User talk:Samuraiiscool

October 2022

Hello, I'm Wpscatter. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Europa Universalis IV seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. WPscatter ^t/_c 18:09, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wpscatter Samuraiiscool (talk) 18:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 16:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aman.kumar.goel i never even showed interest in Afghanistan, and the only reason i added criticism to mahatma Gandhi was because we had a school project about him and i think its fair to state the facts, and my criticism was based if facts Samuraiiscool (talk) 16:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are disrupting an Indian topic that's why the notice was provided to you which concerns "India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan". Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 16:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aman.kumar.goel how is criticism disruptive? Samuraiiscool (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because your content provides half-baked assumptions contrary to actual history and scholarly literature. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 16:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aman.kumar.goel really care to name any references Samuraiiscool (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 16:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aman.kumar.goel how is criticism a unconstructive edit? i will not revert again but i will get in contact with administrators and ask them how can criticism be a bad thing? Samuraiiscool (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is entirely unconstructive because you are misrepresenting sources, adding unsourced content and adding half-baked assumptions which are already covered in the article.

Read WP:DE and WP:NPOV. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 16:26, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aman.kumar.goel but i have a reference Samuraiiscool (talk) 16:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lets analyze your edit here.

Gandhi was criticised for refusing to protest the hanging...... = This misrepresents source as already confirmed here.

Many Hindu nationalists criticized Gandhi's way of peaceful protest, = This is unsourced and looks nothing more than a laughable lie.

Gandhi was also criticized for is attitudes towards race... = This has been already mentioned at Mahatma_Gandhi#Europeans,_Indians_and_Africans with details how his views modified and he instead became a voice against racism and is hailed as one.

Now you know why your edits are disruptive. Don't repeat these edits. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 16:32, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aman.kumar.goel his views did change which was never challenged in my criticism Samuraiiscool (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aman.kumar.goel if you think that my criticism was half baked then i could make a better one with all the sources Samuraiiscool (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you have a source which debunks that section and claims otherwise then show it here. Otherwise don't present it as "criticism" when it looks nothing more than half-baked misunderstanding on your own part. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 16:37, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aman.kumar.goel alright I'll make a better criticism page with reliable sources run it through you first then post it because its important to have criticism of every hero Samuraiiscool (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It will get deleted per WP:POVFORK. You can't create pages just because you failed to get your point of view on a relevant article.

"its important to have criticism of every hero"? That's nonsense. Read WP:NOCRIT. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 16:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i didn't mean to create a new page. i meant i will make a better criticism with neutral sources, before posting it Samuraiiscool (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, read WP:CSECTION. You are only going to waste time. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 16:48, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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; read about 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. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 20:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said before too, you are just wasting community's time with useless edits like this contrary to your own words above that "i will not revert again". Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 20:22, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Samuraiiscool! While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 00:19, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DanCherek I don't give f anymore, I tried to contribute to Wikipedia then all the effing biased administrators come threatening my account, these administrators get there way and if i want to report them then there is so much effing red tape and bureaucracy, f Wikipedia, I used to think this was a reliable way of getting information but turns out i am wrong, all the important articles are extended confirmed user or administrator for editing and all the administrators and extended confirmed users are biased, they don't want hear facts, they just do whatever they like and whenever some tells them that they wrong and reverts there edits they go ballistic and threaten with "I will block or sanction you", they keep effing abusing there power and Wikipedia doesn't do shit, I've seen this happened in the talk page of many articles and user pages. F Wikipedia I am leaving, I'll get my info from better unbiased sources.

Take that as feedback and now feel free to sanction or block my account Samuraiiscool (talk) 09:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DanCherek if you don't understand why i am going ballistic go read my user talk page or the Mahatma Gandhi talk page Samuraiiscool (talk) 09:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023 - again

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Hindi. - Arjayay (talk) 13:44, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]