User talk:Huaka'i Emerson

You may be blocked from editing without further warning unless you take a moment to stop edit-warring. Please read the information below, as it hopefully explains a horrible misunderstanding. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Misquote

Your edit summary, first: "On July 6, 1887, King David Kalakaua signed a new constitution for the Kingdom of Hawaii. Kalakaua was forced to sign the law at gunpoint, and the document is nicknamed the “Bayonet Constitution.” Dr. Nathaniel Bright Emerson was born on July 1st 1889, it is doubtful a 2 year old drafted the Bayonet Constitution. For real."

Your edit summary, second: "On July 6, 1887, King David Kalakaua signed a new constitution for the Kingdom of Hawaii. Kalakaua was forced to sign the law at gunpoint, and the document is nicknamed the “Bayonet Constitution.” According to Wikipedia "Dr. Nathaniel Bright Emerson was born on July 1st 1889" It is doubtful a 2 year old drafted the Bayonet Constitution. Get a life and stop perpetuating misinformation. No wonder Wikipedia is not a credible source of information. Troll moderators with no lives and no res..."

Actual birth date: July 1, 1839

Actual age: 48

So where is the problem you're allegedly referring to? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying, in case there's an actual misunderstanding here: It's a THREE, not an EIGHT. You can verify this by pointing at the number, pressing the Ctrl key and turning the mouse wheel forwards. The text on your screen will zoom, and you will be able to see what weird wrong information you have been trying to quote.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

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 ~~~~}}. 5 albert square (talk) 23:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Bright Emerson

Please see Talk:Nathaniel Bright Emerson. I have listed the reference, accepted historical sourcing by Ralph Simpson Kuykendall, that says Emerson helped draft the Bayonet Constitution. Emerson was 48 years old at the time. — Maile (talk) 00:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

Your recent editing history at Nathaniel Bright Emerson 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. — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 17:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

The way you are engaging on the Nathenial Bright page is contrary to how wikipedia operates. One of the foundations of wikipedia is WP:CON, and currently Consensus is against the changes you want to make.

I would STRONGLY urge you to talk it up on the talk page (as was suggested above).

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Nathaniel Bright Emerson. 17:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)TantraYum (talk)

Please stop reverting this listing.

You are incorrect.

Dr. Emerson's name is not on the document as a author.

Dr. Emerson was not a member of the Hawaiian league.

You are contributing to the dumbing down of humanity.

Get a life and do some research before you disrespect our Family again.

Yeah. Please see the ANI page about your conduct. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI discussion about your edits

I am sad to say I have opened a discussion about your editing.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. TantraYum (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at User:Dlohcierekim, you may be blocked from editing. SamHolt6 (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SamHolt6: I'd rather they stay away from my talk page. :) On the bright side, it's been years since someone vandalized my user page. The matter is under discussion at ani. Join the discussion there. (They're just angry 'cause I protected the article to stop their disruption.)-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SamHolt6 and Dlohcierekim: Since the "Please stop" section contains a final warning, what's to discuss? Rather than downgrade to a third-level warning for some reason, isn't it time to block? 2602:306:BC31:4AA0:480B:1D12:4102:2962 (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We are awful anxious to throw around blocks. Giving user a chance to discuss. Which they are squandering.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting old

Wikipedia is like a sport. It has certain rules and ways of operating, let's say it's like Soccer.

You came onto a Soccer field with your tennis racket and tried to play tennis. Over and over, me and the other editors have said, hey, this is Soccer, here is how you play.

You have refused to listen, have insulted us (and the sport), and flat out used manipulative behavior to try and get things your way. (using false edit summaries)

I can understand how frustrating it would be to discover some very intense allegations about a relative... and if you want to participate in the article on him, this is what I would suggest:

-Apologize to the different people you have insulted and vandalized their talk pages -Read up on the basic wikipedia policies WP:RS, WP:CON is a good place to start. -Instead of trying to force your way here, ask some of us questions about how wikipedia operates -Go edit and participate on some unrelated articles.

At this point I am doubtful you will do any of the above or attempt to participate co-operatively.... and I hope I am wrong. TantraYum (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]