User talk:Hawljo

March 2013
Hello, I'm Dawn Bard. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Sexual orientation without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Dawn Bard (talk) 15:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk page
Please join the discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * DOC James, this is Hawljo. Why do you keep reverting my edit, four times now with no explanations or justifications? The following quote is from the referenced medical dictionary: Abortion- termination of pregnancy before the fetus is viable. In the medical sense, this term and the term miscarriage both refer to the termination of pregnancy before the fetus is capable of survival outside the uterus. The term abortion is more commonly used as a synonym for induced abortion, the deliberate interruption of pregnancy, as opposed to miscarriage, which connotes a spontaneous or natural loss of the fetus. Because of this distinction made by the average layperson, care should be exercised in the use of the word abortion when speaking of a spontaneous loss of the fetus. Spontaneous abortion- termination of pregnancy before the fetus is sufficiently developed to survive; called miscarriage by laypersons. Hawljo (talk) 22:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Discussion was here  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 08:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

September 2015
Your recent editing history at Miscarriage 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Septmber 2015
Your recent editing history at The Naked Communist 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. JohnInDC (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Complaint about your edits at WP:AN3
See a complaint about your edits of The Naked Communist and two other articles. It is at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. You may respond there if you wish. Almost every article edit you've made since 27 September is a revert. EdJohnston (talk) 22:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. 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:. Bbb23 (talk) 23:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Bbb23 Indefinite Block for WP:NOTHERE clarification and questions
Hi Bbb23 this is Hawljo, a newcomer that you recently blocked indefinitely for WP:NOTHERE. I am seeking clarification into the rationale for your action. I would like to understand Wikipedia’s concerns about my contributions so as to correct my actions and improve my future edits. I reviewed the WP:NOTHERE link that you provided as justification for your indefinite block, and strongly disagree with the assertion that I am “clearly not here to build an encyclopedia.” That assertion is a personal WP:POV unless and until it is validated with verifiable evidence. Will you please provide the evidence that substantiates your assertion about me and the applicable policy that prescribes indefinitely blocking for that offence? I have yet to be confronted or challenged on any factual basis regarding content or actions, nor have I been given verifiable evidence that substantiates a violation that warrants punitive action.

As a newbie editor I fully acknowledge that I have much to learn about Wikipolitics WP:POLITICS and Wikietiquette WP:EQ. After careful review and research of the seemingly endless policies and guidelines WP:POLICY, it appears to me, that I have been accused and sentenced without due process, on the basis of bias opinions regarding allegations about my intentions.

Experienced Wikapedians aggressively undid all of my contributions without discussion thus baiting an edit war, which was followed by biting this newbie with an indefinite block for restoring content in good faith. Are these not forms of bullying WP:BULLYING WP:BITE? I would like to proceed with my unblock request, appeal and/or AN or ANI complaints, based on factual evidence regarding content and procedure, not based on subjective opinions regarding allegations about my intentions. Please speak to my contributions and actions or inactions, not conjecture about my intentions. I can change the content of my contributions and I can modify my procedural errors. However, I cannot change another’s feelings about me personally or ideologically, nor can I defend myself against another’s strong bias WP:NEUTRAL.

I believe in the golden rule and attempt to behave accordingly. Wiki policy is to WP:AGF or to assume WP:NOCLUE before WP:NOBRICKS and WP:BITE. I would appreciate knowing exactly which regulation listed in WP:NOTHERE, you believe this newbie violated that was so egregious or disruptive, or unexpected, that an indefinite block was necessarily justified to protect the project form my good faith errors, rather than simply explaining my faults with measured reproof?

WP:GAPB states that "It's important that you understand the reasons why the administrator blocked you before starting an unblock request. A block is not intended as punishment; it's meant to prevent you from making disruptive edits, either in good faith or as vandalism. Don't ask questions within your unblock request; that's reserved to explain why you will not be a problem to the project, not to request clarifications about policy. Before requesting to be unblocked, you can ask the administrators that blocked you any clarification about their actions, and they're expected to answer them, though first you have to read the policies they have linked as the reason for the block Hawljo (talk) 21:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)