NobleHumanBeing
Welcome!
|
December 2015
edit
Your recent editing history at Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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.
You have hit five reverts in one article. {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
"Ethnic Cleansing"
editIn this edit you said you'd like to see a section on ethnic cleansing. At no point has Donald Trump called for "the systematic forced removal of ethnic or religious groups from a given territory by a more powerful ethnic group, with the intent of making it ethnically homogeneous". What he suggested was ceasing the process of immigration of a particular religious group. I disagree with his idea; but our personal opinions on this do not matter. The facts do. It's supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a bleeding... splish splash show. Your careless "interpretation" of ethnic cleansing shows precisely why you are pushing a POV rather than being neutral. You have no business editing the article. Doc talk 09:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- notable Conservative pundit George Will is the one who called Trump's policies "ethnic cleansing." I believe this was in reference to his proposal to deport by force millions of Mexican-Americans, many of whom are American Citizens. The opinion, again, belongs to George Will "the most powerful journalist in the country" not me. This is not my personal opinion. This is a notable expression of punditry which deserves to be heard. NobleHumanBeing (talk) 16:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- as for Muslims, what Trump said was, and I quote him exactly, "Donald J Trump is calling for a total and complete ban on Muslims entering the country." That's from his own press release. You may be the one twisting the facts. I was quite careful to stick purely to what Trump said. He's given us more than enough rope without having to distort anything he said.NobleHumanBeing (talk)
Check it out: you're a sock of a blocked user. I can revert you all day long. Your POV-pushing is very transparent. Doc talk 18:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Content is King, as they say, friend. Why don't you cease with these personal attacks, and comment on what is being said? That article is highly slanted in favor of Trump, and reads as if it should be followed by "I'm Donald Trump, and I approve this message." Let's make it balanced.NobleHumanBeing (talk) 18:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- "Friend", eh? Just admit this account too, save us all some time. Doc talk 19:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
edit war
editAre you aware that the Trump article is under discretionary sanctions? By my count you are at 5RR on that article, which exceeded WP:3RR. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- That guy is just personally attacking and reverting my edits without edit summary. Since my edits are constructive, he isn't allowed to do that. And I am allowed to revert his reverts. I will take this all the way to the Supreme Court if I have to.NobleHumanBeing (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
edit
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:NobleHumanBeing reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: ). Thank you. Dr. K. 18:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
December 2015
edit Your recent editing history at Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Blocked
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. Jayron32 18:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
NobleHumanBeing (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
If you look at what I said I said "I will take this to the Supreme Court, if necessary." I meant the Supreme Court of Wikipedia. You will notice I did not say the federal Supreme Court of the United States of America. It is obtuse to interpret that as a legal threat, rather than a threat to report to administrators for dispute resolution, as would be obvious to anyone with eyes. Whoever reported me intentionally misinterpreted my statement. I meant I will take this to the admin noticeboard, or the Supreme Court of Wikipedia. I did not mean the literal federal Supreme Court of the United States of America. This is ridiculous. Truly absurd. Do you really think that's what I meant? I was threatening to go to admin, nothing more. They are intentionally trying to prevent me from speaking at the ANI and saying how they supplied blank or false edit summaries which were all I reverted, and they are trumping a claim of legal threat, when they know very well I only meant I was going to post on ANI. I repeat, I only was referring to the court of Wikipedia, not the Federal Supreme Court of the U.S. How ridiculous. How could you possibly see that as a threat? I meant the judicial body governing Wikipedia. It is sad to see the lengths some people will go to to twist words to silence the Truth. 18:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Obvious User:Kingshowman is obvious. Talk page access revoked to prevent further blathering.OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:09, 11 December 2015 (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.
- You mean the "Truth", with a capital "T", right? Gawrsh, that sounds familiar! Now where have I seen that recently... Doc talk 19:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Courtesy notice for ANI
edit There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dr. K. 18:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Sockpuppet investigation
edit
Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MBUSHIstory, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.