User talk:Dominator1071

Welcome![edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting a well-sourced section-title[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, you may be blocked from editing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:38, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not deleting the title but correcting it to reflect the main idea in an assertive manner with logical arguments. Nobody is able to respond to me with proper reasoning. The only thing they can do is threaten me. Good thing Wikipedia is only a first glance research tool on the web and not the final say on any subject. Dominator1071 (talk) 04:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 12:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock[edit]

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).

Dominator1071 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Nonsense. I’m only using one single account. Is this how some Wikipedia users try to silence those they cannot handle using logical reasoning? Dominator1071 (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Unfortunately, a simple denial is not sufficient as nearly all puppet accounts claim their innocence. PhilKnight (talk) 17:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

What’s your proof then? And who is to judge? Dominator1071 (talk) 22:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal[edit]

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).

Dominator1071 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Everybody is innocent until proven guilty. I insist I do not have multiple accounts and am a victim of the complaint of a fanatic and the reckless blocking of a certain user. Please review again. Thank you. Dominator1071 (talk) 11:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

That's not how this works, you'll need to give an explanation better than "it's not me" as every sockpuppet says they aren't one(since that is the whole point). Stating you are a victim doesn't help your case. 331dot (talk) 07:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yet the user who applied the block can’t prove it. What’s the point? Dominator1071 (talk) 16:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You won't be unblocked on the basis of the blocking admin being incorrect unless you demonstrate why the blocking admin is incorrect. Admins do not typically block people without reason, if they were prone to do that, they wouldn't be given the tools in the first place. If you truly are not using other accounts, you should think about why someone might think that you are and address that. 331dot (talk) 16:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because I defended the edits of another user who was blocked from editing for allegedly being a sock puppet. Dominator1071 (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to make another unblock request, for someone else to review. 331dot (talk) 22:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Dominator1071 (talk) 12:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Third request[edit]

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).

Dominator1071 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I should be unblocked because I was only defending the edits of another user, who was blocked from editing for allegedly being a sock puppet. Dominator1071 (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 13:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

You'll probably get at most one more unblock request, so use it wisely. Make sure you read and understand WP:GAB before making your next request. --Yamla (talk) 13:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]