User talk:HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVIST

July 2017

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Human Rights Foundation. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 15:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is "commentary" of my own, see cited resources.HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVIST (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Human Rights Foundation, you may be blocked from editing. bonadea contributions talk 16:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Human Rights Foundation. bonadea contributions talk 16:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I kindly ask you to stop vandalizing my talk page and the article Human Rights Foundation. HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVIST (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2017 (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 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. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates, as you did to User talk:Bonadea. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. 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. Thank you. — fortunavelut luna 16:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:HUMAN_RIGHTS_ACTIVIST reported by User:My name is not dave (Result: ). Thank you. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 16:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:HUMAN_RIGHTS_ACTIVIST reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: ). Thank you. — fortunavelut luna 16:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Human Rights Foundation. 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 request an unblock 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 ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Favonian (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2017 (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 ACTIVIST (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Contributions I made on the Wikipedia article Human Rights Foundation https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Human_Rights_Foundation&oldid=791491081 reflecting a fully independent view based on facts and verifiable, sometimes governmental cited sources. The blocking from editing was inappropriate. Reverting my contributions based on the fact mentioned above is unacceptable in a civilized society. HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVIST (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Confirmed abuse of multiple accounts. —DoRD (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2017 (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.

(Non-administrator comment) You should actually note that you are blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 16:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]