,[15] aiming to fuse economic liberalism with social democratic welfare policies.[16][17] By the 2010s, social democratic parties that accepted austerity and centrist triangulation experienced a drastic decline in Western Europe as the Third Way had fallen out of favour in a phenomenon known as PASOKification.[18]"

Sources

  1. ^ Heywood 2012, p. 128: "Social democracy is an ideological stance that supports a broad balance between market capitalism, on the one hand, and state intervention, on the other hand. Being based on a compromise between the market and the state, social democracy lacks a systematic underlying theory and is, arguably, inherently vague. It is nevertheless associated with the following views: (1) capitalism is the only reliable means of generating wealth, but it is a morally defective means of distributing wealth because of its tendency towards poverty and inequality; (2) the defects of the capitalist system can be rectified through economic and social intervention, the state being the custodian of the public interest [...]."
  2. ^ Miller 1998, p. 827: "The idea of social democracy is now used to describe a society the economy of which is predominantly capitalist, but where the state acts to regulate the economy in the general interest, provides welfare services outside of it and attempts to alter the distribution of income and wealth in the name of social justice."
  3. ^ Badie, Berg-Schlosser & Morlino 2011, p. 2423: "Social democracy refers to a political tendency resting on three fundamental features: (1) democracy (e.g., equal rights to vote and form parties), (2) an economy partly regulated by the state (e.g., through Keynesianism), and (3) a welfare state offering social support to those in need (e.g., equal rights to education, health service, employment and pensions)."
  4. ^ Gombert et al. 2009, p. 8; Sejersted 2011.
  5. ^ a b Weisskopf 1992, p. 10: "Thus social democrats do not try to do away with either the market or private property ownership; instead, they attempt to create conditions in which the operation of a capitalist market economy will lead to more egalitarian outcomes and encourage more democratic and more solidaristic practices than would a more conventional capitalist system."
  6. ^ Hoefer 2013, p. 29.
  7. ^ Meyer & Hinchman 2007, p. 137.
  8. ^ Meyer & Hinchman 2007, p. 91; Upchurch, Taylor & Mathers 2009, p. 51.
  9. ^ "Social democracy". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 10 August 2015.
  10. ^ Adams 1993, pp. 102–103: "The emergence of social democracy was partly a result of the Cold War. People argued that if the Stalinist Soviet empire, where the state controlled everything, showed socialism in action, then socialism was not worth having. [...] The consensus policies of a mixed and managed economy and the welfare state, developed by the post-war Labour government, seemed in themselves to provide a basis for a viable socialism that would combine prosperity and freedom with social justice and the possibility of a full life for everyone. They could be seen as a compromise between socialism and capitalism."
  11. ^ Miller 1998, p. 827: "In the second, mainly post-war, phase, social democrats came to believe that their ideals and values could be achieved by reforming capitalism rather than abolishing it. They favored a mixed economy in which most industries would be privately owned, with only a small number of utilities and other essential services in public ownership."
  12. ^ Jones 2001, p. 1410: "In addition, particularly since World War II, distinctions have sometimes been made between social democrats and socialists on the basis that the former have accepted the permanence of the mixed economy and have abandoned the idea of replacing the capitalist system with a qualitatively different socialist society."
  13. ^ Heywood 2012, pp. 125–128: "As an ideological stance, social democracy took shape around the mid-twentieth century, resulting from the tendency among western socialist parties not only to adopt parliamentary strategies, but also to revise their socialist goals. In particular, they abandoned the goal of abolishing capitalism and sought instead to reform or 'humanize' it. Social democracy therefore came to stand for a broad balance between the market economy, on the one hand, and state intervention, on the other."
  14. ^ Lewis, Jane; Surender, Rebecca (2004). Welfare State Change: Towards a Third Way?. Oxford University Press. pp. 3–4, 16.
  15. ^ Whyman 2005, pp. 1–5.
  16. ^ Whyman 2005, p. 61.
  17. ^ Whyman 2005, p. 215.
  18. ^ Barbieri, Pierpaolo (25 April 2017). "The Death and Life of Social Democracy". Foreign Affairs. Retrieved 15 November 2019.

Once again, I am really sorry for any inconvenience or offense I might have caused to you during this dispute, and I trust that we can resolve this peacefully and constructively once and for all. 78.98.54.148 (talk) 13:30, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi! I recommend keeping this discussion in one place (the article's talk page) czar 03:38, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
@Czar: Could you please doing something about it? The IP has been first blocked (and still is) as 178.40.152.153 (talk), but it has evaded the block and further engaged in disruption behavior and edit warring, despite my multiple warninngs, pleas and explanations that it shouldn't editing any page or talk page until the block expire and that it's risking a much longer block due to this. The IP has also engaged in similar edits for which I was blocked too, like making one big edit in which there're massive and unhelpful cosmetic edits and paragraphs moving that makes it really hard to understand what was changed, what and if any word, source, etc. was changed. The IP continued edit warring despite not having reached a consensus yet in the talk page (I already explained we shouldn't be even discuss it there yet as it's still suppoed to be blocked, but that would have been better than outright not showing good faith and continuing its edits and edit wars; other of its edits on other pages were reverted too, but the IP never seemed to ask why and if maybe the problem are its edits themselves). I already told the IP that "[i]f you truly want to show good faith, then self-revert your last edit and stop editing any page or talk page until your block expire; and then notify yourself to the user who blocked you that you evaded your one week block, further engaging in diruptive behavior and edit warring, despite my warnings and explanations. Once you do this, we can discuss it and see what's the consensus. Until then, the page should remain as it was before your last edit", but right after that the IP did massive edits and couldn't even wait for my reply that it already this (apparently just because this time it took me more time to reply in the talk page). I already notified the block evasion, but no one replied or did something about it yet. I have sympathy for the IP because some of the edits are good, but this isn't the way to do it or behave.--Davide King (talk) 13:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I left a comment on Talk:Social democracy. Looks like 78.98 agreed to observe the block but best case in scenarios like this is to briefly explain (and link) the guideline, especially if you know that the editor has good intentions and just needs a hand learning the norms. If you want to bring a sockpuppet case, see the procedure at WP:SPI though I think time is better spent focusing on specific content that needs to be changed and finding supportive, reliable sources. czar 18:19, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
@Czar: Thanks for your response. I have sympathy for the IP, but I believe this is no longer good faith and is risking an indefinitely block. As I stated, "[w]e have disrupting beahvior such as block evasion, edit warring multiple times while blocked and now sock puppetry as the blocked IP first evaded the block as 78.98.54.148 and now created an account when still blocked". I have been more than forthcoming in including part of the IP edits and even told many times that it shouldn't be editing, that it was still blocked, etc.; and that if it truly wanted to show good faith, then it should self-revert and notify the block evasion, but instead now apparently created a new account and engaged in sock puppetry too.--Davide King (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
I hear you. Let's centralize the discussion on Symes2017's talk page, if it's true that they're the same editor. czar 18:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
I think you adequately made these points so no need to rehash them, right? Perhaps let me work this out with the editor and if you're unsatisfied with the result, we can discuss then? Or alternatively, I suppose, if you plan to write up an WP:SPI case, can you let me know now so I can hand it off to you and that process instead of attempting to mediate this? Again, that wouldn't be my recommendation but that's a route, if you insist. czar 19:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Looks like this is resolved. Is this conclusion satisfactory for you? Let me know if not. czar 19:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Reported to administrator

Hello, you have been reported to administrators because of your POV edits on the Domenico Losurdo article without engaging in a discussion and accepting other opinions there. Seeing now your talk page, it seems that you have quite a history of such disregards for editing in a civil manner. 213.149.62.144 (talk) 14:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

All right, so let's act as if we don't know the rules of civilized editing on Wikipedia and review recent edits of Davide King on Domenico Losurdo page:

a) Davide King has bashed into the article and removed (-1074 words according to history page of the article) of the lead which was disputed on the talk page of the article, although he knew that the lead was at the centre of the dispute and he did so in opposition to slight consensus on the talk page.
b) Davide King has deliberately disregarded the fact that there was a question of Losurdo's notability and therefore of keeping the article at all on Wikipedia, his most "notable" contribution in wider public being defense of Stalinism and criticism of Liberalism. He reverted the article by presenting Losurdo only as an Italian Marxist philosopher and used Wikipedia to subtly propagate Lousurdo's version of Marxism which seems to be a form of hardcore Stalinist Marxism-Leninism.
c) Davide King has rewritten and divided the article into chapters in such a manner as to present Losurdo as a "normal" Marxist philosopher and his Neostalinist tendencies as unimportant byproduct despite the fact that there was a question of how much his other works were in accordance with Stalin's views on history and philosophy. According to that, he has positioned the neutral sources on Losurdo at the end of the article. Furthermore, he has continued to relativize Losurdo's Neostalinism by claiming that he has written hundred of books (not only on Stalin) despite all the scarce neutral sources (by other Marxist philosophers and Stalinist historians like Furr) pointing to Losurdo's affinity to Stalinism in his other works.
d) Davide King has on my talk page ([1]) deliberately mischaracterized this dispute on the article on Losurdo as an issue of unclear language, characterizing his Stalinism as a hostile "label" and warning me not to emphasize a long history of his disputable edits on similar issues on his talk page, describing it as a personal attack. Also, he has engaged into all such actions in other Wikipedias (German and presumably Italian).

So, to sum it up, Davide King has deliberately disregarded the talk page, despite exactly knowing the issues there, to rewrite the article, cover strong facts that are going against his POV, has a history of such actions and people here on Wikipedia see nothing problematic with it. 213.149.62.144 (talk) 09:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:213.149.62.144
Maybe you should have checked the differences better since that loss is because I removed the part that was literally copied word by word by Liberalism: A Counter-History and simply made a summary of it instead. Also, this is the only Wikipedia that does that in the lead, maybe you're the one who is trying to push a POV and overempahsise his relationhsip with Furr by guilty for association? Even in Grover Furr we don't call him a Stalinist apologist in the lead, but merely say "is best known for his books and articles on the history of the USSR under Joseph Stalin, particularly the 1930s". Maybe we should do the same with Losurdo? You're the one who is mischarectirising me. Also, I thought the main issue was the lead too long and the English. The civilised way is the BRD rule; which I clearly followed, putting be bold in the edit summary and I didn't engage in edit warring. I could say the same thing about your questionable edits and how they have been reverted.--Davide King (talk) 10:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
You're now also deliberately lying as whatever notability issue there may have been, it was already resolved here. Also, @PraiseVivec: said "While his defense of Stalinism and his critique of liberalism should probably be featured in the intro, as they are the positions that he is most famous for", that doesn't imply there's a consensus the way you have worded. I don't see a clear consensus on that. If there's a consensus to put in the lead and also worded the way you did, then I will accept it. The way to go is to discuss it on the talk page, not accusing the other the way you did with me and even reported me to the administrator.--Davide King (talk) 10:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Social democracy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Left (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the Third Opinion on Talk: Social democracy.

@Davide King: An editor has finally arrived to offer his third opinion on this dispute of ours that has dragged out for weeks by now, but the problem is, he is not quite aware of what the dispute is even about, and frankly, even I have a hard time adequately describing it in plain words. He requested that both of us express our respective viewpoints and stances on this dispute in a short sentence before he is able to offer his advice, and I have already stated my viewpoint. Now is the time for you to return to the talk page if you can and summarize the dispute through your point of view, so that he can clearly deduct the central point of this dispute and what do we two propose. Please come as fast as you can, or else our request may fail if we are unable to reply in a timely manner. Symes2017 (talk) 09:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Marxism–Leninism, {{Marxism–Leninism sidebar}}

Hello!

Please see the latest edits in the article Marxism–Leninism and in the template {{Marxism–Leninism sidebar}}.

In my opinion, these edits led to the fact that these article and template have lost their neutral nature.

Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I may be blocked again...

@Davide King: It seems I am gonna be away again for quite a while, since a sockpuppet investigation has just been launched against me on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Adrian Fey, and the accusations of me being Adrian Fey are indeed true. I screwed up really badly, and I am not sure whether will I be able to get unblocked anytime soon. Only time will tell what will happen to me, but for now, I just wanted to say goodbye to you for now, since even if there is still a chance at me being unblocked in the future, it will be a timescale of weeks to months, maybe even a year before I get another chance, and I will be unable to interact with anything on this website until then. I am sorry, for everything. The sockpuppetry, the edit wars, the content disputes, hell, even the false warnings I gave you (The one where you got warned for "unconstructive editing"). I regret it all. And I pray that I will be albe to return to Wikipedia in due time. Until then, arrivederci. Symes2017 (talk) 03:11, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Symses2017: I'm sorry about that, I can truly feel you. At first, I thought you may have been blocked again for disrupting behavior such as edit warring and that's why I thought it was better you appealed your first block as Symes2017 so that many of these edit wars could have been avoided (what costed you keeping the status quo version and wait for the third opinion option to finish the dispute?) and you would have truly restarted, but instead you had many different account and made questionable edits with them. Still, I believe you shouldn't have been editing after your block as Symes2017 was lifted, so that you could have appealed first and maybe also confess that already rather than receive a sockpuppet investigation. Either way, I hope you can redeem yourself and be back. Please, don't do any other mistakes like creating further account or continuing to edit as IPs; it just isn't worth it and if you truly want to be back, not doing any other mistake like that would be a welcome restart. If you will be back, I suggest you to avoid making unncessary wording edits, other than correcting typos, wikilinks, etc.; and try to add more sourced informartions, avoid making cosmetic edits, unless there's clearly an error. For the meantime, I suggest you to read again all the most important guidelines and also how to appeal the block.--Davide King (talk) 21:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

FYI

A certain user has, even if ever so slightly, edited one your comments on his talkpage to conform to some absurd formatting standard. Str1977 (talk) 20:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Str1977: Thak you for the warning. Can you please do something about it? Or at least tell me what I can or should do about it? The user continues to write misleading edit summaries and edit warring about it, which isn't something new. The user in question has also largely dominated the Marxism–Leninism article since at least early 2018 and more recently, along with Thatjakelad, removed sources and made other questionabily edits (adding Furr and Martens as sources or adding Red Fightback as external links; can you please check if they should be reverted or not? I think someone should check the difference between earlier versions in like 2016 and now to see if questioable edits have been made and if an older version was better so that we can restart and improve from there. See revision history.--Davide King (talk) 20:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Now the user just did this and this.--Davide King (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
I noticed the origins of this discussion on the talk page in question. The editor you're discussing did the same thing to me[1] with an edit summary falsely labeling it "Edit-war HARRASMENT," and has edited my other comments in such a manner as to make our conversation unintelligible. This seems to be a pattern. If you bring this to ANI, which seems to be the only way to deal with this kind of behavior, do advise. If ANI is unavailing there is always arbitration. I notice that this editor has been brought to ANI in the past to no avail, which demonstrates the uselessness of ANI but that's all there is. Coretheapple (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Regarding his misleading (rather stereotypical) edit summaries there is not much we can do but to tell him to desist from it. However, if the summary includes personal attacks or bad faith accusations, report him.
As for his editing other users' comments, go and change your comments back. He is not supposed to fiddle with what other's have written. If he keeps doing it, report him. Str1977 (talk) 06:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Accusations of "harassment" in edit summaries, when not warranted, are definitely problematic. Coretheapple (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

December 2019

Information icon Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give 2020 Labour Party leadership election a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. AlbanGeller (talk) 11:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanations! I was just trying to be bold because I saw previous articles contained (UK) but now I saw there really isn't any consistency with that, so I don't know anymore.--Davide King (talk) 17:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
@AlbanGeller:--Davide King (talk) 08:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Davide_King/Archive_1&oldid=1139364247"