User talk:Yourfav
Yourfav, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi Yourfav! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC) |
May 2018
[edit]
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Peacebuilding, you may be blocked from editing. bonadea contributions talk 17:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Peacebuilding. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
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 Peacebuilding. Acroterion (talk) 23:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Personal attacks
[edit]Stop with the personal attacks - we're all volunteers and have full-time jobs, families, dinner to make, dishes to wash, dogs to feed, and aren't obligated to work on your schedule or anybody else's. This edit summary [1] isn't appropriate or helpful, nor is this one [2]. Now that you've had a chance to read and understand the Wikipedia policies I listed, I'll presume you understand why I was concerned about your edits, since you haven't re-inserted the content that Bonadea and I were concerned about.
You may wish the read WP:FREESPEECH as well - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an outlet for free speech, and everything else is subordinate to that mission. You're not a journalist, and Wikipedia isn't the press. You've been disagreed with and advised of Wikipedia policy - you're not being oppressed. You are being a bit rude. Please tone it down - aggressive edit summaries aren't looked upon favorably by other editors.. Acroterion (talk) 00:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Everything to you is a personal attack. But to the contrary, the reality is that you keep attacking me for no good cause. I still don't have my edits in. I say it over & over, but you deliberately disregard - the primarily reason that I still don't have my edits in, is because you won't provide any edits to the tiny paragraph on Afghanistan or the tiny paragraph on Syria. Instead, your personal attack on the world is that you won't allow any helpful info on peace in either Afghanistan of Syria. & by the way, the North Korea & Iran info still aren't in - because of your absurd abuse of admin power. I have not had a chance to either read or understand any relevant Wikipedia policies. Do not presume. I do not understand what in the world any of your concerns are. I've told you over & over what I need so that I understand what you're thinking. I need an edit by you of the paragraphs on Afghanistan & Syria. You are committing oppression & I'm not the only person that you are oppressing, but you have no regard for those people. Oppression is rude. Ignoring my repeated requests for edits is rude. Your appeal to other editors is a fallacy because there are no other editors. But, hopefully, someone else will be encouraged to oppose you again, later, by editing the peacebuilding page. It is a hilarious fantasy on your part that you're not accountable with the admin power to the constraints of time. That's a complete fantasy on your part. I must set a deadline for you, because you always senselessly refuse to give the simple requested edits. & then, you're accountable - the edits go in, when your deadline for collaboration expires. You're opposed to collaboration w/o good cause. Your only intent is to be obstructionist. I'd be happy to work with you on what would be a reasonable deadline, but you keep refusing all deadlines without any good cause. I make a public record of how I offered all reasonable time options & then how I waited for hours for you on the tiniest of reasonable edits & look how intensely rude you are: You completely disregard the value of editors time, as though other peoples' time was of utterly no value to them. That's so disgusting!!! It is pure fantasy on your part that any party in the US is not compelled by the Bill of Rights. That's the purest fantasy. Guess what? Wiki's in the US. I recommend that you ask your local US District Judges what they think about whether they think that your admin activities are subject to the US Congress' Bill of Rights. That's so unintelligent on your part. As for whether I work as a journalist, guess what? U always wrongly presume. That, too. Oh, the reassertion, that's coming, but you haven't consented to the second half of the bisected edits that don't include that part, yet. I keep formally asking. But you keep withholding a clear "yes". May I put those edits in? They include the North Korea & Iran paragraphs. Umm, you said that the edit summaries are helpful. What kind of a joke is that? You keep unnecessarily making the matter an edit war by senselessly withholding a clear "yes" & by senselessly withholding your edits to the paragraphs on Afghanistan & Syria. That makes those edit summaries intensely helpful to every other person who might want to edit - that they have to be prepared for dealing with these intense, pointless difficulties that you create, for your entertainment - just for your whimsical fun - because you want to see those millions of people dead. How disgusting!!!Yourfav (talk) 01:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- "because you want to see those millions of people dead" Wow. We're done, I have nothing else to say to you. Acroterion (talk) 01:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Does that mean that your senseless threat to block me is now withdrawn so that I can deliver help through wiki on behalf of those victims? Did U just mean that I now have your explicit permission to reapply all of my previous edits, especially the paragraphs on Afghanistan & Syria? Your response is so typical of your intense abuse of admin power. You won't give the needed edits, you apparently still have a false imagining that the info in the paragraphs isn't fully verifiable, & you withhold saying "yes" to absolutely any portion of the edits, even the portions that you won't state the slightest reason against. You just rollback without a single thought about how many people you harm & you let your threats to block stand unabated. How utterly revolting!!! Yourfav (talk) 01:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
ANI
[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Acroterion (talk) 01:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
May 2018
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 01:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Yourfav (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Acroterian says that she is actively working toward the death of millions. She correctly states that that is in fact what she is attempting to accomplish. I'm glad that she noticed that. But, obviously, she should be prevented from doing so. It would appear from Drmies instant wrong decision that Drmies did not read, or at all consider the many attempts that I made at peacebuilding on the either the peacebuilding talk page or Acroterian's talk page or mine. Please, notice that I did not reapply the edit that Acroterian falsely complained of. & in the interests of peace, would anyone reading this please take it as a priority to provide an edit of the sentence about NATO training that Acroterian is complaining about. Also, would you please then reapply all of my other edits to the peacebuilding page, so that I don't have to further attempt to defend them to Acroterian. With your edit to that sentence, can it not be clearly discerned that she is contrarian to all edits on that page for no reasonable cause? Except she keeps wrongly excusing herself for the consequence of those wars. She is accountable for it, because she keeps choosing to use her admin powers (granted by wiki) for the purpose of preventing anyone from consideration of peacebuilding in North Korea, Iran, Syria & Afghanistan. Wiki is an important tool for peaceful communication in the world. May the true God perform justice publicly, 'soul for millions of souls', just as law requires.Yourfav (talk) 02:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 02:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
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.
- Because you are continuing with your personal attacks in your unblock request, I have now made this an indefinite block. That does not mean you will never be unblocked, just that the block will not automatically expire after a fixed period and allow you to return to your problematic editing. For you to be unblocked, we will need to be confident that your approach to editing Wikipedia and to interacting with other editors will change. You will need to make an unblock request in which you can convince a reviewer that you understand the reasons for your block and that you understand the relevant Wikipedia policies (which should include WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:Consensus, WP:AGF and WP:NPA), and which explains how your approach to this project will change if you are unblocked. Oh, and one more thing - if there are any further personal attacks or bad faith from you, you might lose the ability edit this page too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Yourfav (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
"May 30, 2018 [...] commander, Resolute Support and U.S. Forces - Afghanistan, briefs the media by video at 11 a.m. EDT[.]" cite: https://www.dvidshub.net/video/603581/resolute-support-mission-commander-holds-news-briefing At 27:47 (in the video), Tara Copp of militarytimes.com asked, "[...] Why should the US continue to send its sons & daughters to Afghanistan? Why should the US military stay?" The commander answered, "[...] If we are able to achieve a reconcilation through the South Asia strategy, [...] and [...] if we achieve an increased degree of stability & a lowering of the violence to a level that the Afghans can manage, then it's gonna be much easier to keep pressure on these terror groups[.]" By blocking absolutely all efforts to edit, haven't you've created very substantial needless difficulties for Resolute Support? The harm that you wiki admins have caused by your senseless support for Acroterian's withholding of a simple "yes" is unthinkable. May the true God pay it back to you in full. Does it even occur to you what the POTUS just required of the commander? Does it occur to you that more than 7B people are about to die? Everyone who would have survived, you are the reason why they didn't. Your wicked meddling actions are a proximate cause of these physcial attacks. Yourfav (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Any further unblock requests like this will get your talk page access revoked. I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 18:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
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.
(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.