User talk:Henryhe43

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Henryhe43! Thank you for your contributions. I am HiLo48 and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! HiLo48 (talk) 00:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Laozi. 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. - Epinoia (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Epinoia I don't understand aren't you also reverting my edits? {{unsigned|Henryhe43

– yes, I was attempting to prevent an edit war – I asked you not to edit war, advised you of the 3 revert rule and asked you to discuss the proposed changes on the article Talk page – you continued to edit the article and I again asked you not to edit war and reminded you of the 3 revert rule and advised you of WP:BRD – on my User Talk page I again asked you not to edit war – when you did not start a discussion on the article Talk page as requested, I started a discussion – you continued to make edits without discussing them on the article Talk page – I posted the Edit Warring notice on your Talk page – the changes you propose need to be discussed on the article Talk page and consensus reached before any more changes are made to the article – the procedure is outlined at Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle – thanks – Epinoia (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Epinoia Ok I understand but just letting you know that from my perspective it feels like you are bullying me simply because, what, you have seniority? You've been around longer? Just saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henryhe43 (talk • contribs)

– please remember to assume good faith (WP:GOODFAITH) – all the way along I have advised you of the appropriate guidelines that apply to everyone, myself included – Epinoia (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's imperative that you stop restoring disputed content when editors object to its inclusion. You are new and clearly unaware of our various policies and guidelines. Instead of ascribing nefarious reasons for the reverts, you'd be better served reading through the information and links provided to you that explain why the material is being removed.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@jezebel'sponyo @ponyo Ok no problem. How bout you talk to me like a human being you colossal prick. You're probably a racist too. But that's not business. ooooohhhhh nefarious. Way to go buddy trying to threaten me huh? oooooohhhh. don't go around threatening people. you're just making me laugh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henryhe43 (talk • contribs)

I'm not threatening you. I am an administrator that is warning you that if you continue to edit war instead of getting consensus for your edits while at the same time insinuation that anyone who disagrees with you has racist motives, you will be blocked. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@jezebel'sponyo @ponyo if you block meyou are a racist. Because you are. You are consciously, insidiously suppressing the voice of a minority. Someone you KNOW who is in a weaker power position than yourself. I am less represented in the media, politically and economically the newspapers etc. The fact that you even threatened me with a ban already confirms to me your inherent mindset. please go take a long hard look at yourself in the mirror. Why do you think there's so much going on in America at the moment because individuals such as yourself are unable to objectively look at themselves and their relation to other's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henryhe43 (talk • contribs)

This is an encyclopedia with guidelines and policies that need to be followed. Your inability to accept criticism while at the same time labeling editors as racist will not fly. If you were personally attacking any other editor as you have done to me I would have blocked you, but I'm pretty much immune to such disruptive behaviour and attacks. Don't edit war. SeeK consensus for changes you want to make which are disputed, and under no circumstances continue to personally attack other editors. If you violate these policies, you will be blocked.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@jezebel'sponyo @ponyo No, I think the real reason is because you're afraid and you know I'm right.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Henryhe43 (talk • contribs)

Your response is not rational, so further discussion is obviously a time sink. So, as previously stated, don't edit war. Seek consensus for changes you want to make which are disputed, and under no circumstances continue to personally attack other editors. If you violate these policies, you will be blocked. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@jezebel'sponyo @ponyo thanks white racist i will definitely take your advice. oh mister white man suh oh thank you mister white oppressor massa suh. you know what you should actually write in your next reply to me? a personal letter of apology apologizing for the 400 years of rape theft and murder the white race has committed against every other non white nation in this world. Think about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henryhe43 (talk • contribs)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for treating Wikipedia as a battleground and personal attacks.

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 ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lol ².O.^Boxing 00:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 23:54, 2 June 2020 (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).

Henryhe43 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Racial bias on Wikipedia I find the article on Malcolm X to be highly biased, lacks highly relevant information, and does not portray Malcolm X in an objective manner. I would prefer is a non-white individual reviewed this unblock request. Furthermore there is evidence to show that the constant reversion of my edits by the user AmbivalentUnequivocality is emotional and vendetta driven. Henryhe43 (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Civility is required here. We certainly do not tolerate or have any need to tolerate people who would call another volunteer "you fucking white racist cracker cunt". Also, checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts; this is now a checkuser block. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 22:30, 27 June 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.

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]