User talk:InDrumpf

November 2016
Hello, I'm Wtmitchell. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Chink, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

reverted. you do not need a source for every sentence in the article. you are not making sense.

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing controverial about it and it's not a significantly change. stop making drama over things u dont like

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:InDrumpf. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

what personal attack have u seen? he keeps reverting my correction on the sentence that in India asian looking people are ''mistaken' for chinese while it is clear that its not a mistake but a deliberate generalization. you need source to some news article for that? i dont see source after every sentence in that article, do you?

Your account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia with this username. This is because your username, InDrumpf, does not meet our username policy. '''Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below) and continue editing.''' A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account. You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines and create the account yourself. Alternatively, if you have already made edits and you wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:
 * Adding on your user talk page. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked, as you can usually still edit your own talk page. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page.
 * At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
 * Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. The account is created upon acceptance, thus do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change. For more information, please see Changing username.

If you think that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

how is InDrumpf a name against the policy?
 * I think you know perfectly well why. Your proposed username is fine, but your limited edit history shows non-constructive edits and gratuitous personal attacks; some follow-up on why that won't continue will help your cause. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 00:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

i think you like to project assumptions on to others while failing to anwser the question as to what policy of wikipedia the name indrumpf breaks. instead it is rather a fine example of non-constructive and personal attack. re-thinking on what you are contributing before adding things to other users talk page might help your cause.
 * Look in a mirror. Wikipedia has never allowed disruptive usernames (they tend to be blocked on discovery), and personally attacking other editors (such as you did just above) is a good way to get your unblock request rejected out of hand. And Blade isn't projecting assumptions. And for the record, I am not a fan of Trump or his politics. — Jeremy   v^_^v  Bori! 01:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

hmmm...i'd say someone is sockpuppetting.. whats inDrumpf to do with Trump? nobody asked ur political affiliation as far as i see.. so why hasting to acquit urself? O_o besides, i see tons usernames containing ''hitler' 'kike' on wiki. ps: It might be better for you to stop throwing baseless accusations on false assumption as you still cant provide a proof of such supposed attacks.
 * Blade isn't socking, and accounts with such names tend to be (read: are pretty much always) blocked on discovery as I said above. And I don't need to provide proof - there's two or three personal attacks in this section alone. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 02:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

''i dont need to provide proof' says enough bout your intentions

what a childish action by the wikipedia gang. first u use the pretext that my name isnt according to the policy and stated that that is the only reason for a block. then you deny aname change by using other excuses lecturing my about behaviour. maybe you should admit that wikipedia is not an open platform at all but a heavily censored inner circle platform. how fun powertripping wiki keyboard knights InDrumpf (talk) 12:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Your username was the only reason for your block, but administrators are permitted to examine your responses to the block when considering any unblock requests - and in this case, I'm not seeing someone suited to the civil and collegial approach that is used here. But if you disagree with my action, please do make a new unblock request and it will be considered by another admin. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

‘civil and collegial approach that is used here.’，dont u rather mean recalcitrant passive-aggressive bullying? nice ganging up of the established wiki controllers against individual users. its fun to see the reality behind the 'open platform' image wiki keeps propagate.
 * Wikipedia is not, and has never claimed to be, any kind of generic "open platform" for all to behave as they personally see fit. It is, rather, an encyclopedia that is open for editing by anyone who is prepared to adhere to the standards arrived at by the Wikipedia community via consensus-seeking discussion and documented as policy. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Your account has been blocked indefinitely because the chosen username is a clear violation of our username policy – it is obviously profane, threatens, attacks or impersonates another person, or suggests that you do not intend to contribute positively to the encyclopedia (see our blocking and username policies for more information). We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but users are not allowed to edit with inappropriate usernames and we do not tolerate 'bad faith' editing such as trolling or other disruptive behavior. If you think there are good reasons why these don't describe your account, or why you should be unblocked, you are welcome to appeal this block – read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text at the end of your user talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Per the above discussion, I have reblocked you with different settings. You could have just picked a new name and began editing, but your gross overreaction to this "soft" blocking has ruined that. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)