He Comes In Peace
Deletion discussion about White supremacist support for Donald Trump
editHello, He Comes In Peace,
I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether White supremacist support for Donald Trump should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White supremacist support for Donald Trump .
If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
Thanks, CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing this out for me. I've contributed a comment to the discussion, as you suggest.
He Comes In Peace, you are invited to the Teahouse!
edit
|
Hi He Comes In Peace! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC) |
He Comes In Peace (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Why have I been blocked? I have done nothing but productively contribute to the encyclopedia, and I was blocked without any reasoning provided by the blocking administrator.
Decline reason:
Confirmed abuse of multiple accounts. —DoRD (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2016 (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.
He Comes In Peace (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
on the contrary, it was not confirmed. Please have a closer look, and you will see there was no checkuser confirmation. I kindly ask for an explanation of my block, since it was not confirmed by any checkuser.Which checkuser confirmed there was abuse of multiple accounts? On reviewing the "investigation", I don't see that any checkuser even checked the account. I request further explanation, as I have been productively contributing and there was no confirmation of any illicit activity.
Decline reason:
DoRD confirmed it, above. Yamla (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2016 (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.
- See here. DoRD confirmed this is Kingshowman, as above. GABgab 18:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Favonian is the only user who I can see commented on the investigation, and as far as I have been able to determine, he or she is not a checkuser. Thus, no checkuser has confirmed any illicit activity. DoRD was merely passing along Favonian's judgment, but no checkuser investigated. Please do check again and you will see I am innocent of these charges. I would also like to request that my page be restored as a productive contribution to the encylopedia; indeed, any real encylopedia would be remiss to exclude this topic, and you have good reasons to restore the page purely from an encylopedic perspective. Please run the check for me and you will find I am as innocent as a newborn babe..
- I disagree. DoRD has checkuser access and confirmed it here on this page. --Yamla (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)