HumansRightsIsCool

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome HumansRightsIsCool!

Hello HumansRightsIsCool. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions!

I'm Jax 0677, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.

Some pages of helpful information to get you started:   Introduction to Wikipedia   The five pillars of Wikipedia   Editing tutorial   How to edit a page   Simplified Manual of Style   The basics of Wikicode   How to develop an article   How to create an article   Help pages   What Wikipedia is not

Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:   Do be bold   Do assume good faith   Do be civil   Do keep cool!   Do maintain a neutral point of view   Don't spam   Don't infringe copyright   Don't edit where you have a conflict of interest   Don't commit vandalism   Don't get blocked

If you need further help, you can:   Ask a question

or you can:   Get help at the Teahouse

or even:   Ask an experienced editor to "adopt" you

Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{Help me}} here on your talk page and someone will try to help.

There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:   Fight vandalism   Be a WikiFairy or a WikiGnome   Help contribute to articles   Perform maintenance tasks

Become a member of a project that interests you   Help design new templates   Subscribe and contribute to The Signpost   Translate articles from Wikipedias in other languages

To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own personal sandbox for use any time. It's perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put {{My sandbox}} on your userpage.

Please remember to:

• Always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to your talk page, and a timestamp.
• Leave descriptive edit summaries for your edits. Doing so helps other editors understand what changes you have made and why you made them.
  

The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun!

• Español
• Deutsch
• Français
• Italiano
• עברית
• Русский
• 日本語
• Polski
• فارسی

Sincerely, Jax 0677 (talk) (Leave me a message) 22:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

New

Hello, HumansRightsIsCool. You have new messages at Talk:Sean Combs#Grammar Correction.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cena332 (talk) 01:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

New 2

Hello, HumansRightsIsCool. You have new messages at Talk:Tupac Shakur#African-americans or black americans in the lead.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cena332 (talk) 02:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes. There are rules...

In reply to what you wrote here: Yes, Wikipedia has countless rules called policies and guidelines--some of the key ones were mentioned in the welcome you received above on your user talk page. Even though WP:PAG makes it sound like they are just principles and there is a bizarre one WP:IAR (which I suggest you not use as a defense for doing something others disagree with!), new editors are routinely blocked or banned for violations such as the serious offenses of repeated vandalism, edit-warring, and probably the worst offense: socking.

FYI. I'm not an admin, but have edited for quite a long time. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page or WP:ping me at yours or at an article. If you ever feel angry and frustrated about what someone else is doing, such as undoing your edits, take a break--don't post anything mean or do any name calling. (See WP:COOL and WP:BAIT) That would be a good time to ask me if what they are doing is okay or not. New editors often don't know the rules, which are quite confusing. Good luck!--David Tornheim (talk) 04:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I just checked your account and it says you've created your account 16 years ago. You started editing when I was 3 years old. I didn't even know this website was that old, that's so cool. Now I'm inspired to edit for 16 years just like you, I'm going to read the rules first and understand them. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 05:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good. :) And regarding the warning below, one of the key rules is that pretty much everything in an article *must* have a reliable source. Even if it is common knowledge, that is not enough. The section about reliable sources is IMHO the most important rule on Wikipedia and one worth carefully studying.--David Tornheim (talk) 16:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

May 2024

Hello, I'm Ternera. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Tupac Shakur, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Ternera (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

ill find a citation in a couple of days :) I'm just way too lazy right now, I didn't go to work to day of anything. I'm just too tired HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 18:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Jawsffghg

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Jawsffghg, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other test edits you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Please delete the page i just created, I was just testing editing pages since I'm new to wikipedia HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 04:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Sneako

A tag has been placed on Sneako requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Existing draft pending review at Draft:Sneako, article as it stands does not currently demonstrate notability

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Phuzion (talk) 04:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

But bro, Sneako is very notable, there's tons of reliable sources and mainstream news articles about him and he's got hundreds of thousands of followers as a political commentator. The reason why the other page is a draft is because it wasn't good enough, I can make mine good enough HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 04:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I have declined the deletion, and moved your work to draft. See Sneako moved to draftspace below.

I have declined it (the draft) with the rationale that the other draft is fuller. I have not determined which is better. I have said when declining it "The other draft is a fuller draft. Please consider working in that one and merging any relevant information into it. More than one editor may work on the same draft. It's a collaboration, not a competition to get there first". See Your submission at Articles for creation: Sneako 2 (May 24) below. You should introduce yourself to the other editor on their talk page and suggest collaboration

I have not assessed the person's overall notability. I am simply of the opinion that the article was vulnerable to deletion, thus I have given you the chance to work in peace and quiet without the possibility of deletion putting you under pressure. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:05, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Sneako moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Sneako 2. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because Not yet ready for mainspace. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sneako 2 (May 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Timtrent was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Sneako 2 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello, HumansRightsIsCool! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Tupac lead

Have you noticed that Tupac's lead is changed almost every day? Pier1999 (talk) 23:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I have that's why in my edit summary I said "fixing the lead since everyone wants to mess it up every 5 seconds." Like the lead is perfect right now. It's annoying how people wanna change it every 5 seconds. I wonder why people are targeting the lead when 99% of the article isn't the lead. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 23:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't know, Tupac's lead has changed many times over the years. However, I have several scholarly sources on Tupac, so I do my best to improve the page. Pier1999 (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

June 2024

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Maram Susli. Thank you. CNC (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Maram Susli. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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 and 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. Two of us have asked you politely to undo your second revert to an article under 1 revert only restrictions. You have simply ignored those requests. OsFish (talk) 11:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for finally reverting.OsFish (talk) 11:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

An edit war is 3 times I believe and an edit war is when you revert the same edit over and over again. I reverted two different edits, or I might be wrong, I'm really sleepy right now maybe my memory is messed up, but I think I only reverted edits 2 times and the edits were 2 different edits HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 11:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Also the reason why I didn't listen to your request of me self-reverting is because I accidentally skipped over your message and misread the other guy's message. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 11:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) See the banner on the talk page. You are limited to one revert in 24 hours. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Where's the banner? And why am I limited to a revert I thought I heard it was three a long time ago HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 11:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Maram Susli. The banner has a extremely large heading in bold. Yes, the general rule is three per WP:3RR, but certain articles, like this one, are subject to additional sanctions. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did at Maram Susli. CNC (talk) 11:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Until you have made 500 edits, you should not be making any article edits related to this topic area. Comments on the topic area are restricted to edit requests at talk pages. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi

Hello, HumansRightsIsCool. You have new messages at Talk:Sean Combs#Name.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cena332 (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

June 2024

Hello,

I'm sure you mean best, but it is unacceptable to accuse someone of a crime (as you did in an edit summary at the Robert Morris page) without a conviction. Now granted, all of the allegations against him may very well be true, but unless there's a conviction, WP:CRIME and WP:BLPCRIME apply. Even if the crime is as evil and sickening as what he has been accused of, we still have to assume innocence. Thank you,

TanRabbitry (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

He admitted to the allegations HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

His comments may be interpreted in different ways. He could agree that the accuser is lying about crucial details. If he had released a statement saying that his accuser was exactly correct in every detail, that would be different. I'll agree with you that he's most likely guilty if for no other reason than the timeline, but the Wikipedia policy is strict for a reason. I've seen conflicting reports over if he could be charged, so the page may have to stay as it is. TanRabbitry (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 19:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

July 2024

Your recent editing history at Tupac Shakur shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
The next time you edit war on this article, you'll be blocked from editing. Even if you think another editor is in the wrong in a content dispute, that does not entitle you to violate the 3RR. The appropriate response is to request assistance at one of the dispute resolution noticeboards. Do not continue this behavior further when the article unprotects in a week. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok. Well what if the other editor goes back to removing tons of sourced info from the page and claims it original research, do you want me to tell you about it when it happens? HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 18:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Not me personally, no. Dispute resolution or comment at the administrator's noticeboard as needed. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ScottishFinnishRadish. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Jyllian Gunther, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to add a source to that edit, but at least I got over 85 more edits that are constructive and added sources to a few pages. Really trying to get extended confirmed thing back HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 12:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Really trying to get extended confirmed thing back so that's why I was rushing because I was tired and didn't sleep at all tonight. Even took a day off work. Sorry Gonna be more careful next time HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 12:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ScottishFinnishRadish. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Why are you introducing yourself like we've never met before? And El Chapo being a murderer is sourced, in my edit summary I say "scroll down to a couple paragraphs it says he was charged with murder in 1993". HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 12:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

......

...... HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 00:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

........ HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 00:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

She kind of reminds me of Jane from Breaking Bad. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 00:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I always do cuz I am in your walls HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Headline news 😱😱😱 HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Yo it’s a long time HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 00:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

S3ord HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 00:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Songwriter

There was already a long discussion in the talks (later deleted), about bringing songwriter back into Tupac's lead. I and @David Tornheimdecided yes. It doesn't make sense to change the lead every day. I am writing here because it won't let me tag you in the talks on Tupac's page. Of course, it’s obvious because he made music, but songwriter is an important occupation of Tupac, as other rappers consider him one of the greatest songwriters of all time (Eminem, Kendrick Lamar and Nas). Pier1999 (talk) 07:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Tupac page

The Tupac page can be edited by anyone, not just administrators or specialized users. How do you call an administrator? Pier1999 (talk) 13:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

While ActionHerosAreReal was removing sourced info, he made the page page protected again HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 13:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't, I came out of my profile and it still makes me edit. Lol Pier1999 (talk) 13:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Maybe go to administratior noticeboard HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 13:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

What should we do about that guy who is vandalizing the page? Pier1999 (talk) 13:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Tupac page

He is back, what should we do? Pier1999 (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Don't have the page locked. It's tiring, maybe go talk to a moderator about his behavior. I know 100% if this was me removing tons of sourced information on a page, saying "this is original research" when it's sourced, saying "see talk page" when other editors disagreed with my edits, and edit warring, and lying about what other editors said, if that was me or a new editor we would probably get blocked. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 00:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

We have already had a discussion about including "songwriter" in Tupac's lead. We decided to include it, so there’s no point in changing Tupac's lead every day. Pier1999 (talk) 08:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Everyone knows he's a songwriter because he creates music, don't think that should be in the lead HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 08:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Where is that discussion btw. I think him being a poet is more relevant than saying songwriter since everyone already knows that. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 08:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

It has been archived, so look for it in the changes. Pier1999 (talk) 08:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Look in the changes, we had this discussion on May 10, 2024. That's why "songwriter" is in the lead. Pier1999 (talk) 08:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

"Songwriter" is listed in the lead of everyone considered among the best songwriters of all time. Therefore, it should be included. Pier1999 (talk) 08:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

The Notorious B.I.G., Drake, Eazy E, tons of other rappers dont have "songwriter" in the lead. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 08:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we already discussed this. A user had pointed this out, but we decided to keep "songwriter" for Tupac because the page mentions that Nas and Eminem consider him among the best songwriters of all time. Pier1999 (talk) 08:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Who cares what Eminem says all of his music is bad. Eminem is irrelevant. Add poet back it's important, HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 09:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Can you link the discussed where you discussed "songwriter" on the lead? HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 09:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Go through the talk changes until May. You will find our discussion. Pier1999 (talk) 09:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Still don't see discussion HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 09:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I had this discussion with @David Tornheim Pier1999 (talk) 09:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok now I see it HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 09:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of America First With Nicholas J. Fuentes for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article America First With Nicholas J. Fuentes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/America First With Nicholas J. Fuentes until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 19:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed permission revoked

I have removed your extended-confirmed permission as you were clearly gaming the system to get the permission. As such, WP:ECR applies to you again. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

How do I get the permission back? HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 23:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

also didn't know gaming the system broke any rules HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 23:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

When you make edits like this WP:ECR violation, it's not helping your case in earning extended-confirmed rights back. Left guide (talk) 04:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh didn't know that broke a rule. I'm Jewish, but I wanted to be fair to everybody because the state of Israel and Palestine both claim Jerusalem as their capital city. sorry I broke a rule didn't mean to HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 04:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi HumansRightsIsCool

I see you've been busy editing Wikipedia, well done and keep up the good work!

I came across you when I responded to one of your comments at WP:AFD and I hope you don't mind me posting this message here. This is your talk page so feel free to delete this if you want, or ignore it etc.

There are lots of good and experienced editors giving you some great advice and help and I would suggest you take time to read through their comments twice. Not everyone gets that kind of help!

As already suggested by experienced editors, maybe take some time and do some WP:GNOME work. Even if its not an area that interests you, it's great practice for editing within WP policy and guidelines and can help when it comes to editing in contentious areas. Take some time to read through core policies and make sure you understand them in relation to editing. Again, you can gain some invaluable insight into how Wikipedia operates. Maybe you could add some of the noticeboards to your watch list? Don't comment on them but have a read through some of the subjects to see how the community works through issues and look at the advice given to other editors. Above all, don't rush. Wikipedia has been here a long, long time and will be here way into the future. Slow down a little, sit back and enjoy the difference you make when editing.

I repeat, feel free to dump this message if it's of no help. Good luck! Knitsey (talk) 03:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't feel like slowing down. I already called my boss and told him I'm not going to work today because I'm sick, I lied because I really want that extended confirmed thing back so I can edit whatever article I want. I'm going to be on wikipedia for another 5-9 hours editing without leaving the site, except when I'm looking to add sources to pages. I don't care if I break my arm or get shot in the arm with a gun, I'm still going to edit all day because I really want that extended confirmed thing back, and they say I need 200 constructive edits to get that back HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 04:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Lol ok, have fun. Knitsey (talk) 04:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

2 more edits and I hit 560. Ive noticed that some of my edits are 5-20 minutes a part, but I haven't left the site except briefly like 2 or 3 times. I've been browsing random articles for like 3-4 hours looking for content I can edit. I'm taking too long, I should've already hit 100 new constructive edits. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 07:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

This is absolutely the wrong way to get extended confirmed permissions restored. It's not something to be gamed; it's not an achievement to be won. I strongly suggest you take the advice about slowing down, and ensure that all your edits are constructive and useful, and that you're not simply speedrunning through a specific edit count in order to be able to bypass ECR protections. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Notorious B.I.G., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grim. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

ECR

Edit requests should be straightforward a la WP:EDITXY per WP:ARBECR. Thanks for your attention. Selfstudier (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

If you continue to breach WP:ARBECR, you invite a sanction. Kindly desist. Selfstudier (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

July 2024

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for WP:ECR violations, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Hey there

Hey, I see you've been blocked. Just here to give you advice on contributing constructively in the future, when your block expires.

• First of all, you'll get EC soon. Take it easy, take it slow, there's no need to rush. Until you reach EC, you can only make edit requests. You can't add further replies on that edit request to repeat your request or to discuss it. Hold off on that until you reach EC.
• When you get EC, be careful, and edit slowly. Don't make highly contentious edits before discussing them on the talk page. It's important to stay civil during discussions. Personally, I believe, as I think do you, that much of Wikipedia is written with unfair bias and POV. However, nothing can be done to counter that and bring articles to NPOV status if policies are violated while you edit. Some editors with high policy knowledge may try to provoke you into violating policy when they see you countering any bias that fits their POV. Keep your cool during discussions, and don't make personal attacks on any editors, even if they provoke you. The more you learn policy and keep your cool, the more you can do to continue contributing constructively to Wikipedia.
• If you're unsure if a certain action violates policy, drop a line on a more experienced editor's talk page and they will try to help. Do the same if you feel any editor is harassing or targeting you. Again, keep your cool; ultimately, that's how you'll be able to continue working to ensure NPOV.

All the best! And gut voch! JoeJShmo^💌 03:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

August 2024

Hello, I'm CFA. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on MrBeast, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! C F A 💬 22:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

ok there's no reliable source for some of the information on the dogpack404 allegations, but why did you remove the word "dogpack404" in the article? That's sourced. You also removed sourced info HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 22:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't remove any sourced info. You can see my removal here. Please stop adding unreferenced, potentially defamatory information to biographies of living people. I encourage you to take a look at WP:BLP. Thank you. C F A 💬 22:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

well you either removed the word "dogpack404" in another edit or someone else did which was sourced. Also someone just added a reliable source for the dogpack404 allegations so it's not potentially defamatory anymore HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 22:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I removed the username because I didn't think it was relevant. Considering that you immediately added it back though, I tagged it so someone else could drop in and decide themselves. TheWikiToby (talk) 22:44, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I personally think the username is relevant, what's the point in removing it? I feel like if you remove it someone else is going to add it back because it's relevant to the situation HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi HumansRightsIsCool, I was in the middle of reverting your edits when it came up that CFA had already reverted them.

Can I suggest you read WP:BLP, WP:RSP and WP:BLPNAME, you might find it helpful.

When you're reverted, it is always wise to take it to the talk page for the article. I would suggest you use the article talk page to engage with the community on how to handle any controversial information you want to add.

Hope this helps, Knitsey (talk) 22:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

You can revert my edits, please just don't remove dog pack's name from the article HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 22:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Tupac Shakur. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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 and 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. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, HumanRightsIsCool! I noticed the amount of notices and warnings on your talk page (and on my watchlist, from Knitsey's talk page) and decided to give you a re-run of Wikipedia's policies that seem to apply to you at the moment.

In terms of the three-revert rule, as stated above, you shouldn't revert more than three times in a 24-hour period; instead discuss the problem on the associated article's talk page. Reaching a consensus is better than repeatedly edit warring, which could result in an extended block. More is said in the warning above.

For talk pages, there's a policy that talk pages are not a forum. Talk pages should be limited to on-Wiki content, not off-Wiki conversations.

Also, when opening discussions, please name it a correct title and not ".....", as you did over on Talk:Tupac Shakur. Isabelle Belato has changed that since, though.

And, of course, provide a reliable source when adding informational content to an article. Happy editing! ~ Tails Wx 18:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

over three of my edits were reverted, Pier said there would be an edit war in his edit summary, so I discussed my edits on the talk page and resolved the issue. I should've just went to the talk page right away yea ik, thanks for everything you do, and I'll keep that in mind next time. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Tupac Shakur

You really are sailing close to the wind. I understand that you feel really strongly about the lede but you are ignoring Wikipedia policy. The previous RfC (regardless of when it was) has already covered this. Do another RfC to make your own argument as to why it should be included. Knitsey (talk) 23:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Someone just opened up a new RfC thing HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 15:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Lovely! Thats the way it should be done. Knitsey (talk) 15:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a link? Knitsey (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah, got it. Knitsey (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Wrt this diff, please add the sources in the same edit as the information. Do not reintroduce unsourced information to the article. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 00:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok I'll add sources next edit please don't undo my edit HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 00:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Genius is not a reliable source. Please see WP:GENIUS. I'd advise you self-revert for now. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 02:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you please explain how this source, which appears to be a copy of the Wikipedia article in a user generated website sources the sentence This poem encourages readers to remain focused on their goals and to persist in the pursuit of their dreams, even when faced with obstacles and negativity.

The entirety of your edits in that article, with regards to poetry, have been either unsourced or badly sourced. I'll repeat, use your sandbox to workshop your edits before adding that information to main space or I will have to bring this issue to WP:ANI as a WP:CIR/WP:IDHT issue. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 03:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Are you transgender or do you just support transgender rights? What's your thoughts on the rest of the LGBT HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 04:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Please do not ask people about their views on social/political topics. This is a project to write an encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 07:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I thought this was a website. Isn't an encyclopedia like a book or something HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 07:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

No, an encyclopedia is not specifically a printed book. 331dot (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia has always been an encyclopedia. TheWikiToby (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Tupac

You added things to the lead without sources, and you removed professional sources where he is called an activist. But why should the lead talk about his poetry and not his activism? You also created a section that's not needed, and Nas compares Tupac to Shakespeare for his song lyrics. It's ridiculous that Tupac's lead should talk about him as a poet rather than as an activist. The academic sources discuss his activism or his poetry, but only in relation to the content of his lyrics. So: you've written things without sources, you decided that the RFC would be closed, but you can't close the RFC so soon, and it's not up to you. Then, you want to emphasize poetry on Tupac's page without reason. According to what logic should he be presented more as a poet than as an activist? Do you think there's anarchy on Wikipedia? Pier1999 (talk) 11:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Tupac being a poet and actor is sourced throughout the article HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Also I see Companion accusing me of edit warring on the tupac article. So over three of my edits were reverted, Pier said there would be an edit war in his edit summary, so I discussed my edits on the talk page and resolved the issue. I see both of us got a warning, we shouldn't just went to the talk page right away yea ik HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I improved the lead because the source examines Tupac as a great activist for his work as an activist. The music is also mentioned, but as a separate element. I also kept what you wrote about the films and the poems. Pier1999 (talk) 17:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

"Academics regard him as one of the most influential music artists of the 20th century and a prominent political activist for Black America.[4][5] In addition to his music career, he also has tons of starring roles in movies and wrote numerous poems" This way, the meaning of what's written in the sources remains intact, and it also mentions that he made films and he was a poet. Pier1999 (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

cool HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

They've added 'songwriter' to the pages of Eminem and Biggie. Shouldn't it also be on Tupac's page, don't you think?" Pier1999 (talk) 20:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Idk why does it matter? HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Because Tupac is recognized as one of the greatest songwriters of all time, while Biggie and Eminem are not. Pier1999 (talk) 20:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I like biggie, but yeah I do agree Eminem sucks. Are you still discussing songwriter in the lead? HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Since it's already mentioned that Tupac was a lead actor, wouldn't it be better to remove the fact that he acted in some films and maybe write something else? Pier1999 (talk) 00:19, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

was an actor in the lead* Pier1999 (talk) 00:19, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I wrote he acted in films because the word "actor" was in the lead and i wanted to explain how he was an actor, I wasn't the one who came up with the edit it was Nemov in the 2024 RfC and I explained my edit to you after the 2024 RfC, remember? HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 00:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Let's not change anything in the lead, and let's wait to see if others agree to include the songwriter in the lead. Let's wait without changing anything. Pier1999 (talk) 01:19, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I would like to propose adding "songwriter" as another "role" alongside rapper and actor. Let's wait and see what the others say. Pier1999 (talk) 01:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Pretty much everyone agreed in the RfC not to have "songwriter" in the first sentence. That's why when you asked again I replaced the word "rappers" in the second sentence with "songwriters", but okay, I won't change the lead again HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 01:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

August 2024

A few things: 1) Trying to make substantive edits to articles on subjects which you know little about is generally a problem. I'd strongly suggest sticking to subjects that you know, at least until you gain significantly more experience editing wikipedia. The Americans article is clearly something that you should be avoiding for now due to lack of familiarity with basic concepts. 2) Trying to game WP:3RR by timing your edits, or gaming any other policy in a similar manner, is not going to work. 3) The time of editors is a valuable commodity, and other editors have no obligation to respond to you. If experienced editors graciously spend time doing so, and you still don't get it, they may give up. This is usually a bad sign. If multiple experienced editors are spending time responding to you, and you are still having multiple disputes, this is usually a very bad sign. 4) And finally, no, I'm not going to spend time explaining what it means to start a sentence with a numeral, or why it isn't done in wikipedia. I expect it's there someplace in WP:MOS. If you legitimately can't figure out what I meant, I'd find that baffling. CAVincent (talk) 05:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't make over 3 reverts in a 24 period except when I was self-reverting, why did you link something about edit warring? And yeah I can't figure out what you meant when you said "numerals", but it doesn't matter anyways, me and Moxy resolved this issue hours ago when I said the dispute is pointless. I don't know why your telling me not to edit the article about U.S. citizens when we ended the dispute like 7-9 hours ago... HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 05:28, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Americans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Native Americans.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Tupac

We have another case of an edit war, keep an eye on the Tupac page. Pier1999 (talk) 00:32, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 02:23, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Sneako 2

Hello, HumansRightsIsCool. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Sneako 2, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 07:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Sneako 2

Hello, HumansRightsIsCool. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Sneako 2".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:09, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

November 2024

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.— ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 22:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah i haven't visited the page for about 2 months, I see all the changes to the article and I think a few were un-constructuve so I decided to change the article back to where it was a few months ago because I didn't feel like doing it manually. I thought an edit war was reverting the same type of edits and not totally different edits on this article. Didn't mean to edit war. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Ahhh right, that's fair enough. I wouldn't consider it an edit war so to speak, rather just a 3RR violation - but the template just says edit war by default. I won't be going to any noticeboards or anything, just saw five reverts in a row and had to be cautious! ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 23:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

You should also use an edit summary to explain your edits rather than just undoing people. I'm not sure why you reverted this, for example. This isn't encyclopedic language. — Czello ^(music) 06:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

i saw a lot a lot of un-constructuve edits. like 3 or 4 and tried to make the page how it was a few months ago to get rid of all of them HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 07:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)