User talk:Paratrooper73

Welcome!

Hello, Paratrooper73, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to IHuman Rights Foundation does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV).

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Cathar11 (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2009 (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 may also click on the signature button 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) 18:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Rd232 ^talk 18:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Human Rights Foundation. 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. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. NJA (t/c) 18:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the block posted for me in the Human rights section article: I think that fairness and impartiality have been a huge issue in this article, people with specific agenda have tried repeatedly to insert statements without proper support or knowledge. Last editing attempted by some person was clearly aimed to hide some aspects dealt with in the article while maintaining others that used the same sources and evidence and I quote. "... was alleged to be linked to..." (An alleged terrorist organization), the source for this has been the statements provided by: Mr. Villa Vargas (Whose statement withdrawal, and the denouncement of torture caused him to be persecuted and he fled the country) and Mr Gueder and Mendoza (Whose rights has been systematically violated after their statements denouncing that they were tortured, brutalized, choked and blindfolded to produce fake accusations). The situation of Vargas is according to the last information precarious, but the situation of Gueder and Mendoza is tragic, they have demonstrated that they were tortured, they have won a Constitutional appeal (Which MUST be put to effect immediately after the judge pronounces the verdict -Check Bolivian Constitution art 125-)but they are still in prison for 76 days now and counting. So it is fair and does it complain with wp:Balance and the basic principle of impartiality to admit the very same sources to make an accusation when Im somehow sympathetic with some position but it is not a reputable source when the same newspapers (From La Paz Bolivia I have edited all from Santa Cruz Bolivia to avoid any bias) show that the facts were " a little bit" different than the initial attempt made by the Bolivian government?. I really think the answer IS obvious.