User talk:Yourfav

May 2018
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
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 isn't appropriate or helpful, nor is this one. 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
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Drmies (talk) 01:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * 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)

 Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. ([ block log] • [ active blocks] • [ global blocks] • [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user=&project=en.wikipedia.org autoblocks] • contribs • deleted contribs • [ abuse filter 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. clpo13(talk) 18:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)