Hawljo
March 2013 edit
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 edit
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)
September 2015 edit
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—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. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Septmber 2015 edit
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—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. JohnInDC (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
See a complaint about your edits of The Naked Communist and two other articles. It is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Hawljo reported by User:JohnInDC (Result: ). 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 edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 23:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Hawljo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hi Bbb23. I hope this is the right format to open a dialog with you about blocking me. I am new to editing at Wiki and have not yet learned all of the technical methodology or detailed regulations. It appears as though I have been "blocked indefinitely" by yourself. I do not know why. Regarding my intentions, you state "clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia." I do not know you Bbb23, so I am curious how you know what my intentions are? I obviously disagree with your opinion about my intentions. I have made several valuable contributions to Wiki articles and have attempted to protect those edits from vandalism by adversarial editors who deleted my contributions. I am not sure what the Wiki terminology is when a group of editors start an "edit war" against a contributors controversial text like mine, but that is what it appears to have happened to me? My contributions were removed repetitively without any explanation or debate by other "editors" who simply appeared to dislike the factual information that I contributed. Isn't indiscriminately removing factually correct information against Wiki policy? I am guilty of simply reinstated my content, which others deleted without reason or cause that I could determine. I did attempt to talk to the adversarial editors in the talk pages and I posted my reasons for restoring my contributions. However, I am still learning how to use the talk pages. I have no intention of being destructive or disruptive and do not believe that I was either. I simply attempted to add to several articles, factual information that was objectively relevant to the article analysis. The edit 3RR instruction pages state that editors/contributors should not exceed 3 restores per page, per day. I believe I followed those rules, did I not? If I have broken some other rule please advise me of the policy so that I can be sure to abide by it in future edits. I am curious, how is any factual and relevant text that is disliked by other editors protected from unmerited removal? I am still learning, my apologies for any unintended indiscretions or transgressions. The complaint waged against me, by JohnInDc, is that I kept restoring my content that he kept deleting. I made revisions and reductions to my content attempting to appease oppositional editors. I attempted to “talk” to JohnInDc and I asked him why he keeps deleting my edits. His response was to complain about me to you, instead of have a dialog with me? Why is he not the one being blocked out? As I said I am new to this process, so perhaps I am missing something here? Thank you for your consideration. Hawljo (talk) 01:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Due to your strong personal point of view, it's unlikely you'll be able to easily come to agreement with other editors regarding article content. From an edit warring aspect, the fact that nearly all your article edits are reverts pretty much guarantees you'll be reported and blocked at the edit-warring noticeboard. It would be better if you would volunteer your efforts at another website where you find the other people's views more congenial. EdJohnston (talk) 01:54, 30 September 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.
Hawljo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Thank you EDJohnston for your review of my case. I apologize for the length of this appeal. Wikipedia:Blocking policy states that “Blocks serve to protect the project from harm, and reduce likely future problems.” ?UNIQ--nowiki-00000012-QINU?1?UNIQ--nowiki-00000013-QINU? I have no intention to harm the project nor do I believe that I harmed the project. I simply attempted to add non-bias factual content to articles that I thought was pertinent and missing from the obviously one-sided topic or sub-topic. Obviously some other editors disliked my content or the size of it as they completely deleted it without explanation or collaboration. I did not delete anyone’s content or vandalize or overwrite anyone’s contributions. I recognize that my most recent contributions included some lengthy pastes. Perhaps that was the reasoning for the reversions? I thought that providing the factual text on the controversial topics would be more relevant and less divisive, then providing editorial opinions about the controversial texts. Knowing some issues are controversial, I simply attempted to provide the text relevant to the topic, for the reader to review and judge for themselves with very limited editorial speak. I fully realize and accept that some people do not desire to acknowledged facts that conflict with their own beliefs and thus I attempted to present the information in an neutral format focusing on the text itself. I have no intent to engage in "edit warring" or cause disruption. I am guilty of being a new/inexperienced editor at Wiki who simply restored my own content that other editors deleted without due notice or explanation. The Wikipedia:Edit warring page states that “An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions.”?UNIQ--nowiki-00000015-QINU?2?UNIQ--nowiki-00000016-QINU? I did not override anyone’s contributions, I simply restored my own contributions that were overridden without explanation or collaboration. I did not incite an edit war, I was preemptively warred upon. I am still learning the complex Wiki rules of editing, dispute resolution and etiquette. That being said, I started editing at Wiki without full understanding the complex policies and process based on the "Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines" page that states; "There is no need to read any policy or guideline pages to start editing. The five pillars is a popular summary of the most pertinent principles."?UNIQ--nowiki-00000018-QINU?3?UNIQ--nowiki-00000019-QINU? I reviewed the five pillars and agree with them, and fully intend to abide by them. EDJohnston, you wrote “Due to your strong personal point of view, it's unlikely you'll be able to easily come to agreement with other editors regarding article content. From an edit warring aspect, the fact that nearly all your article edits are reverts pretty much guarantees you'll be reported and blocked at the edit-warring noticeboard. It would be better if you would volunteer your efforts at another website where you find the other people's views more congenial.” EDJohnston, you do not know me and have never engaged in conversation with me, so I wonder how you know that I am somehow incapable of editorial agreement or congeniality? I have less than a week of editing in my 2.5-years as a volunteer editor at Wiki, and have no relevant history here from which anyone can form a reasonable opinion on such issues. You stated that I have a strong personal point of view. My edits do not reflect my "personal point of view," I always seek neutrality and objective facts in my edits. I believe reasonable people of strong opinions are perfectly capable of finding common ground and agreement. My personal point of view is irrelevant with regard to my ability to help create a factually correct, un-bias encyclopedia. I am quite capable of achieving factual consensus regarding collaborative content. If Wiki were a place of fictional propaganda and editorial opinions, then perhaps you are right it would not be the place for me. However, based on the Wiki regulations that I have reviewed, I do not believe that Wikipedia seeks to publish bias opinions or factually inaccurate or incomplete encyclopedic information, and nor do I. I though Wiki was in the business of recruiting volunteer editors not chasing them away. Sometimes collaborative work can be difficult because reasonable people can rationally disagree. I can easily find agreement on article content or resolve to agree to disagree and move on. The experienced editors that removed my content did not attempt to collaborate with me or revise my content, nor did they explain their removal of my article content. I did attempt to “Talk” to some of the editors who removed my content, though admittedly I am still learning how to do this. I can and will engage in any collaborative dialog necessary to achieve a consensus, including with those who oppose my work. To date no one has attempted such collaboration that I am aware of. Like I said, I am still learning the proper procedures and etiquette. Wikipedia:BOLD (BRD) states that “Bold editing is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. No editor is more welcome to make a positive contribution than you are. When in doubt, edit! Similarly, if you advance a potential edit on the article's talk page, and no response is received after a reasonable amount of time, go ahead and make your edit.” ?UNIQ--nowiki-0000001B-QINU?4?UNIQ--nowiki-0000001C-QINU? I was attempting to follow these rules with my “Bold” edits. I did not see any discussion seeking collaboration or discussion on the talk pages regarding my contributions, otherwise I would have been happy to collaborate a revision of my content. Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary page states that, “Reverting drives away editors. Reverting tends to be hostile, making editing Wikipedia unpleasant. Sometimes this provokes a reciprocal hostility of re-reversion. Sometimes it also leads to editors departing Wikipedia, temporarily or otherwise, especially the less bellicose. This outcome is clearly detrimental to the development of Wikipedia. Thus, fair and considered thought should be applied to all reversions given all the above.” "The main purpose of reversion is to undo vandalism." "Don't revert a large edit because much of it is bad and you don't have time to rewrite the whole thing. Instead, find even a little bit of the edit that is not objectionable and undo the rest. (To do this, you can use the "undo" button, then type back in what you want to keep). If a supporter of the reverted edit wants to save more of it, she can re-edit in smaller pieces and the article can converge on a consensus version that way. Reversion is not a proper tool for punishing an editor or retaliating or exacting vengeance. No edit, reversion or not, should be made for the purpose of teaching another editor a lesson or keeping an editor from enjoying the fruits of his crimes." "What's important is to let people know why you reverted. This helps the reverted person because they can remake their edit while fixing whatever problem it is that you've identified. Obviously it is best to fix the problem and not revert at all. Explaining reverts also helps other people. For example, it lets people know whether they need to even view the reverted version (in the case of, e.g., "rv page blanking"). Because of the lack of paralanguage online, if you don't explain things clearly people will probably assume all kinds of nasty things, and that's how edit wars get started. If your reasons for reverting are too complex to explain in the edit summary, drop a note on the Talk page. A nice thing to do is to drop the note on the Talk page first, and then revert (referencing the talk page in your edit summary), rather than the other way round. Sometimes the other person will agree with you and revert for you before you have a chance. Conversely, if someone reverts your change without apparent explanation, you may wish to wait a few minutes to see if they explain their actions on the article's talk page or your user talk page, or contact the editor and ask for the reason for their revert. Do not engage in discussions in edit summaries. Doing so is a hallmark of edit warring; instead, stop editing and use the talk page."?UNIQ--nowiki-0000001E-QINU?5?UNIQ--nowiki-0000001F-QINU? I agree with these edit regulations. Once again, I did not remove anyone’s content with my edits, it was my content that was removed (vandalized?) by other editors. I looked for comments that would explain the multiple reverts but found only occasional brief statements in the edit summary. I am a peaceful person, not inclined to argue and am willing to collaborate. If wiki and or it's editors choose to reject content, even if it is factual, so be it. Wiki is free to publish whatever content it chooses on it's own website including false or misleading content. If factual information and neutral revision is desired, I am happy to proved those services. However, I am not interested in collective propaganda or disinformation. As such I will graciously pass on any of those kinds of predetermined “collaborations” should they exist. As for the cause of my ban, I have reviewed Bbb23's link (Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia) and understand his concerns though disagree with his conclusion. I am “here to build an encyclopedia” as previously explained to Bbb23 previously.?UNIQ--nowiki-00000021-QINU?6?UNIQ--nowiki-00000022-QINU? Wikipedia:Five pillars page states, "Editors should treat each other with respect and civility: Respect your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree. Apply Wikipedia etiquette, and don't engage in personal attacks. Seek consensus, avoid edit wars, and never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Act in good faith, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming to newcomers. If a conflict arises, discuss it calmly on the nearest talk pages, follow dispute resolution, and remember that there are 4,976,548 articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss."?UNIQ--nowiki-00000024-QINU?7?UNIQ--nowiki-00000025-QINU? I completely ascribe to this policy. I am a relative newcomer and I don't feel welcome for obvious reasons, nor do I feel that I have enjoyed the assumption of good faith. I do not feel as though anyone seriously attempted to resolve their conflicts with me on the talk pages nor did anyone seek dispute resolution that I am aware of. The reversionary editors that deleted my content, did not explain the reasons for their reversions. Had I been clearly advised of a rule or policy that I had broken, or of content that was disputable, I would have gladly revised or retracted my contributions to meet those regulations and achieve consensus. Wikipedia:No personal attacks page states, “Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks harm the Wikipedia community, and the collegial atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor.”?UNIQ--nowiki-00000027-QINU?8?UNIQ--nowiki-00000028-QINU? It appears to me, that disputes about my edit content, were misdirected as attacks on the author of that content rather than properly directed towards collaboration, discussion and revision of the content. I have attacked no one, yet I feel as though I have been attacked. My content was deleted without discussion or reason that I could identify. I have been told that I am certainly not here to build an encyclopedia and I have been invited to leave Wiki because my views were perceived to differ from others at Wikipedia. As I stated previously, a good editors views are irrelevant to the facts, and that includes my own views. We are all entitled to our own opinions but, we are not all entitled to our own facts. In all cases I am glad to submit to the facts. Yet, I have been informed that I am incapable of reaching consensus or collaborating with others, even though no one has even attempted to communicate with me to discuss or collaborate with me on any content that I have added that I am aware of. I have been congenial despite the barrage of seemingly unmerited ad hominem attacks on me that perhaps would be more appropriately directed towards discussion on the content of my edits or application of policy. I for one, do not believe that one should kill the messenger simple because one does not like the message and I do not conduct myself in is that manner. Wikipedia:Reverting page states “Provide a valid and informative explanation including, if possible, a link to the Wikipedia principle you believe justifies the reversion. Try to remain available for dialogue, especially in the half-day or so after reverting. A reversion is a complete rejection of the work of another editor and if the reversion is not adequately supported then the reverted editor may find it difficult to assume good faith. This is one of the most common causes of an edit war. A substantive explanation also promotes consensus by alerting the reverted editor to the problem with the original edit. The reverted editor may then be able to revise the edit to correct the perceived problem. The result will be an improved article, a more knowledgeable editor and greater harmony.” "If your reasons for reverting are too complex to explain in an edit summary, leave a note on the article's Talk page. It is sometimes best to leave a note on the Talk page first and then revert, rather than the other way around; thus giving the other editor a chance to agree with you and revise their edit appropriately. Conversely, if another editor reverts your change without any apparent explanation, you may wish to wait a few minutes to see if they explain their actions on the article's or your user's talk page." ?UNIQ--nowiki-0000002A-QINU?9?UNIQ--nowiki-0000002B-QINU? The barrage of reversions that were made on my edit content, did not include links to Wiki principals that I was aware of nor any detailed explanations or invitations to dialog that I am aware of. I may have been baited into a “edit war” for the explicit purpose of blocking me and my content from Wikipedia by those who may oppose the content? I don’t know. I do know that if any of the deleting editors had bothered to discuss their concerns with me, I would have worked with them to resolve the perceived conflict. I recognize now that the edit politics at Wiki are quite complicated and that extreme caution is needed to prevent being "punished." I have edited in good faith and will continue to edit in good faith, be it much less "Bold" if I am permitted to do so. Wikipedia:Sanctions against editors should not be punitive: “Some editors, even some administrators on Wikipedia forget why we are here and begin to adopt a punitive model for Wikipedia politics.” ?UNIQ--nowiki-0000002D-QINU?10?UNIQ--nowiki-0000002E-QINU? In my case, I do not feel that the punitive punishment imposed on me is proper or fitting to the "crime." I feel that an indefinite block is excessively harsh and not constant with Wiki policies. I should be given some leeway for being a newbie to editing. I have had a wiki account since march of 2013 and have never previously been disruptive or breached any policies that I am aware of. In that 2.5 years, I have less that one week of editing activity, only a hand full of edits and no infractions until now. I have 2.5years of peaceful coexistence. I clearly am not a threat to Wikipedia based on my proven history. I have attempted a crash course of learning Wiki regulations that will improve my future edits and clarify the validity of the indefinite block imposed upon me. My intent is to learn from my mistakes and move on. Please excuse any misapplication of regulations or unintended lapse in etiquette or cordiality in this appeal, none were intended. Thank you for your continued consideration in this matter as you decide whether to lift the indefinite block on my account or reduce my “punishment” to a more appropriate level.
Decline reason:
Wikipedia isn't your soapbox. As EdJohnston suggested, you may wish to try editin Conservapedia instead. Yunshui 雲水 07:05, 1 October 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.
Bbb23 Indefinite Block for WP:NOTHERE clarification and questions edit
@Bbb23:
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)