User talk:Human Rights Expert

Welcome!

Hello, Human Rights Expert, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! -- haminoon (talk) 06:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on List of human rights organisations. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Your edit summary for [1] was inappropriate. Nonsenseferret was removing link spam, not vandalising. -- haminoon (talk) 07:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Human Rights Foundation shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. 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.

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. -- haminoon (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from altering URLs in references - they refer to specific addresses on specific dates. Having a different domain name makes it difficult for them to be checked at web archives. -- haminoon (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

inappropriate removal of other users talkpage comments

I'm sure you realise how completely inappropriate your edit at diff was. I'm sure you also appreciate that attempting to do this again will most likely result in you being blocked from editing. Consider yourself warned. --ℕ ℱ 00:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You just stop warning me! You edited my comment so I have all the right to remove from the talking page the stupid comments made by you under a moving request. Your accusation must be stopped! I remove all inappropriate comments from talk page! Human Rights Expert (talk) 00:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have no right to vote twice, and you have no right to remove other peoples comments, and you have less right to say other people's opinions are stupid. The consequences of you continuing to act in this way have already been made clear to you. --ℕ ℱ 00:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:Human Rights Foundation. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Chrisw80 (talk) 01:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — foxj 01:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, this block is for your edit warring in spite of warnings to desist. — foxj 01:43, 29 March 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

I made correct contribution and I'm NOT engaded in edit wars! Let me edit because I need to request a full protection and report 4 user account. This is not just a harassment but a personal attack! Human Rights Expert (talk) 01:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you

understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. kelapstick^(bainuu) 02:37, 29 March 2016 (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.

Nobody is harassing you or personally attacking you; you are engaged in edit-warring, and you've been removing others' talk page comments. I should note that, as it sits, any report against myself, primefac, nonsenseferret, or foxj is very likely going to result in you getting indef'd for not being here to actually write encyclopædic content. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 02:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Listen to me! You guys going to have trouble here on Wikipedia. nonsenseferret is removed my warning from his talk page possible by creating a new account. Actually I believe that he has multiple accounts, but we will see because all of you will receive a dispute and warning on the talking page! You cant just harassing and attacking to editors without consequences! Human Rights Expert (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Threats don't really work in these kinds of situations. I'm not really sure what you're talking about for the most part; nobody is harassing you, and you are the one being disruptive here. I hope you can make constructive contributions when your block expires. — foxj 02:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't harassing or attacking anyone. If you make an edit on Wikipedia, it will come under scrutiny, as will your contribution history if your behaviour isn't up to snuff. Nonsenseferret has no sockpuppets that I am aware of, and nor do the rest of us. Just because we're not rolling over for you does not mean we're automatically vandals, dastards, or used car salesmen. I, personally, am getting tired of your overly-aggressive "my way or the highway" demeanour, and am convinced by the evidence on the talk page that something here indeed needs a looking-at by an admin. It's just not the same things you think need looked at. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 02:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a PERSONAL ATTACK and all of you engaged. My edits was appropriate and all of you first harassed me, continuously reverted my changes, opposed in 5 minutes 3 times my moving request and as well removed my warning from an user's talking page, under the moving request I see inappropriate comments (attacks to me). Doesn't matter how you try defend your friends IT IS A PERSONAL ATTACK by multiple users and and admin. Who engaged in edit war is who reverted my edits without justifying why NOT ME! Human Rights Expert (talk) 02:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for disruptive editing. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Widr (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

THIS BLOCK IS A PERSONAL ATTACK!!! Human Rights Expert (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No, it is not; your behavior is disruptive and not acceptable on Wikipedia. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:10, 30 March 2016 (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.