User talk:反撥

Hello, 反撥, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! - wolf 12:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Getting started

• Introduction
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Intuitive guide to Wikipedia

Finding your way around

• Table of contents
• Directories and indexes
• Department directory

Editing articles

• How to develop an article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help

• Frequently asked questions
• Cheatsheet
• Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse
• The Help Desk, for more advanced questions
• Help pages
• Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles

How you can help

• Community Portal
• Join a WikiProject
• Follow Wikipedia etiquette
• Practice civility
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Question

You've only made two edits so far, using an account you just created, yet in those edits, you used a template that was deleted over 18 months ago. How did that happen? Also, when you added that template, you left the article is a very poor state, and as such I had to revert your edits. Why did you not check your changes using WP:PREVIEW, or at least after saving the changes to see what you had done? Not a great start, but mistakes will happen. Please read through the 'welcome' template I've added above. It has good inforamtion for new users on how to edit Wikipedia. Good luck. - wolf 12:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Username

Hi, I just wanted to make a quick comment about your username. As per Wikipedia:Username policy, a non-Latin username is allowed, but can be problematic. From Wikipedia:Signatures;

Non-Latin Signatures

Editors with non-Latin usernames are welcome to edit in Wikipedia. However, non-Latin scripts, such as Arabic, Armenian, Chinese, Cyrillic, Greek, Hebrew, Indic scripts, Japanese, Korean, Persian, Thai and others, are illegible to most other contributors of the English Wikipedia. Not everyone uses a keyboard that has immediate access to non-Latin characters, and names that cannot be pronounced cannot be retained in memory. As a courtesy to the rest of the contributors, users with such usernames are encouraged to sign their posts (at least in part) with Latin characters. For an example refer to User:Παράδειγμα, who signs his posts as "Παράδειγμα/Paradigma."

I understand your username is apparently Japanese, and seems to translate to "Repulsion". I'm not sure what the significance of that is to you, but if you would consider adding that, or another Latinized name or word to your signature, (eg: 反撥/Repulsion), it would make interacting with you a great deal easier for your fellow editors.

To attach a Latinized word or name to your signature, just go to "Preferences", and on the first page, under "User Profile", scroll down to "Signatures". There you will see a text box where you can customize your signature to your liking and you will be able to modify it with an add-on in Latin script that will help others identify and communicate with you. There are additional instructions at Wikipedia:Signature tutorial, and at the bottom of the page you will find a list of unique, colorful and creative signatures, just as you will see throughout Wikipedia, that may help give you some ideas. If you need any assistance, you can contact the Help Desk. I hope you find this useful and, happy editing! - wolf 12:44, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Dispute at American Indian Wars

Hi @反撥:,

I’m Hobomok. I'm writing here to ask you to engage in discussion at Talk:American Indian Wars, per Wikipedia Policy (Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle). You've made major changes to the page’s lead, including adding non-neutral language and suspects sources, and you have been reverted twice now. This is not how the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle works. Once you’ve made a bold edit and you have been reverted, you must go to talk and discuss those edits. I come here to ask you to engage at talk one more time so that this doesn't continue. If you have issues with the page, then by all means, let's discuss it at talk, per policy, rather than courting an edit war.—Hobomok (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I edited the article with reference to the Uyghur Genocide and other articles, using as sources articles published by experts in authoritative academic institutions, specialized books, and news organizations. It is your personal opinion that the editorial content is not neutral.--反撥 (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

This page has nothing to do with Uyghur genocide. Most of your sources are either not reliable (history.com), aren’t appropriate (University of Oregon press release about a historian’s book), or don’t support what you wrote (Washington Post article/Quintero article). It is NPOV, because regardless of whether or not I personally agree with you, that these wars were genocidal is a topic of debate. You cannot write that they were genocide when some historians say that. Finally, none of this belongs in the article’s lead before it is in the article’s body. You need to follow Bold, Revert, Discuss and Wikipedia’s lead style. If you cannot do that, and you refuse to discuss at the article’s talk page, I will take these issues to the relevant noticeboard.—Hobomok (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

You are simply not trying to convince me because you don't like my editing. It would be futile to talk to someone who is trying to "discuss" something on the premise that you don't agree with it. I have concluded from months of observation that this seems to be a common practice on Wikipedia.--反撥 (talk) 21:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I think you might want to take a look at the background of my edits on Native American history. You’ve been reverted by another editor now too (one I’ve disagreed with in the past). At this point you’re edit warring and in violation of Wikipedia policy.—Hobomok (talk) 22:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I am merely writing a very brief summary in the article summary, using sources that meet verifiability. There is absolutely no justification for accusing me of violating the rules for such a legitimate edit.--反撥 (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, there is. You are in violation of multiple rules outlined above, and you’re edit warring. I’m trying to outline them for you here so you can familiarize yourself with them because you’re a new user. You need to revert your edits and engage in discussion at the article talk page.—Hobomok (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Numerous studies and reports, as well as the sources I have used, show that the American Indian Wars were genocide, ethnic cleansing, and forced migration, and that there were adverse effects on the Indians after the war. I fail to see what is unfair or against the rules in writing such a thing in a summary of the American Indian War.

This would be like denying the mass casualties of Stalin's purges or the Cultural Revolution in a summary. Such an assertion is unacceptable.--反撥 (talk) 22:41, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

This is the type of thing you need to say at the article's talk page after you revert your additions. That gets discussion going there. You can do that now. Other editors can discuss with you how to add the changes you want to the article. However, if you do not revert your edits and do so, you're going to be reported for edit-warring.--Hobomok (talk) 22:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

It must be said that the accusation is completely unjustified. It is unacceptable on Wikipedia to accuse a legitimate edit of being unfair, and you are the one who started the edit war against a legitimate edit. Therefore, your actions are not justified at all. I must also express my extreme regret at the current state of Wikipedia, where such unjust accusations are being dismissed.--反撥 (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately Hobomok only made two edits on American Indian Wars and hasn't violated 3RR. on the otherhand I counted 9 edits that you made On American Indian Wars which is an violation of 3RR and is now considered as Edit Warring Chip3004 (talk) 23:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Edit Warring at American Indian Wars

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.--Hobomok (talk) 23:19, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

You have engaged me in an editing battle without any explanation of why. I recommend that you do not do this to other editors.--反撥 (talk) 02:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Hobomok (talk) 23:26, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

August 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I thought I edited it for the development of Wikipedia, but let's understand that we have had an editing war and accept the criticism. If there is anyone who doesn't like the content of the edits, I would like to discuss it properly. I request to be unblocked.反撥 (talk) 02:54, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Not a bad unblock request, but more detail is needed. Have you read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle? Are you going t follow it from now on? Have you considered a 1RR restriction? What edits do you plan on making, if unblocked? I would be more willing to give you another chance if you agreed to a 1RR restriction and agreed not to return to the articles you edit warred over for 6 months. PhilKnight (talk) 09:00, 14 August 2022 (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.