User talk:FedualJapan

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

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]

I believe you are talking about your self with disruptive editing by removing credible verifiable sources. None of that was my original research. Please look at what I posted. FedualJapan (talk) 14:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again. https://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/tv-shows/Sofia-the-First/Princess-Maya/

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]

Also, either this article is wrong or you are telling me wrong. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Online_reliable_sources

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 am 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 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

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 Please share all the reasons I have been blocked. Thank you.