User talk:Patrat46

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to National Rifle Association. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you.Niteshift36 (talk) 01:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 2011[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at National Rifle Association. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at National Rifle Association, you may be blocked from editing. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at National Rifle Association, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NRA oldest or not[edit]

I know what the second amendment says. What it does NOT say is that militias are civil rights orgs. Your WP:OR is unsourced and faulty. Continually adding it is nothing less than vandalism. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" <<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Security of a free state.... if that isnt protecting the rights of a state then i dont know what is sure its not a civil rights organization that protects just African Americans but theres more rights then just the rights of African Americans they arent the only ones that have civil rights an organization made to defend the civil rights of select people is no more a civil rights organization then an organization made with the purpose of protecting the civil rights of a STATE the concept is the same just a different scale Patrat46 (talk) 02:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating yourself won't make it true. Read the policies on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Calabe1992 (talk) 03:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at National Rifle Association. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Tiptoety ^talk 03:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Civil and political rights are a class of rights that protect individuals' freedom from unwarranted infringement by governments and private organizations, and ensure one's ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression. (on Wikipedia the into to Civil Rights) AS such an orgainization that has that as its purpose is a civil rights organization this is common sense NOT research NOT an opinion SOLID FACT the definition of civil rights organization is an accurate discription to many militia's tho not all militia's but as i stated there are old militia's such as Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Massachusetts who fought to MAKE THE USA FIGHTING FOR THE CIVIL RIGHTS THAT WE HAVE TODAY! they are still around and still believe in the things they fought forPatrat46 (talk) 03:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the claim that they are the oldest continual Civil Rights Organization originates from the NRA themselves and thir primary purpose is not defending civil rights but defending civil liberties i believe that using them as a source is bias they did aid in the civil rights movement but their primary contribution was aimed at defending the civil liberties of the moment and it was only after the fact that they made a shift to aid as a civil rights organization... while they are old and they have not broken up at any given time they have not been a continual civil rights organization as they have not been a civil rights organization from the start but later came into it they might be the oldest organization that now fights for civil rights

so i can make the claim that the US Federal government is the oldest civil rights organization in the us. why? they made you civil rights... they are an organization... they debate what is a civil right.... so they are a civil rights organization with the same claim as the NRA whos purpose is to defend CIVIL LIBERTIES not CIVIL RIGHTS Patrat46 (talk) 17:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

unblock[edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Patrat46 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Massachusetts is a military that fought for the civil rights of americans in the civil war as well as in the Revolutionary War it is considerably older then NRA who claims to be the oldest civil rights organization civil rights is not limited to the rights of a person based on color/sex/race/other it is the rights of person militia's have fought to protect these rights not only with military force but also through politics as Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Massachusetts was established before NRA and many of their objectives are to defend civil rights they are an older american civil rights organization i have provided countless sources to prove that militia's defend civil rights as part of their mission statements and that it is a core element to militia's tho i do not presume to know the oldest militia that was founded to defend our civil rights so i have not placed one as the oldest as it would not be a fact to grab randomly at old militia's and claim they are the oldest so rather then placing unfounded claims to one organization being the oldest i made a correction stating that tho they claim the title of oldest continual civil rights organization as an incorrect bias statement based on skewed statistics that remove militias from the category of civil rights organizations due to their military nature i tried many different citations to more accurately make my point and i edited my posts multiple times due to errors in my spelling an my inexperience with the citation functionality i can prove that Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Massachusetts is older and that it is a civil rights organization as it fought for our civil rights in both the Revolutionary War and the Civil War as well the NRA makes its case as a civil rights group based off the fact that they gave out guns during the Civil War to all races the right to bare arms is a Civil liberty if you want to go in the specifics which would make their case as a civil rights group even less founded in addition my earlier attempts to correct this document by changing IS THE to CLAIMS TO BE were undone i do not mind being blocked but i would prefer that the NRA's wiki page be correct and unbiased

Decline reason:

First things first, welcome to Wikipedia. I'm sorry your start here hasn't been the best. I can see that you are trying to improve the article, however there are some things you should understand about how Wikipedia works first. As you've noticed, Wikipedia depends on reliable sources for all of its content. After having received some feedback about it, I can see you have tried to add some sources to the content you've been adding. However, neither of the sources you added support the claims you were making: this talks about militias, however doesn't appear to make a claim as to the oldest civil rights organization. This is simply a list of the bill of rights and addresses civil rights orgs even less. You need a reliable source that outright says "XXX is the oldest civil rights organization" in order to dispute this claim, which is well supported by other sources. Inferring that some of these militias are older than the NRA from a vague comment that "militias [in general] date back to colonial times" is what we call original research - the source doesn't actually say what you're saying it says. Secondly, Wikipedia works on consensus. When disagreements arise over content, it is important to stop editing and figure out how to proceed first. There is no deadline, nor any "right" version of an article. It's ok to leave things the way they are for a bit while deciding how to word something in a way everyone can agree on. We call this the bold, revert, discuss cycle - you be bold and make a change that you think improves the article, someone reverts it, and you discuss it to figure out where to go. It can be frustrating at times, however we've seen over the years that this does result in high-quality articles.

If you have any questions, please let us know. In the meantime, take this time to review some of the links I've added to better understand how we work and what led to the block. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.