Knowledgesmacker

Welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia. To find out how to make useful contributions, take a look at the welcome page. To stay in Wikipedia, an article has to be about something notable, that is, of general interest. Click on Notability for an explanation of what that means, and on Notability (people) for more detail. Also, it must give independently verifiable sources. Articles that don't meet these requirements are likely to be deleted. Follow the links below to learn more:

• To find out more about creating articles, read the Introduction and the guide to creating Your first article.
• You should not write articles about yourself, your band, or your best friend - that's a conflict of interest.
• Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Before writing about your own business, read Business' FAQ.
• For experiments, please use the sandbox.

JohnCD (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Jim Boyd (journalist)

A tag has been placed on Jim Boyd (journalist) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. JohnCD (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox

To answer your question about the sandbox - no, it's not forbidden to put silly stuff there, but using the sandbox for purely entertainment is frowned upon a bit and posting racist or libelous or otherwise illegal content there is of course not allowed. Welcome to Wikipedia by the way! Zakhalesh (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Terminology to avoid

"Statesman" means a Gandhi, an Ataturk, a Masaryk, a Mandela or a Roosevelt; it does not mean a failed candidate for the Tennessee General Assembly (heck, I'm one of those) or even Congress. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You do realize you can set up your own private sandbox, I hope?

Just click on this red link User:Knowledgesmacker/sandbox and start editing; then save when you're done. Then, when you think you've got something ready for publication, it can be moved into articlespace. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It has been noted that in a number of your recent edits to Wikipedia:Sandbox you are merely reverting to a version that you had created earlier. Wikipedia:Sandbox is there to allow users to practice their editing. If you wish to store a draft of an article which you are in the process of creating, do that in a page in your own user space as described in the post above. Continually reverting other users' edits in Wikipedia:Sandbox to restore your version might be regarded as dispruptive editing and get you a block, so please take this as a warning. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning; the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Sandbox, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - David Biddulph (talk) 23:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, while I question whether my testing is considered vandalism under the Wikipedia guidelines, I will respect this decision and not use the sandbox for further testing. Knowledgesmacker (talk) 13:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The disruption/vandalism consisted in your monopolizing the public sandbox as if it were your own personal sandbox. I already showed you how to create your own sandbox for the kind of testing you want to do. We certainly don't want to discourage you from working here, although I would encourage you to find more productive topics than this Boyd guy. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand and will respect the personal opinions of the administrators as to the appropriate content (or proposed content) included here in Wikipedia. Knowledgesmacker (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I notice that you were asking, at Wikipedia:Sandbox, where to find the sandbox in your user space. Remember that page names are case sensitive, and that whereeas User:Knowledgesmacker/sandboxis a redlink, User:Knowledgesmacker/Sandbox is the page that you're looking for. Happy editing! - David Biddulph (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal

You need to explain on the article talk page here why you think your edits such as this should stand. Do not rely on edit summaries. My view is that you are wrong because the most reliable sources do not support your wording. The point is that you need to discuss the issue with other editors, rather than simply reverting. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for 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. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

This is why. It makes a difference that the truth, that this is a political crime, and the members of an Islamic political group are the criminals. Just as it is relevant to mention that it was Nazis who slaughtered Jews... and call out that truth into the light of day, this groups activities also need to be called out from the shadows into the light of day, and exposed for what it is. To censor this information is to be complicit in these crimes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledgesmacker (talk • contribs) 21:44, 10 September 2014‎

Re this edit. There is a form of WP:SOAPBOX in insisting on saying that the men were Islamic, something which breitbart.com, which is not a WP:RS, probably does not know for sure. Pakistani ≠ Islamic. Reliable sources have noted the Pakistani heritage of the men, but have not fallen into the trap of harping on about how the problem was caused by Islam. Unless a person's religion is a clear cut and reliably sourced factor in a sexual abuse case, eg Catholic Church sexual abuse cases, it should not be dragged in to make a point.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Knowledgesmacker reported by User:Iselilja (Result: ). Thank you. Iselilja (talk) 15:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  - 2/0 (cont.) 16:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am attempting to contribute factual, albeit controversial, information to this article. Those who support the Islamic cultural practices of child sexual abuse do not want these facts to see the light of day... they want to keep those facts, and the criminals who engage in these abuses... in the shadows.

Decline reason:

This does not address the reason for your block. Kuru (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2014 (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.

This is a typical unblock request of the type "I must be allowed to continue my mission to add The Truth™ to the article." The breitbart.com article about "Islamic rape gangs" is not a reliable source. Being Pakistani does not automatically make a person Islamic, any more than being British automatically makes a person a Christian. Please check in the bias at the door before editing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

This is just the type of Politically Correct censorship that allows these Rotherham Islamists to commit their crimes. Knowledgesmacker (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jim Boyd (August 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:  The comment the reviewer left 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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Jim Boyd and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello! Knowledgesmacker, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that 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! Robert McClenon (talk) 01:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Jim Boyd

Hello, Knowledgesmacker. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Jim Boyd".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. 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. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 02:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

POV vandalism at Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

Vandalism is bad enough, but POV vandalism is worse. We document what RS say, so if you won't do that here, then find another place to play. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

In your POV, its vandalism. In fact, it's a correction. Time will prove that my edit is accurate. I can wait. Then, I will smile. 2600:1700:27F0:B3D0:9115:B6FA:9F2B:EA0C (talk) 16:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)