User talk:666himself

Welcome!

Hello, 666himself, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. Toddst1 (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources needed for Days of the Year pages

You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages now require direct sources for additions. For details see the content guideline, the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide or the edit notice on any DOY page. Almost all new additions without references are now being reverted on-sight.

Please do not add new additions to these pages without direct sources as the burden to provide them is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages.

Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not minor edits

You are indicating that some of your edits are Minor when they significantly change the article. David notMD (talk) 10:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:MINOR for more information about what is and is not a minor edit. Thanks. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 06:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you... :) Noted...

666himself (talk) 09:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

Hello, I'm 331dot. I noticed that you recently removed content from Tipu Sultan without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. 331dot (talk) 10:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When I am addressing a user directly, I will usually use their user talk page, there is no rule against me doing so. I find your removal of the apparently sourced line did not have sufficient explanation, and you should provide one. 331dot (talk) 12:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 12:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you are basically threatening me n like to boss over new users. So nuch to integrity! Anyways, how can we have content on wikipedia based on assumption is my clear n simple question. Waiting rpely. 666himself (talk) 17:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not threatening you, I am informing you of Wikipedia policy. Regarding the edit, are you saying that the given source does not make the statement that you removed? 331dot (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "666himself", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it can be read as "Satan Himself", which is disruptive. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing the form at Special:GlobalRenameRequest, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. SuperGoose007 ^(Honk!) 17:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 ~~~~}}. Orange Mike | Talk 17:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Been blocked for username(already sent a change request)

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).

666himself (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi Orangemike (talk · contribs)was blocked for my username not being as per wiki policies, have requested for change of username as well. Was blocked within 30 minutes of getting the warning From SuperGoose007 (talk · contribs).hence please do the needful. 666himself (talk) 01:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your socking -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:52, 2 July 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.

.

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/666himself. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]