User talk:Freetibet1

Freetibet1, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Freetibet1! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like AmaryllisGardener (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017

Your recent editing history 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 13:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

About your recent edits

From the article history at the page Panchen Lama, I've got the impression that you have constantly tried to reduce the article to nothing but a post of your own political viewed.

Two days ago, I saw that the article's leading section was incomplete to a large extent. As an overview for Panchen Lama, it lacked everything, including the establishment, history and function of this revered Gelug lama lineage. I expanded it -- and you reverted all the expansion, claiming it to be propaganda, to your own version of propaganda, again and again. Yet what I added was the historical aspects, with no relation to the current conflict at all.

If you were really trying to improve the article, I apologize, but please replace what you think as false with sourced contents cited from neutral, third-party resources. But more likely, if you are utterly ignorant about the past and present of the subject, incapable of writing beyond your political belief, and as your user name probably suggests, intend to turn Wikipedia into a propaganda outlet, please stay clear of these articles.

Thanks. --Esiymbro (talk) 09:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Start by not bullshitting people trying to promote idiotic Chinese govt story. You have nothing to contribute, I saw your edits, it's just propaganda. The truth is Chinese govt kidnapped a tulku in order to control Dalai Lama rebirth. That's a crime and people should be punished for this. I am ashamed you are also human like me Freetibet1 (talk)

May 2017

Your recent editing history 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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. Esiymbro (talk) 09:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for edit warring, as you did at Panchen Lama. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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.  — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. Esiymbro (talk) 13:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Materialscientist (talk) 05:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)