User talk:The King of kings100

Welcome!

Hi The King of kings100! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 22:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Shanimol Usman. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 04:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Akhiljaxxn Please clarify which section of the update would be classed as commentary or personal analysis. Would appreciate your guidance on how this section is to be worded.

A lengthy welcome

Hi The King of kings100. Welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

If you work from reliable, independent sources, you shouldn't go far wrong. WP:RSP and WP:RSN are helpful in determining if a source is reliable.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important notices

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

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

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

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

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

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

—Paleo Neonate – 16:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Swami Vivekananda Medical Mission (January 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Perryprog was:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Tone issues aside, there's still a lot of general formatting that needs to be done here. I'd strongly recommend reading through Your First Article for a quick overview of how this should be structured, as well as comparing the layout to other organizations to get an idea of what it should generally look like.

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Swami Vivekananda Medical Mission and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Swami Vivekananda Medical Mission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

Perryprog (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The King of kings100! Having an article 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! Perryprog (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:2020 Telinipara Violence

Hello, The King of kings100. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:2020 Telinipara Violence, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:2020 Telinipara Violence

Hello, The King of kings100. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "2020 Telinipara Violence".

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. If 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!} 19:58, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary Sanctions Notice

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 India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

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

- SUNEYE1 12:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

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. See this Human rights watch reference. - SUNEYE1 13:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The King of kings100, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as Theeta commie (talk · contribs). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. - SUNEYE 1 11:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The King of kings100. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:07, 30 January 2022 (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).

The King of kings100 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I agree that I had two accounts - but these were not used for sockpupetting. I have not done a lot of edits and it should be easy to figure that I have not commented on the same topic or same page. When SUNEYE1 issued the warning on my page regarding sockpupetting, I retired my alternate account. I am happy for the other account to reamin blocked. `please unblock this account. The King of kings100 (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I think your best chance of being unblocked is to take the Standard Offer, and wait 6 months with no socking, and then re-apply. PhilKnight (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2022 (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 edited different articles with the two accounts, but they were very clearly on related subjects: one was about a convicted murderer, and the other was about one of his victims. You have not explained why you chose to use two different accounts to make those edits. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that I had two accounts - I created a second account when I lost the password for the first one, and then I recovered the password. The editing happened using two accounts, as I was logged into Opera using one and chrome using the other. However, my edits do not meet the definition of sockpupetting. One the page of Mr Staines, I added a new section on Staines overstaying his visa rights. Edits on Singh's page were to remove false statements on his page to comply with Wikipedia - Living persons biography - policy. Also, my discussions were on the talk page after the first edit. As you can see my comment on Dara Singh's talk page has been conveniently deleted. Who is the vandal here ? The King of kings100 (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need a new unblock request, the original one is still open. You created both accounts over a year ago, and have been using both of them within the last week, so your story about the passwords doesn't explain why you chose to use two different accounts to make edits about these obviously related subjects. In my view that does indeed meet the definition of sockpuppetry on this project; another administrator to review your unblock request however. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is a policy to strike off or remove talk page contents by a blocked sock; see WP:SOCKSTRIKE. - SUNEYE 1 18:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted comments were suggestions to improve the page in linke with WP on the talk page. SUNEYE1 has been deleting content with malicious intent. Please review the deleted section on Dara Sing talk page .— Preceding unsigned comment added by The King of kings100 (talk • contribs)

I have no "malicious intent" to remove your comments and I have restored them, if that's what you want but I must say that you either have no understanding of the policies here or you are deliberately WP:GAMING by twisting random unrelated policies to fit your POV. - SUNEYE 1 18:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SUNEYE1 - Thank you for showing some integrity and restoring my comment on the Dara Singh page. It is clear as day and night that there is no evidence of Dara Singh being a Bajrang Dal member - and to tag Bajrang Dal even in the title of his biography is nothing less than character assassination. You seem to have a bias against Singh (which is OK) and keep referring to the fact that he was convicted and hence weak references against him are valid. It makes one wonder if Wikipedia is dominated by externally funded editors that abuse the platform to progress a particular narrative. If you really care about wikipedia, please direct me to resources where such biased articles may be brought to attention of independent reviewers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by The King of kings100 (talk • contribs)

Currently, the statment of him being a Bajrang Dal member is backed by a source from Oxford University Press and we have multitude of other sources for the same.[1][2][3][4][5]. The commission said that there was no involvement of Bajrang Dal in the murder of Graham staines alone and that does not mean you can conclude yourself that Singh was not a Bajrand Dal activist as he was convicted in many other murders and involved in countless other crimes. Wikipedia is backed by what reliable sources say and you can make your own WP:original research. You can't write the criminal's version of his article, that would violate WP:INDEPENDENT. You believe "Wikipedia is dominated by externally funded editors that abuse the platform to progress a particular narrative" and simply call everything here as "biased", which makes me believe you clearly are WP:NOTHERE - SUN EYE 1 04:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SUNEYE1 - Dont tag me Nothere for calling out your bluff. And you are wrong in claiming that an Oxford backed source states that Singh is a BJP member. None of the references you have cited meet the criteria to be used as a legit source. No point discussing this further because it comes across as you are acting in WP:BADFAITH. Reference 4 you cited is not even remotely connected to the topic. Please use only legit references only on Wikipeda.