User talk:TheDarkOneLives

Welcome!

Hello, TheDarkOneLives, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --barneca (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The murder of Vince Foster

I just noticed your Oct 4, 2018, addition to the talk page of the "Suicide of Vince Foster" article. If you have any ideas as to how to fix that article, which is an utter journalistic atrocity in its current state, I'm all ears. The evidence is overwhelming that Mr. Foster was murdered. I'm disgusted by how Foster's death is portrayed in that article. If WP would at least rename the page "Death of Vince Foster", and provide both sides, I would be happy.

If you like, see what I just wrote in the talk page. It is the last discussion there currently, entitled "The Suspicious Death of Vince Foster" - something like that, anyway.

Vcuttolo (talk) 10:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alerts, please read

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 post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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 living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

Doug Weller talk 17:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:34, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to rant about your political opponents, there are plenty of places on the internet where you can do that. You can't do that here, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:36, 29 November 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

This block is capricious, based on exactly one issue after a number of years on Wikipedia. I removed text on the Kamala Harris article that states as definitive fact that she will be VP and referring to Biden as President-elect and I clearly stated the reasons why I removed it. As is well known as of this time vote counts in several states are being contested in the courts and the official process to declare a President-elect has not been completed, Biden has *not* been declared President-elect by a body that has official, legal standing, no other entity matters and citing sources that have no legal standing - Forbes, Pew Research Center - is meaningless and an invalid citation. This is a fact per US election law and the Constitutional process. Volunteer Marek ignored this reality and reverted the edit - with the editorial comment "Not this again". By "this" apparently they mean the legal reality of the election process. They don't like that I called them on it on their talk page. If you knowingly promote material that's not fact, then you're promoting a narrative. They further took it upon themselves to look at my contribution history and revert another edit I made, again based on fact - Brian Kemp's "Early Life" begins at his birth, what some ancestor of his did two centuries before he was born isn't part of Kemp's early life, it was clearly inserted to try and connect his name with slavery. Note Volunteer Marek's latest commentary, asserting that the section is about his "family history". No, it isn't - it's titled "Early Life".

To say I'm "clearly not interested in building an encyclopedia" is editorializing not backed up by reality. I'm not the one clogging Wikipedia with material that's factually wrong, invalidly cited - if someone *is* doing that you should look at them with a suspicious eye. NinjaRobotPirate's objectivity should be scrutinized as well. TheDarkOneLives (talk) 09:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state, not necessarily what is official or legal. Almost all reliable sources state that Biden/Harris won the election because they can do math and do not need to wait for formalities to occur. They also don't need to wait for legal challenges without evidence(that's not my opinion, but what judges have said) to be finished(Trump lost again in PA. last night). If you disagree with what the sources say, you will need to take that up with them first and get them to to retract their reporting(good luck). Given your posts and unwillingness to collaborate with others regardless of political viewpoint, I would only consider unblocking you if you agreed to not make edits related to American politics. You are free to make another request to attempt to convince another administrator to unblock you without such a condition, though I think that unlikely. I am declining this request. 331dot (talk) 10:10, 29 November 2020 (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.