User talk:Ac220404

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia!

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 21:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

September 2017
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at 1804 Haiti massacre, you may be blocked from editing. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:LGL “(If an editor treats situations that are not clearly vandalism as such, that editor may harm the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors.”) Please stop using Wikipedia’s abuse prevention mechanisms, I have discussed twice why the critical term of genocide, when utilized by countless academic contributions and social mainstream websites, should not in the basis of opposition or personal distaste for the term (in spite of being the title of the most utilized academic text of the very article itself) to intentionally prevent editing, deter contributions and referring to, harassing, and deliberately infringing on reasonable behavior, and acting with libel, by these accusations on my contributions, and my integrity as a participant of the Wikipedia community, with accusations of abuse, and “vandalism”. I hope editors do investigate this absurd dispute that is likely common but wrong. The simple fact, you do not agree with, or oppose the research, material presentations, academic literature, assert the actions statements by REASONABLE and well respected, multiple, non related persons....as not “worthy” of contribution or persons hearing it. This appears to be personal belief, and a staunch refusal to allow, basic facts and research....I have been very respectful to adhere to adhere to this, as this is the very fabric, and ONLY way, with mainstream media, discussion, political bodies, and all reasoned NON-ORIGINAL research for this online encyclopedia to function and opposition to words in it. This does not justify using Wikipedia’s tools to report actual abuse and independent destruction of and prevention of reasonable editing, as you have chosen to. Please, stop infringing on my right, to reasonably edit as Wikipedia encourages and per its methods. I have no connection to the academics cited, as you continue to falsely claim, and falsely accuse, and to clearly impose your own original opinions, and own conclusions. I don’t like everything I see on Wikipedia...but I won’t harass, and delete a persons contribution regularly, every single time for it, thus eliminating entire academic contributions, a number of pieces of literature, social discussions, classical reference and multiple websites of repute (and like any well known event even non reputable which I don’t use), and a very face value (no research or opinion needed), necessary contribution that cannot be ignored. This can’t be stopped because of a personal conviction, belief or allegation of such behavior to prevent contribution. If you are referring to the 1804 Massacre article, and don’t like that the intentional extermination of an entire people from a geographic area in the thousands, reflected by so many academics, research by other persons, and discussion, how am I suppose to ignore the inclusion of such critical and essential terms as,“genocide”, when they are the very title of a and the major piece of academic literature relied on? The word is utilized in a number of other academic contributions and pieces too, if not near all of them. To oppose every change, every contribution, every single piece of information, on the sole basis of you don’t appear to like it, that behavior and actions can destroy an encyclopedia like this, if every person with a personal opposition to something utilizes harassment, stalking and constant and repetitive attacks...to achieve this? Why? Please, by all means, Wikipedia editors please review my edits and history by ALL means, and this persons as well, it is...incredibly disheartening to know people will follow, and attack articles for their own politics and feelings, even when there is a deluge of supporting elements this encyclopedia relies on to utilize and grow. I hope you see, I have not attempted to delete other contributions entirely, not entered “original research”, nor plagiarized, but only put in critical terms, perhaps the most critical on Earth, as a reasonable inclusion with such levels of academic support, and face value reality (I don’t engage on “face value” belief without reliable sources and facts. Please look into this and whomever has been trying to enter my Wikipedia editor account as it has been attempted many times, thank you.

-Ac220404


 * You may want to take a look at WP:Dispute resolution, as well as WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research. Your edits to Prijedor ethnic cleansing, for example, were not backed up by any reliable sources, academic or otherwise. You also mention harassment; where is that supposed to have happened? I can't see who is supposed to have harassed you, given that the last message left here - the only one beyond the welcome message - is several months old. Maybe there's a language issue here? People seem to have trouble understanding your English. Huon (talk) 01:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I apologize if I didn’t cite a reference in the article I edited, when I mention harassment, it’s regarding the article, as not just me, but many persons, have attempted to edit or add or alter information applying the only academic sources reliable and published widely to address the article. However at every attempt to do so, it becomes erased or people accused of false editing even when a source or multiple are cited. If you look at the page there are numerous people complaining of this but most give up or just likely leave editing finding it impossible to apply any change to an article even when citing a source. It is not individual but the page itself that is constantly altered even when it seems, to not be justified by additions of original research. If it’s original research, it would not rely specifically on the information cited in three academic resources but carefully applied to not amount to plagiarism. As far as Prijedor, let me know what academic or what information I contributed that was not referenced to, I use the ICTY, UN established war crimes tribunals legal findings, and media sources that are well respected and apologize if I did this. I apologize, I still contend the page is consistently restricted to any contributions and the referenced sources are selectively cited as appropriate for many contributions, but then dismissed as inappropriate to be utilized simultaneously in other relevant areas. I wont address this page anymore though and thank you for addressing me back. -Ac220404