User talk:TruthNeverLies

November 2015

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Warith Deen Umar. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. 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, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Warith Deen Umar. Your edits have been or will be reverted or removed.

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. 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.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. It's clear you've created this account in such a manner to skirt the protection in place on the article. Please discuss your changes on the article's talk page and get consensus; otherwise, your account may be blocked, the page may be fully protected, or both. —C.Fred (talk) 17:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, TruthNeverLies. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Warith Deen Umar, you may have a conflict of interest. People with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, see the conflict of interest guideline and frequently asked questions for organizations. In particular, please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, its competitors, or projects and products you or they are involved with;
instead, propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing, and autobiographies. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistent 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 below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. —C.Fred (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

Information added to the page is accurate, sourced, and in no way disruptive. I should never have been blocked. Why was I blocked and please provide that information clearly. Please also provide information regarding your superiors. It is clear that you have prematurely blocked my account. I would like to resolve this issue asap. TruthNeverLies (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please also provide information regarding your superiors.
How about spending the rest of your block learning about how Wikipedia works? Also, see below. MER-C 18:34, 1 November 2015 (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.

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

MER-C 18:34, 1 November 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

It seems I am being denied an unblock request because I did not know there was not a hierarchical structure to the Wikipedia admin system. That does not seem to be right, nor fair. Please review my appeal again with sincerity and understand that the initial block was not a fair block. There was NO disruption, and none intended. Thanks again. TruthNeverLies (talk) 18:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are denied an unblock request because you obviously do not understand the problems with your past conduct and are likely to again cause the same problems if unblocked. Specifically, you were edit warring to add unsourced claims in the biography of a living person. Huon (talk) 19:17, 1 November 2015 (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.

Unblock request Nov. 2

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).

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

Request reason:

You see, this is exactly the point. I mentioned in my Talk with C.Fred that I was going to update the sources asap, but before I knew it I was already blocked. I'm obviously new to wikipedia. You cannot expect people to know everything at once. It takes time to learn, just like i'm sure each and every administrator took their time to learn how wikipedia works. I have learned from this discourse thus far. It would be nice if we could move on from this. Thank you very much. TruthNeverLies (talk) 05:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were warned several times to stop. If you continue the same type of editing when this block expires, the next block will be for a longer duration OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:44, 2 November 2015 (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.