User talk:KingofFilm

User_talk:KingofFilm/Archive_1

.

Proposed deletion of Movies in the Berkshires


The article Movies in the Berkshires has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Only source given is the chain's own website, and there is nothing on web or news search to demonstrate notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Favonian (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Public statement
I am on my talk page to notify everybody that I was NOT sock puppeting. Dataport676 happens to be one of the many users that I've welcomed on Wikipedia. I ask for all the administrators to understand. Please. IF I AM ASSISING YOU, VISIT Requests for adminship/KingofFilm TO GIVE POSITIVE FEEDBACK! 11:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's possible that this is not a case of sockpuppetry, but a case of a new and not-too-bright user giving positive feedback as this user requests in all caps in his tremendously disruptive sig. That doesn't automatically mean I think he should be unblocked; that he hasn't yet changed his tremendously disruptive sig is problematic, for one thing. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Possible, but the timing rather strains my AGF: Dataport676 was created at 21:19, welcomed at 21:20, and at 21:36 posted a glowing "Strong Support - the user is bold and shows a dedicated commitment to Wikipedia and the projects goals. They'll make a fine admin." to KingofFilm's RfA. JohnCD (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think he decided to go to the RfA spot in the first place because if you see my signature, it tells you to go to that page. IF I AM ASSISING YOU, VISIT Requests for adminship/KingofFilm TO GIVE POSITIVE FEEDBACK! 11:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this is becoming silly, and I think you're being disingenuous. Times and logs don't joke here.  It's either you, or a buddy of yours.  However, your signature is wholly inappropriate: if you think that becoming in admin is about simply receiving "positive feedback", then you certainly have not got what it takes to be an admin.  To try and fool new users into believing that voting on your RFA is merely providing feedback is wholly and fully preying on what you perceive to be naive newcomers.  In other words, either way, you're either sock/meat or disrupting - you choose. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 13:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think you admins are making this worse than it really is. I did not sock-puppet: I welcomed this user. In your words, I'm "either sock/meat or disrupting." Believe it or not, it's neither. I AM AN INNOCENT BLOCKED USER. User talk:KingofFilm 21:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

What Dataport says
I copied this from Dataport's page. If you want to officially remove my account, fine. But before you do, see what he said. KingofFilm


 * Checkuser cannot prove a negative. —  Jeremy  ( v^_^v Dittobori ) 22:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * English isn't my first language, I'm having trouble understanding what "prove a negative" is supposed to mean.
 * Simply put, Checkuser cannot prove one is not someone else because of various circumstances (work, moving house, vacation, open proxies, etc.) that can cause one's IP to change and because one who seeks to have such a CU done on him will invariably be knowledgeable enough to change his IP address through some means to hoodwink it. Thus, Checkuser cannot prove a negative. —  Jeremy  ( v^_^v Dittobori ) 22:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're saying because I know about Checkuser I'm automatically guilty? Oh for gods sake, this is ridiculous. Looks at my edits; I was answering questions at the Reference Desk when he posted that welcome message. That is the only reason I made a comment on his RFA.
 * No, I'm saying that Checkuser cannot prove empirically that you aren't KingofFilm. Knowing about the Checkuser tool isn't something one gets sanctioned over. —  Jeremy  ( v^_^v Dittobori ) 23:38, 5 March 2010

Q&A
My case is becoming quite unfair. So, ask me questions and I'll give you answers. I AM AN INNOCENT BLOCKED USER. User talk:KingofFilm 11:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Q. Why on earth copy things from the other blocked person's userpage: it makes you look even more guilty ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 11:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this user should be given one more chance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.193.117.66 (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Barbara Corcoran


The article Barbara Corcoran has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Notability questionable and was created by a now-banned user accused of sockpuppetry

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 78.55.98.200 (talk) 12:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

December 2010

 * And THIS is block evasion.  Ron h jones (Talk) 19:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

That user is no part of any sock-puppeting and should be let an account back. Please; all of this is a misunderstanding. Yeah, it's me. The King of the Film. KingofFilm. KoF. 19:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Note 98.219.123.213 whose comment here has been reverted has also posted on User:Dataport676's page in the last coupple of days. I think this is a case for WP:SNOW to be invoked. S a g a C i t y (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that IP is me. I got confused. Please revert anything by that IP as it is me and I am not allowed to post out of my talk. Yeah, it's me. The King of the Film. KingofFilm. KoF. 00:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

May 2012
Yes, I know this was a looong time ago, but please. I am not Dataport. 68.56.250.90 (talk) 23:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Berkshire Record


The article The Berkshire Record has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Unable to source sole claim to notability ('won many statewide awards for journalism and many other newspaper-related elements'), BEFORE identifies no coverage to meet WP:ORG"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Star  Mississippi  23:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)