Wikipedia

FedualJapan

Joined 4 October 2020
Latest comment: 3 years ago by HighInBC in topic IRC unblock request declined

Welcome!

Hello, FedualJapan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 05:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

November 2021

edit
Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

  Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Maya (given name), you may be blocked from editing. JesseRafe (talk) 14:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

https://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/Mary-Long/. (Voice Actor for Maya in eps 103).

https://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/tv-shows/Sailor-Moon-Super-S/. If you look will see the Maya from eps 142 as Mayako with a Japanese voice actor. Cloverway made it Maya where viz and Japanese sub is Mayako.

Below is pictures of all three Maya’s. The other two are screenshots of viz episode summaries containing Maya for eps 103 and Mayako for 142. I did have pictures from Sophia season one eps 8 saying Princess Maya is voiced by Mary long but the snapshot of a black screen. However, the link above on Princess Maya or this link on Olivia Grace, has a green check mark with Maya. Should suffice enough. https://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/Olivia-Grace/

https://ibb.co/WDnsYKW https://ibb.co/rFXzrWR https://ibb.co/RQ3YVN5 https://ibb.co/yWvwvS9 https://ibb.co/4M3XjNt

It is you who is in the wrong here. FedualJapan (talk) 15:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply 

FedualJapan (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia is not an wp:RS so cannot be used to support claims in an article. Even if it was wp:v is clear, it would have to mention what you want to add. Your additions to Maya (given name)seemed to fall foul of both of these. You also need to read wp:brd and wp:consensus and make a case at the articles talk page as to why your additions were valid.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

  • @Slatersteven: Thank you for the information. I will read them. I think Sophia the first is not flesh out because while their are some princesses and Princes mentioned but not all. Princess Maya appears over ten times over 4 seasons. The article may not include her because no one has added her. I am already asking if I can add her with reliable information. I have asked about the other two on the talk page. Thank you for the good faith.
  • @Slatersteven: I have been reading Wikipedia policies and rereading everything. I want to clarify I am using a wikipedia policy about the links I used and I have not used Wikipedia itself as a source. My problem is that I tried to talk to Jesse but if they handled it like MJL. There would be no issues. With Jesse I was fight it is not original research and those links by Wikipedia policies prove it is reliable and not original research. If Jesse talked to me this warning would not happen and the warning is about original research and I was not posting original research. It is not just about challenging edits with Jesse, and especially after how MJL explain it, it is now less about challenging edits but more about what I posted was not original research. As for the challenging edits, I can make a strong case for Princess Maya. I am working on it.

  Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to assume bad faith when dealing with other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, you may be blocked from editing. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. ——Serial 15:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

  • I am sorry you feel that way but did you do that to me talking to User:MJL. My edits have been standing up for myself and I read a few pages before I wrote about that.
    • Irrelevant, we have policies you are expected to obey. None of those involve standing up for yourself (and in fact that mentality may violate wp:battelgound). You need sources to back up any challenged edit, and if you are reverted you make a case at talk, you do not wp:editwar.Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
      • @Slatersteven: I am sorry but his warning is nothing to do with any challenged edit. However, it does stem from that. And I was talking about going to the administrators notice board about how I was treated and stating the truth in how I was treated. Was that Wikipedia article I read wrong? I thought those were rightfully actions? I thought I was following the policy. I have every right to report how I was treated, right?
      • @Slatersteven: The links I posted are sources to verify it is not original research. Please see my other comment to you. I have been obeying the policies as best as I can or what I know of them. I think everyone needs to obey them. I am sorry there is more here than just a challenge edit and I was challenging it was not original research which my links proved that. However Serial’s comment is on when he has bad faith on me. If you go to that link you will see Serial claiming bad faith on me and saying I was trolling Drmies when I wasn’t. I said I wasn’t and “ If anything they trolled me. I was trying to have a real conversation while they only could personally attack me and bring in others to attack me which had no reason to be there.” And apologized for the lies. Serial then issued the warning. Since I was mirroring Serial’s and stating how I seen things they assumed more bad faith with me instead of good faith. Could you issue the same warning to them? I was not trolling as Serial claimed I was. What has happened especially with Drmies, it is just lack of communication, misunderstandings, and assumptions on both side that cause everything to escalated.

November 2021

edit
Latest comment: 3 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion
 
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
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 ~~~~}}.

Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:09, 6 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

 
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).

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

Request reason:

I hope my messages were read, all I was trying to do prevent further damage and undo damage that was made. I was trying to clear up misunderstandings and saying this is just from lack of communication, misunderstandings, and assumptions on both side that cause everything to escalated. If someone talked to me like MLJ this would never had happened. I was just helping the situation. I was not causing any more issues just trying to have a real conversation. I am trying to be a good editor and a good person. The right to do is to say sorry and try to mend what has happened. May I be unblocked. This is the end of the situation for me not unless someone else writes me. As I have said 4 times this is from lack of communication, misunderstandings, and assumptions on both sides. That is all I was saying when I was blockedFedualJapan (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Decline reason:

Only one unblock template at a time, please. You've already wasted too much of other's time in ANI, and a rambling unblock request doesn't convince me that you're not going to waste more of it. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:03, 6 November 2021 (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.

I have read the disruptive editing page. I don’t see where having conversations on talk pages on how it was a misunderstanding, and from lack of communication is being disruptive. I was trying to mend the damage on Wikipedia in good faith. I was being civil and explaining and mending as any good person would. I was not being disruptive. Please can I be unblockedFedualJapan (talk) 01:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC).Reply

 
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).

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

Request reason:

I was explaining. How can I convince you I will do much best at being a good editor. I was blocked for clearing up misunderstandings and being civil.I will try not to talk up anyone’s else time on here. Can you unblock me or only block me for a few days. I didn’t mean to take up someone’s time. I will talk less to editors. I just cared.FedualJapan (talk) 02:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Decline reason:

You were not blocked for "clearing up misunderstandings and being civil". It's unclear to me if you really believe this is why you were blocked (in which case WP:CIR applies), if perhaps you have problems communicating in English (which is perfectly fine, I couldn't communicate sufficiently in any other language, but I'm afraid WP:CIR would still apply), or if you are trolling. In any case, I'm afraid we'll need to leave you blocked. Yamla (talk) 10:57, 6 November 2021 (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.


Hello, FedualJapan,
You really need to read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks before posting another unblock request. I would remove the current open one before it is responded to because ordinarily, blocked editors are only allowed 3 or 4 unblocked requests before talk page access is removed. I've chosen to leave this message rather than denying your current unblock request.
There are many problems here but the biggest is that you keep saying that misunderstanding was the problem instead of accepting the fact that you were wrong. Editor after editor, admin after admin was telling you that you were incorrect but you continue to insist that you were right and your screenshots weren't original research. They are. You are blocked because you persistently insist you are correct despite everyone trying to explain to you that you are incorrect. As long as you don't accept that your understanding of Wikipedia policy is inconsistent with every other editor, you will never be unblocked. Besides the guide to appealing blocks, you need to read Wikipedia:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You keep repeating again and again how wrong other editors are. You say that you don't think CIR applies to you but, clearly, administrators reviewing your case believe it does or you would not be blocked. If you want to return to editing, you need to listen to what everyone has been saying to you and accept the fact that you were in the wrong here. Stubbornly insisting you were right means that you will not be unblocked. Liz Read! Talk! 01:28, 7 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • user:Liz Thank you for your choice and helping me. I really appreciate it. I will read those articles before opening a new one. Liz there has been many misunderstandings and all I was saying those links by a Wikipedia policy are reliable. I will post that link and what it said. I was not saying the screenshots were, I was using that to say it was not original research. It was not about the Snapshots but the link. If JesseRafe or Drmies handled it like MJL there would never been a problem. I have said MJL explain the other issue I had. I have not being stubbornly insisting I have been right but if I have been stubbornly insisting an Wikipedia policy has been right. I don’t think I made a claim “I am right” just the link has been right from a Wikipedia policy. I don’t think it would be right to say a Wikipedia policy was wrong because others had assumed I am wrong. Right? I think this applies: From Wikipedia: “ In fact, even users who've been around for a while might not have come across certain parts of Wikipedia where those policies are most relevant. ” There are many misunderstandings here. I will reread what I posted to make sure I did say I am right and if I did I will apologize if I had and read those two links you giving me. Is there anything else I need to address? Troll has been used against me but that is assuming bad faith in me. Do I need to address that? It was just a misunderstanding and what I did was misunderstood. Also, me and Drmies was having two different conversations with lack of communication. I even posted what that policy said to Drmies at the end of the conversation after talking about it a few times. Should I say Wikipedia own article was wrong? Please let me know anything else. Also should I note Serial NPA violator and Banmealready is not me? They could damage the situation more with me and I don’t want to be affected by their actions. They were heard and I thank them but I wished they would stop because they were only aggravating the situation more and cause more damage now.


  • User:Cullen328 After reading what User:Liz and User:Yamla wrote me and I had reviewed things. I have some links at the bottom. I want to write the unblocked request right to be unblocked. I need to know what is actually wrong. Because I feel like I have been blocked for punishment from a one-side misinterpretation of a misunderstanding.
You blocked me on Disruptive editing:competence is required. That may fit for how your views are but there is a lot of imposing arguments on me stemming from a misunderstanding. Yes, I understand there was misunderstanding, miscommunication, and misinterpretation on both sides because after User:MJL explained to me I reread the other sides and noticed the mix match conversation and now I see it is deeper than I thought. In that conversation I was labeled a few things like CIR and troll but it is all from a one-side misinterpretation of a misunderstanding from a newcomer that felt personally attacked and BITE applies.
I want to explain how Disruptive Editing and CIR does not fit. I want to explain how  it is not WP:ICANTHEARYOU either. In that it says “Stop writing, listen, and consider what the other editors are telling you. “ I was. And I did again after link 1 and link 2 because MJL cleared up my confusion. If I wasn’t than I would not had listened to MJL. After I wrote three comments that got me blocked for trying to do the right thing now I ask all the admins and editors to “Stop writing, listen, and consider what the other editors are telling you. And please keep this in mind. “”Remember: "Do what's right; don't bite. Being a friend is all right!"”” And “ Do not bite the newcomers, and be aware you may be dealing with someone who is new and confused, rather than a problem editor.”
With User:JesseRafe and User:Drmies I was confused. However MJL explained it. I do believe: 1. Everyone is looking at the situation before the conversation in link 1 and Link 2 instead of after 14:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC) where MJL explained it to me. Thank you so much MJL. I have stated that a few times and showed I had accepted MJL explanation. 2. Everyone jumped to conclusions instead of listening or understanding the other side. Everyone including me. But there are imposing arguments on me. 3. Link 3 makes the link reliable source if there is a green check on the picture. If that is wrong to all these admins and editors they should be talking on the talk page saying it is wrong and not try to make it me who is in the wrong or Link20XX see link 9.  4. It is said on the disruptive editing page that “Each case should be treated independently” I believe it is not in the sense because of using past experiences to label this as CIR and disruptive without actually seeing this situation as it really is.Reply
Imposing arguments on me.
1. The idea I was using screenshots as a reliable source as in Wikipedia validate sources is an imposed argument. I will explain in a minute.
2. The idea I am saying I am right is an imposed argument. Show me where I have said I am right.
3. The idea I am saying everyone is wrong is an imposed argument. Show me where I have said someone is wrong? The one to Drmies on Sailor Moon talk page is irrelevant here because it was about their actions in a interpretation and please remember I felt personally attacked by Drmies at that time. I took it as it was like someone saying a better show for you would be teletubbies after someone complains about family guy.
4. The idea I keep insist my view point is an imposed argument. 
5. The idea to forcibly say I am wrong on an imposing argument and on a one-sided misinterpretation of a misunderstanding before link 1 is uncivil. 
6. The idea I trolled Drmies or a troll is an imposing argument.
Misunderstandings
1. Misunderstanding 1: Jesserafe said there are non-notables. Reading the link it was talking about making articles and pages. Something about validation. In my viewpoint they had the name Maya and two had a whole episode to them where Princess Maya has been in a few episodes. In the view there are valid characters with the name Maya is right but as discussed with MJL in links 1 and 2 that is not Wikipedia guidelines. Different views, either right or wrong. All those sources was to back up there were Characters name Maya. But it was misunderstood I was using those as reliable sources to post to Wikipedia as they were reliable sources for Wikipedia. It was to validate my claim and those are reliable for my claim. One was an reliable source and I mentioned a few time and I think that gave others the wrong impression with two misstated sentences from me. That link is a reliable source if they had the green check mark and Princess Maya/Olivia Grace has that green check mark. But all I was saying they were factual characters and were notable in the shows but just not in Wikipedia standards. Different view points.
2. Misunderstanding 2: JesseRafe puts a warning about original research and  personal analysis. In my viewpoint the source is something officially put out by official companies. It is not my personal analysis or original research as my original character, my original idea or my original interpretation. Because if someone watches this episodes they will see it is factual. In the scope of Wikipedia it is meaning something else.  I realized that later.  Even when I went to ANI I had showed I didn’t understand Wikipedia’s viewpoint. I said:. “a warning about original research and nothing I put was original research. It was real facts. “ But I felt at this time I was being told what I was posting were lies and I was proving they were not. Again, this was not CIR. The screenshots was to validate they were real and I was not making them up and not to include the screenshots as in validate resource for Wikipedia.
3. Misunderstanding 3. The link is a reliable source if it had a green check mark on it from Wikipedia policy. Princess Maya/Olivia Grace has one. She appears over 10 times in 4 season not all the characters are in that page. Please see link 1, link 2 and link 3 . Link 10 and link 11 are the reliable source because of green check marks. But that was not really why I was talking to Jesse and Drmies again just it evolved to that. It is a reliable source in the scope of Wikipedia.
4. Misunderstanding 4. After MJL cleared up the misunderstandings. I reread everything and being civil to try to clear up misunderstandings I wrote three messages trying to do the right thing and be a friend and I was blocked trying to undo the damage and trying to explain what was misunderstood.  Comment 1: explains the past issue and there were two issues that was made one. Then made into a CIR. I was not insisting anything and even showed I accepted MJL explanation. The second one:I talked about the links not screenshots where verified. If the consensus disagrees with that link. I can’t change that and I can’t be made wrong when it is there. That is uncivil to say I am wrong when it is on that page. What I said about comment one and two, the same could be said for my third comment.
5. Misunderstanding 5: “Make a strong effort to see their side of the debate, and work on finding points of agreement.”  I did and tried to fix it but it was misunderstood and because I was label wrong in a dispute that was having two different conversations from different view points with misunderstandings and miscommunication.
6. Misunderstanding 6. I am not a troll or a problem-making editor.
Explaining the links:


1. Link 1 is where MJL had explained it and I had accepted it.
2. Link 2 is back on the ANI showing again I accepted MJL explanation.
3. Link 3 Shows I accept MJL explanation and saying It just lack of communication, misunderstandings, and assumptions on both side that cause everything to escalated.
4. Link 4 shows I accept MJL explanation and was in a civil manner with good faith to clear up misunderstandings. 
5. Link 5 shows I accepted MJL explanation and see 4. I talk about the problem when It happened. I did fight original research then but not Wikipedia scope.
6. Link 6 is where I corrected link 5.
7. My first unblocked request. Shows I accepted MJL explanation and what I was doing when I was blocked.
8. My comment to Yamla saying the same thing. It should be clear I had accepted MJL explanation.
9. Is where an editor confirms I can use the link since it had a green check.
10. Link to Princess Maya green check mark
11. Link to Olivia Green green check mark
Links:
1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Maya_(given_name)
2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1053724125
3. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Online_reliable_sources
4.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1053782926

5. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1053781877
6. Corrected. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1053998928
7. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1053785960
8. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1053960175
9. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1037042028
10. https://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/tv-shows/Sofia-the-First/Princess-Maya/
11. https://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/Olivia-Grace/
Let me show you something: Drmies and I had a misunderstanding and miscommunication. I felt Drmies was personally attacking me. Drmies felt I was trolling them https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1053572477. And label it CIR in the misunderstandings https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1053567460
Later Serial said I basically trolled Drmies, and that is not what was happening. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents?markasread=231864423&markasreadwiki=enwiki#I_have_have_a_few_issues_but_I_put_them_as_2_issues. And from MJL comment to that seems it could be a CIR and WP:IDHT. This is after MJL work things out with me and this was from before on a misunderstanding conversation where I was confused. New comer. A past conversation with labels change someone’s view, even though they fixed the issue and knowing they fixed the issue. While I re-read and understand there was a misunderstanding. The affects of the misunderstandings are still there and the statements are taking at face value and the real situation is not taking in. If you look at my denials I believe the wrongful labeling is still in affect.
I found these comments on Wikipedia policies:
  • “Similarly, think hard before calling a newcomer a single-purpose account. Besides, it is discouraged to label any editor with such invidious titles during a dispute (see Wikipedia:Don't call a spade a spade).
  • New editors have the right to be treated with respect and civility; but they should also be aware that, while courtesy and a warm greeting will usually be extended, they may be subject to more scrutiny in the early stages of their editing as other editors attempt to assess how well they adhere to Wikipedia standards.
  • Existing editors must assume good faith concerning the user account, act fairly and civilly, and to not bite newcomers. Remember that every editor on Wikipedia was new at some point. Care is needed if addressing single-purpose accounts on their edits.
  • ”A newcomer brings a wealth of ideas, creativity and experience from other areas that, current rules and standards aside, have the potential to better our community and Wikipedia as a whole. It may be that the rules and standards need revising or expanding; perhaps what the newcomer is doing "wrong" may ultimately improve Wikipedia. Observe for a while and, if necessary, ask what the newcomer is trying to achieve before concluding that their efforts are wanting or that they are simply "wrong".”
  • Liz comment showed how big of a misunderstanding this is. This has escalated bigger than I had imagine.
  • Liz said “the biggest is that you keep saying that misunderstanding was the problem instead of accepting the fact that you were wrong.”
    • I hope this comment explains what is actually happening here.
  • Liz said “you continue to insist that you were right and your screenshots weren't original research. They are”
    • First, it was the link not snapshots. To the rest show me where I said that.
  • Liz said “you persistently insist you are correct despite everyone trying to explain to you that you are incorrect”.
    • Show me.
  • Liz said “As long as you don't accept that your understanding of Wikipedia policy is inconsistent with every other editor, you will never be unblocked.”
    • I am not sure what is meant here. It seems my comments have not been read.
  • Liz said “You keep repeating again and again how wrong other editors are”
    • Show me.
  • Liz said ”you need to listen to what everyone has been saying to you and accept the fact that you were in the wrong here”.
    • I have been listening. And wrong with? Really it is just I had different viewpoints and I fully understand Wikipedia’s Viewpoints from MJL.
  • Liz said “Stubbornly insisting you were right means that you will not be unblocked.”
    • Show me. With the links I posted my comments show something else and if that is why I am block then I am wrongfully blocked.
I hope I have cleared up the misunderstandings. So please share why I am blocked or have I cleared that up? I want to write my unblock request right. Please see link 8 because that has been the reason I think I have been blocked since the beginning it is just for misunderstanding my comments in good faith to clear up misunderstandings. I need to really understand your interpretations. If I did what Liz requested I would be writing something I did not do at all. FedualJapan (talk) 00:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • FedualJapan, I need you to stop pinging me, OK? I am not interested in participating here at all; you keep saying "I'm misunderstood" while you keep giving evidence of the fact that it's you who doesn't understand things. "Imposed argument" and "green check mark"--none of this is going to get you unblocked, and all of this is going to make the next admin more likely to revoke access to your talk page. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • Liz wrote, "As long as you don't accept that your understanding of Wikipedia policy is inconsistent with every other editor, you will never be unblocked" and I agree with her completely. You replied with an incredibly long wall of text that shows to experienced editors that you simply do not understand how English Wikipedia works, and this has gone on far too long. I am revoking your talk page access. I suggest that you try editing productively in the version of Wikipedia for your first language. Please read Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System for your unblock options. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

IRC unblock request declined

edit
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

After spamming several pages on the IRC unblock channel this user has had another unblock request declined. Same competency issues continuing. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 08:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FedualJapan&oldid=1054480087"