User talk:Christopher Damon Smith

Historia magistra vitae est

April 2021

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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

Hi User:Great Khaan, please stop creating new accounts. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I do not even know who 'Great Khaan' is and I am most definitely not his sockpuppet. I request you to check the IP address to get the evidence, and I request for my work to be put back on the page. Thank you. Christopher Damon Smith (talk) 10:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You need to address your inappropriate edits, as these are what lead to the conclusion you were a sockpuppet. Yamla (talk) 12:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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).

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

Request reason:

I haven't done anything inappropriate, just contributed to the already existing topic, and I happened to find myself very helpful in that case. Couldn't notice anything 'inappropriate'. Christopher Damon Smith (talk) 04:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No, a massive infodump on the talk page is not a helpful contribution. You're going to need to better justify why you made your edits to Talk:Duchy of St Sava. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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).

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

Request reason:

Excuse me, that was not an infodump, instead those were references per review and historical resources about the topic that I added on. However, that was not even the reason I got banned. I am unfairly accused of being someone that I am not and I might not even be on the same continent as that person, let alone the country or whatnot. I once again, for the third time REQUEST you to check the IP address o mine to get yourselves evidence that I am not some 'Great Khaan' but just a guy who contributed to the topic that he feels he knows about. Thank you and please do check the IP address.Christopher Damon Smith (talk) 07:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

First, an unsolicited 21K addition to the page of dozens of sources, not all in English, without any attempt to ascertain what people might be looking for, what might be useful, is a disruptive infodump. Second, re your request that Checkuser be used to "prove your innocence", I refer you to the policy: "On some Wikimedia projects, an editor's IP addresses may be checked upon their request, typically to prove innocence against a sockpuppet allegation. Such checks are not allowed on the English Wikipedia and such requests will not be granted." And honestly, if you think about it, why would we? First, it would allow determined sockpuppeteers to determine what works and what doesn't, and second, even in a singular case it is much better at establishing guilt than it is at proving innocence, since all it can tell us is your IP, really ... it can't tell us anything about the layout of the building you're in, the city you're in, the country you're in, and whether you're using a VPN or proxy or some cute tool like that. — Daniel Case (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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