User talk:LegendaryChristopher

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (August 30)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Ingenuity was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:LegendaryChristopher/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

— Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 17:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, LegendaryChristopher! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 17:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Battle of Kodema (August 31)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Gusfriend was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Battle of Kodema and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Gusfriend (talk) 11:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Battle of Kodema

Hello, LegendaryChristopher. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Battle of Kodema, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Battle of Kodema

Hello, LegendaryChristopher. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Battle of Kodema".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Landslide victories

Hello, in response to this edit – please note that other entries on an article being unsourced doesn't justify the inclusion of more unsourced content. All that does is make the article worse, when really we should be making it better. If there is unsourced content already there, it should really be removed rather than be used to add even more unsourced content. That said, the other entries I can see are in fact sourced in their individual articles, which the most recent Argentine election isn't. For further info please see WP:RS and WP:V. Thanks. — Czello ^(music) 11:54, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

December 2023

Hello, I'm Nithin. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Marinka, Ukraine—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Nithin🚀 ^talk 23:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. Prolog (talk) 09:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

General sanctions

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in the Russo-Ukrainian War. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Please note that only extended-confirmed users are allowed to make edits related to the Russo-Ukrainian War (WP:GS/RUSUKR). Prolog (talk) 09:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

This includes the recent edits made. Mellk (talk) 04:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

My recent edits were made to provide current information regarding the article I edited in. It wasn't an attempt to be disruptive or a troll. LegendaryChristopher (talk) 07:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to sanction me I don't really care tbh. It's ridiculous that I'm making changes with the reality of what is happening but it gets rejected because a consensus where any changes I propose is going to be rejected because of personal biasness needs to occur. LegendaryChristopher (talk) 07:22, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

RFC

Comments in RFC's go in the section marked comments. Slatersteven (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Also note the above, are you auto-confirmed? Slatersteven (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

AGF

Read wp:agf and wp:npa. Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Final warning

Hello LegendaryChristopher,

You have already stated above that you "don't really care tbh", but I hope a final warning has an effect. The topic area described by WP:GS/RUSUKR is restricted to extended-confirmed editors (500 edits, 30 days of account age).

The restriction also applies to internal project discussions about the topic, and it does also even apply to filing arbitration case requests against other editors in this area. It may be enforced by reverting contributions and blocking editors.

The community portal and the Task Center contain helpful ideas for continuing to edit in areas unaffected by the restriction.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I already say that I understand that but the point I was trying to make in my request was that both editors have shown signs of being biased towards one side in the conflict which is a violationof Wiki guidelines. Hence the reason why I put the case name as neutrality of editors as their neutrality was questionable because of their edits and statements made in articles and talk pages related to the war in Ukraine LegendaryChristopher (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I understand, but whether other editors in this area are currently editing in a biased or neutral way is currently – as long as you are not extended-confirmed – neither for you to decide nor to discuss on Wikipedia. And while I understand that you wanted to explain the situation, even your message here (23:40, 3 January 2024) is incompatible with the restriction. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@LegendaryChristopher. Based on the comment by ToBeFree above, you should not make such edits [1], [2]. Please do not. This is against WP:AGF and WP:NPA My very best wishes (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

My very best wishes I understand, and I will not make anymore edits because only a privileged few who have an agenda are allowed to make edits and decide what can and can't be edit. I sincerely hope Elon Musk buys Wikipedia like he purposes and cleans it up like he did with Twitter.

With best regards,

LegendaryChristopher LegendaryChristopher (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• This sort of WP:SOAPBOXing at Talk:Battle of Bakhmut is quite clearly contrary to WP:GS/RUSUKR. @ToBeFree:. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  Bro, please shut the hell up. You guys don't care about rules you just care about controlling the narrative. Russia is winning and Ukraine is losing, deal with it. LegendaryChristopher (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, Cinderella157. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Almost every single one of your edits ever since the ARC report have been talk page comments with pointy and indirect remarks about me and the other two editors you reported [3] [4] [5]. Comments include statements like bias accusations, that these users need to be "talked to their senses", that they're censoring other editors, that they're "privileged". You have adopted a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality from the very start for no particular reason and are alienating editors into different camps. This is not a constructive attitude and does not contribute to consensus-building towards your preferred outcome or towards any. I will report you unless you end this behaviour. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about you even though you have been bias. Unlike other editors I'm not making accusations, I'm stating facts. I have proof of other editors being bias towards one side in the conflict. I understand you editors aren't use to someone pushing back but I not going to allowed some of these editors to decide to push their agenda on others especially if it's against the reality of what is really happening. LegendaryChristopher (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

February 2024

Your recent editing history at 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 01:04, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Trump and racism

Your comment on Andrevan's talk page was unbecoming. He has no access to his talk page as he is currently blocked. As far as Trump goes, he and his father have a long history of racism, from keeping blacks out of their properties, to Donald removing Miss Universe contestants he deemed too dark. Yes, when he owned the Miss Universe pageant, he had a practice of reviewing each contestant. He determined who could compete and who could win, and with him, everything is transactional. They had to do something to impress him. Here's what happened in Moscow in 2013:

He went to a theater in Crocus City Hall to inspect contestants, where, according to his contractual and usual practice at Miss Universe pageants, he could "overrule the selection of judges and pick the con­testants he wanted among the finalists". This was usually done in a very specially-equipped room set up for him backstage ("He required unscented soap and hand towels—rolled, not folded."). Miss Universe staffers explained how Trump would frequently "toss out finalists", especially those he deemed "too ethnic or too dark-skinned" and "replace them with others he preferred". On occasion, Trump "would reject a woman 'who had snubbed his advances'".

Yes, that's the time of the alleged pee tape. Early that morning is when it allegedly happened. His bodyguard couldn't even give him an alibi. Later, after the Miss Universe contest, he openly propositioned two young women who turned him down. Then he left and flew back to the U.S.

This was typical for him. He treated his beauty pageants as his personal hunting grounds, and even with the Miss Teen USA, he would brag about how he had the right, as owner, to walk into dressing rooms and look at the naked young girls, and many girls complained about him. He's creepy. Even Ivanka commented about it.

Read Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations.

#Pageant dressing room visits
Trump owned the Miss Universe franchise, which includes Miss USA and Miss Teen USA, from 1996 to 2015. In a Howard Stern interview in 2005, he said he made a practice of walking into the contestants' dressing rooms unannounced while the women were undressed:

I'll go backstage before a show, and everyone's getting dressed and ready and everything else. ...You know, no men are anywhere. And I'm allowed to go in because I'm the owner of the pageant. And therefore I'm inspecting it. ... Is everyone OK? You know, they're standing there with no clothes. And you see these incredible-looking women. And so I sort of get away with things like that. But no, I've been very good.

In that interview, Trump declined to say whether he had slept with any contestants, saying, "It could be a conflict of interest". Stern then imitated a foreign contestant ("Mr. Trump, in my country, we say hello with vagina"), and Trump jokingly responded, "Well, you could also say, as the owner of the pageant, it's your obligation to do that."

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want him around my daughter. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 07:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

again, these are allegations not proof. Just say you don't like Trump and that's all, no need to lie and make up things. LegendaryChristopher (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

References

User talk:Andrevan

Just to make sure you understand Valjean's more indirect comment above about this: You have been edit warring to restore an accusatory comment at User talk:Andrevan. Please stop. When you say in an edit summary "Let the user of the talk page decide if he wants it remove (sic)", that won't work, because the owner of the talkpage is blocked from editing it — they can't remove comments. Thank you. Bishonen | tålk 08:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC).

Bishonen, that is exactly right. It's also a personal attack for LegendaryChristopher to accuse Andrevan of political bias in that way, and doubly ironic when it reveals LegendaryChristopher's own political bias. Everyone has personal biases, but we try to keep that out of our editing. There is also a different form of systemic bias at play here, because each language version of Wikipedia is primarily based on RS in that language, and each language and country has its own biases and elements of truth or propaganda which are more prominent in the sources in that language. Wikipedia editors, in turn, are thus using widely different sources that have their own biases.

The English Wikipedia primarily uses sources from English language Western democracies with a free press where reliable and factual content is freely available and prominent. That situation is very unlike the sources from Russia that deal with Russia's aggression against Ukraine. Russia lacks a free press (journalists that offend Putin get killed!), and the dominant state propaganda is the only allowed source of official information. The English Wikipedia does not consider them RS.

So there is obviously going to be a difference in apparent bias between those using the different sources. An editor who is so obviously favorable to Russia in this matter is going to be fighting a losing battle here on the English Wikipedia. They should stick to the Russian Wikipedia where they can insert their favored bias using sources that support that bias (which we consider deceitful propaganda). They should also be topic banned from American politics as their contributions are extremely confrontational and create a lot more heat than light. Have they been warned yet? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, they were alerted quite recently, here. Unfortunately the new Contentious Topis alerts aren't as visible on the page as the old DS alerts (with the exception of the first CT alert, which is here). I'm watching, Valjean, and clearly other admins are, too. Bishonen | tålk 17:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC).

They should stick to the Russian Wikipedia where they can insert their favored bias using sources that support that bias. Perhaps it is best not to talk about projects you do not know anything about? Mellk (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Mellk, feel free to explain your meaning. I welcome the opportunity to learn more. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Is unbelievably shocking how bias you are, you proceed to make personal accusation against me that I am Pro Russian without evidence and why is that? Because I dislike the dishonest from the Pro Ukrainian side? Just a reminder this isn't a political form so you don't have to bring your political BS into this . Your entire statement literally exposes how bias you are . These so-called Western "democracies" free press source are unreliable because they're written by journalist who have a political agenda you will know this if you simply read and see the language used by these journalist. I have at no point said that Russian sources are honest, unlike you I am neutral my goal is just to make sure that the articles regarding the war in Ukraine is written in a neutral standpoint which is not possible when we have editors like yourself who are politically biased and support a specific side in conflict. Again if you're going to make false accusation against somebody make sure to have evidence to back it up or else don't say anything at all. LegendaryChristopher (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Remove it, I don't care. LegendaryChristopher (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

February 2024

To enforce community-authorised general sanctions, and for persistently using Wikipedia as a political forum in additional violation of WP:GS/RUSUKR, as described at WP:GS/RUSUKR, you have been indefinitely blocked from editing. You are welcome to make useful contributions once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you would like to be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then use the Unblock Ticket Request System. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: Community sanctions are enacted by community consensus. In order to overturn this block, you must either receive the approval of the blocking administrator or consensus at a community noticeboard (you may need to copy and paste their statement to a community noticeboard).