User talk:Human Rights Foundation

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Human Rights Foundation", may not comply with our username policy. Please note that you may not use a username that represents the name of a company, group, organization, product, or website. Examples of usernames that are not allowed include "XYZ Company", "MyWidgetsUSA.com", and "Foobar Museum of Art". However, you are invited to use a username that contains such a name if it identifies you personally, such as "Sara Smith at XYZ Company", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", or "FoobarFan87".

Please also note that Wikipedia does not allow accounts to be shared by multiple people, and that you may not advocate for or promote any company, group, organization, product, or website, regardless of your username. Moreover, I recommend that you read our conflict of interest guideline. If you are a single individual and are willing to contribute to Wikipedia in an unbiased manner, please create a new account or request a change of username, by completing this form, choosing a username that complies with our username policy. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 08:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Human Rights Foundation

One problem with removing the sources is that now much of the article is unsourced. Jim1138 (talk) 08:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This username is NOT representing no one organization because "Human Rights Foundation" is a generic term which is describing a foundation which operates on the field of human rights. If you can make any connection between this username and an organization which have the exclusive right to use "Human Rights Foundation" than I request to change my username but otherwise because it's actually not representing a specific organization it's unnecessary. Removing sources which are WP:SELFSOURCE WP:PROMOTION WP:CITESPAM or WP:NOTADVOCATE are necessary in order to maintain the encyclopedic structure of Wikipedia. If you feel that now the article are "unsourced" than please consider requesting to delete that article. Human Rights Foundation (talk) 08:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please use templates carefully...

Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review the essay Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humour. Best wishes. Winged Blades^Godric 10:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Your manner of interacting with another user, activites at Talk:Human Rights Foundation--is not productive for a collaborative community like our's.As such, you have been already told multiple times to amend your ways and we don't necessarily appreciate un-founded stubbornness.Thus,consider this to be your final warning. Winged Blades^Godric 10:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric: Funny, exactly this what I posted on your talk page. Anything you do will hit back my friend specially when Wikimedia Foundation today will get involved. Human Rights Foundation (talk) 10:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI..

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

May 2017

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User talk:Winged Blades of Godric has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 10:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Your account has been blocked indefinitely because it is being used only for vandalism. Furthermore, your username is a blatant violation of our username policy, meaning that it implies shared use, is profane, threatens, attacks or impersonates another person, or suggests that your intention is not to contribute 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 {{unblock-un|new username|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the end of your user talk page.

DES ^(talk) 10:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #18312 was submitted on May 17, 2017 11:08:04. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 11:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go.

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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

Requested username:

HUMAN RIGHTS FOUNDATION (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

This username is NOT representing no one organization or company because "Human Rights Foundation" is a generic term which is describing a foundation which operates on the field of human rights. If you can make any connection between this username and an organization which have the exclusive right to use "Human Rights Foundation" than I request to change my username but otherwise because it's actually not representing a specific organization it's unnecessary. You can't show me any evidence why I can't use this username. Just because YOU don't like it? As I said and I don't repeat. There is no "Human Rights Foundation" in the world with the exclusive right to use this username so your block is funny. Can you show me any legal document stating that have the exclusive right to use this GENERIC TERM? You see.. Unblock me. Thank you. Human Rights Foundation (talk) 11:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Regardless, this username implies it is a shared account and as such, is unsuitable. Please pick a new username. Additionally, you have not addressed your inappropriate edits. Yamla (talk) 12:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #18314 was submitted on May 17, 2017 13:29:00. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: You have also used the accounts 0JMu2zyvPqgKP2Q (talk · contribs) and Hybridman (talk · contribs) to edit Human Rights Foundation. If you are to remain a member of the community and to return to editing, you will need to choose one of your accounts to use. —DoRD (talk) 13:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HUMAN RIGHTS FOUNDATION

{{unblock-un|user=HUMAN RIGHTS FOUNDATION|reason=Maybe I used that accounts to edit, yes. That's correct. I continue to use Wikipedia with Human Rights Foundation. Possibly I don't need to repeat what I already sent to Unblock Review Team. You can disable all other accounts. Now probably a lot of moderator see Human_Rights_Foundation how I see. Guys, that is a spam. They only appear on Foxnews, CNBC sources are self promoting, even a section is titled ADVOCACY CAMPAIGNS which by the way is WP:NOT category. The sources as I said before are mostly links back to hrf.org humanrightsfoundation.org and thehrf.org even I found lahrf.org. This you call credible source? I never seen an article about HRF on theguardian.com always just coming from the same TV and media networks some incredibly stupid news to boost donations. Latest news I have found is: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/human-rights-foundation-maven-announce-070100501.html which is again a spamming campaign, as I see. I asking everyone to read that article. Is a copy paste trash if you ask me. More talk about business about stocks than about human rights (except that little Harvorssen lost his mom and dad who was by the way a CIA agent) and the article coming from Oslo. But let's stay at Wikipedia. The very first cite is a 404 error page. Second, according to WikiLeaks the organization is founded by the Bush administration to get consultative status at United Nations. The Human Rights Foundation Corporation registered in Washington D.C and than moved the office to the Empire State Building because needed to be close with human Rights Watch (who is in the same building) and to United Nations to manipulate them. Yes I edit the article and I will continue to edit until it will show the truth and not some fabricated bulls*** promoting Thor Halvorssen and other businesses instead of human rights. I was who edited and added another founder to the corporation because Thor was not alone when he incorporated. The mission of HRF is strictly Americas and NOT global. They do nothing global just sharing the same news which distributed by the mass media and sometimes going to fly balloons into North Korea and Fox News of course publish it because for the U.S Government good to have some tool like Thor Halvorssen and Garry Kasparov who working in this very moment with CIA. I believe that all my edits was correct and NOT WP:COI because I didn't promoted nothing with the edits. I simply disagree with all administrator to let this article there and even protect it. Disgusting. I want Wikipedia a free and open place for everybody and I STRONGLY BELIEVE that Thor Halvorssen and his bogus foundation SHOULD AND MUST NOT OCCUPY Human_Rights_Foundation username because there are in the world much more credible Human Rights Foundations from Australia to Turkey and New Zealand even in India. I suggest to immediately move this page to [[Human_Rights_Foundation_(New_York) and let other foundations show them self on a Disambiguation page CAT:DABP. That's the most intelligent what Wikipedia administrators can do in this moment. Because be an admin is not just about abusing my power on Wikipedia. I personally didn't harassed no one and you can't accuse me with WP:COI because you can't show me any evidence where I promoted some content linked to me. I don't say sorry for what I did because I believe what I told. I have done my research. Think about. Go to the Human_Rights_Foundation page and remove cites linked to hrf.org humanrightsfoundation.org and other domains, you know what you will have in the end? Nothing just empty words. This article is not encyclopedic and I refuse to close my eyes when violates in many points WP:NOT and even get the article protected. This is not a free encyclopedia as I see. It's more like Yellow_pages letting such a controversial bogus people promote and occupy a place where should be a list of human rights foundations from all around the world. Again. I don't know what else I need to say. I think I edited (maybe in wrong way) the article but I have only good intention. I want harm no one. I want Wikipedia free from this type of profile pages and advocacy pages where cites mostly are self created. If I have a few websites and publishing articles I can cite myself and have a nice Wikipedia article which showing how good I'm and get millions of dollar donation what i will spend on 7 luxury properties in US and in the summer I will go to Korea and send balloons to north with funny messages and the wikipedia article about my business which shows how good I'm. Can I? Wikipedia is NOT created for that, I should say that for all admins who reading this. I want to be a good editor and even if I'm new and may i have errors, I want to be stay as a community member and focusing on ALL ARTICLE which have similar issues. (Sorry for that I have errors in my edits or I don't know how to use some notice on your talking page, I promise I will be better than you in time.) I kindly ask everyone to unblock me and move that page somewhere else and create a Disambiguation page at Human_Rights_Foundation. Human Rights Foundation (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)}}[reply]

Please read ABOVE

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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

Requested username:

HUMAN RIGHTS FOUNDATION (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

Character limit should be lifted in my opinion to avoid this in the future Human Rights Foundation (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Name is not within policy. Procedural decline since this is already obvious below. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You will not be unblocked under that username. That alone is enough for any reviewing admin to refuse the unblock request. Additionally, you'll find most admins are unwilling to read a paragraph consisting of just short of 900 words. I suggest rethinking your approach. Choose a new username that adheres to WP:USERNAME and concisely address the blocking admin's problems with your edits. --Yamla (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: Okay. Maybe I will agree with that if that page get moved! Move that page! You have read my 900 words don't you? Just a second I figure out a new username. But I not just want the name changed. I want a fresh account to avoid such a conversations show on my talking page.

NEW USERNAME

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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

Requested username:

ANONYMVS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

This is the new username I choose. It's available. Human Rights Foundation (talk) 15:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This decline is based on the merits, unlike above which was really just a procedural move so I could address the real issue here. A CU has already noted you are using other accounts, you haven't addressed the fact that the actions that got you blocked were bordering on vandalism, and looking at those edits, they were disruptive at a minimum. Frankly, I wouldn't want to unblock you unless you promised to not edit anything related to the Human Rights Foundation, construed broadly, as a condition. If this is unacceptable, then this would confirm my gut feeling that you aren't here to build an encyclopedia. Obviously the current name is also a problem, but moot if you don't address the underlying reasons for your block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DESiegel: This username looks good for you DES? By the way I prefer using AES GCM :D DES is old and not secure. Do you don't want change your username?

Having just implemented AES in Galois/Counter Mode, that reference made me smile. I leave the unblock review to another admin, just wanted to post that. --Yamla (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: Yep, Forward_secrecy PFS (ECDHE) with RSA 4096 bit signature. I'm very strict guy in relation to security. Wikipedia have good infrastructure but I think Slow_loris can take down for a bit if coming from Tor_(anonymity_network). 2 days before I taken down the turk**hairlines.** with the same attack, but nobody will ever can proove that. I recommend to test yourself. :D Sorry for the reply, I still don't know how I can send message to another user. By the way :@DESiegel: probably anyway need to approve the unblock. Human Rights Foundation (talk) 16:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The DES in DESiegel has nothing to do with encryption, by the way - see his userpage. —DoRD (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: I think you should not decline because you have come back to wikipedia 12 days before of today as I see on your Talk:Dennis Brown. I also understand how good friend you and :@DoRD: but I kindly ask not to play here. Go and edit some article. As I said I will not close my eyes when some admins who protecting that trash article from being moved saying don't unblocking me if I promise not to edit that page. What is the justification of your request? You got money to protect that page? Tell me the truth. Move that sh** sorry to say but is NOT POSSIBLE ON WIKIPEDIA TO USE A PAGE EXLUSIVELY FOR BUSINESS WITHOUT HAVING ANY VALUABLE CITES OR SOURCES. You guys making Wikipedia look like a blog where such corporations even get protected regardless of Tabloid_journalism. Clear? In other words I think all admins who protecting A_Big_Piece_of_Garbage that's disgusting. You got payment reguraly from the Fox_Broadcasting_Company?? Let's see: Wikipedia ban daily mail That's interesting. Thank's but NOW you NEED TO MOVE THAT SHIT. Don't you think? Human Rights Foundation (talk) 17:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's about enough of that. Talk revoked and alt accounts blocked. —DoRD (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]