User talk:JR789

Hello JR789 and welcome to Wikipedia. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please remember to disclose these connections. —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 03:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

HaHaHa Don't change the subject. It is announced formally in Daihatsu Kogyo Co., Ltd..

If it is announced formally, then cite the claim, rather than blindly reverting. If you fail to stop, you may be blocked from editing. —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 04:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

>blindly reverting.

Is it your self introduction? Don't change the subject. JR789 (talk) 04:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs verifiable and reliable sources to support a claim. And stop posting irrelevant comments by saying Don't change the subject. What subject don't you want to be changed? The fact is that you are adding unsourced material and it is against our policies. Besides the edit you performed here will also be taken into account. Now, if you fail to stop, I will report to an admin who may block you from editing. Instead of making irrelevant comments just to avoid addressing the problem with you edits, just go and cite your claim. —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 04:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't change the subject. Please present evidence to overturn Present Source. JR789 (talk) 04:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Wikipedia. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 04:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Your new Source Please ! JR789 (talk) 05:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

There you go again! Stop adding Japanese language sources! This is the english language wikipedia FYI. —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 05:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

You dislike disappearing of this photograph, isn't it? HOHOHO JR789 (talk) 05:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense! Stop making false claims! Contribute constructively instead. —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 05:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Take it easy, Mr.India. Friendship India and Japan. HaHa JR789 (talk) 05:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

We understand why India is such a situation from seeing your speech and behavior. I go out for a while, ViVa India !! JR789 (talk) 05:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Auto rickshaw. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. The reverted edit can be found here. Thank you. SilverSoul91911 (talk) 08:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello Again, Mr.India JR789 (talk) 08:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Think I'll report you to an admin. I can see from the way you've been talking to Abhishek that you're a vandal and don't adhere to the standards of Wikipedia. SilverSoul91911 (talk) 08:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thai wikipedia รถตุ๊กตุ๊ก

ปี พ.ศ. 2500 ประเทศญี่ปุ่นเริ่มจำหน่ายรถบรรทุกสามล้อ ยี่ห้อไดฮัทสุ (Daihatsu) รุ่นมิดเจ็ท ดีเค (Midget DK) เป็นรถสองจังหวะ (ZA 250cc) มีไฟหน้าหนึ่งดวง และมีที่จับบังคับเหมือนรถจักรยานยนต์ ซึ่งเป็นรถต้นแบบรถตุ๊กตุ๊กของไทย

JR789 (talk) 08:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Rickshaw, you may be blocked from editing. The reverted edit can be found here. Thank you. SilverSoul91911 (talk) 08:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

When do you present evidence? JR789 (talk) 08:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, for one, here. You removed the citation needed tag but never added a citation. :) SilverSoul91911 (talk) 08:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Ha? "Well"? When do you present evidence? I said 'Quit it'. JR789 (talk) 08:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Hai, Can you read Thai Language ? →　Thai wikipedia รถตุ๊กตุ๊ก JR789 (talk) 08:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I can't. SilverSoul91911 (talk) 08:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Then, you do not have the qualification to participate in Wikipedia. JR789 (talk) 08:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I contribute to the English Wikipedia, and as a native speaker of English, I am more then qualified to. I've reported you, that's all that matters. SilverSoul91911 (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

You must pity your no learning. JR789 (talk) 08:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Welcome

WELCOME TO WIKIPEDIA! I am glad that you're here and you want to make constructive edits, however I am concerned about how some of the editors may have come across regarding your recent edits, including the cleanup of missing citations. We encourage you to boldly edit wikipedia and introduce new information. However part of this process include discussing an issue if it is disputed by other editors instead of re-introducing the information again into the article. Such activity appears to be vandalism and is also in violation of our three revert rule. We also ask that in your discussion with other editors you maintain a civil tone. We are all working together to make wikipedia an excellent source of information. If you need assistance, please let me know. Tiggerjay (talk) 09:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Auto rickshaw. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Here are a few words of advice on how to conduct yourself if you wish to be successful in contributing to Wikipedia. Wikipedia works by collaboration and cooperation. Please be civil to other editors, and respect their views even if you disagree with them. In addition, I do not recommend making apparently meaningless or irrelevant comments, such as "HaHaHa", "Hello Again, Mr.India" and "Don't change the subject". It is not clear what your intention is in making these remarks, and people are therefore likely to get the impression that it is intentionally disruptive. Also, it is not likely to encourage cooperation from other editors to make such absurd claims as that nobody without an understanding of Thai is competent to edit English Wikipedia. If you disagree with other editors then please explain why in a civil and courteous manner, and be prepared to discuss your reasons for disagreeing, with a view to trying to reach agreement. That is how Wikipedia works, and in the long run you are more likely to succeed in editing Wikipedia if you fit in to that system than if you appear to be contemptuous towards other editors, which, whether intentionally or not, is how it tends to look at present. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Hai, How do you cope with him if the believer of the Ptolemaic theory comes to the classroom of the science? How do you cope with the person who obstinately says, "Water doesn't freeze!" It is very hard to explain about "common sense". One must draw the line somewhere. You should give advice to him about his ignorance and attitude. JR789 (talk) 02:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Ckatz^chat_spy 08:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

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.

Please note that you have made 14 reverts to the page Auto rickshaw in roughly 28 hours, despite numerous attempts to engage you in discussion and repeated warnings. Furthermore, you have responded to these matters with additional reverts and spurious claims of "vandalism". Please do not make changes to the pages in question without first reaching consensus for your actions. Thank you. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You seem not to be accustomed to the preach. I hear that this person cannot trust Web of the Royal Thai embassy and Oxford English Dictionary. I hear that this person will not warn the person who doesn't present Evidence and the source. Do you believe your sweet‐talker more than truth? It is very unethical. JR789 (talk) 09:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Two points here. First, I have no idea at all what you mean by "You seem not to be accustomed to the preach". Whatever you were trying to say, that is not how we say it in English. Secondly, you seem still not to have grasped the point that Wikipedia works by consensus and discussion. There are lots of people who come here and claim their version is "the truth". Sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong, and sometimes it is a subjective matter, neither objectively right nor objectively wrong. Wikipedia does not work, and could not possibly work, by accepting the word of anyone who announces that they are "right". What do you suppose would happen under that system if two different editors had opposing opinions as to what was "the truth"? No matter how strongly convinced you are that you are right, simply insisting on your version will not work. Instead, try to explain why you think you are right, with a view to persuading other editors to agree with you. In a nutshell, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring is "don't edit war", not "don't edit war unless you think you are right". That, I think, is as much time as I will spend on trying to explain this point to you. When your block expires please try to edit in cooperation with other editors, rather than against them, otherwise it is likely that you will be blocked for much longer. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Please present evidence that "Web of the Royal Thai embassy and Oxford English Dictionary is not true". JR789 (talk) 11:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You just don't get it, do you? JamesBWatson (talk) 12:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

1869, Jinrikisha was invented in Japan.

1874, The word of "jinricksha/jinrikisha" was published in Oxford English Dictionary.

1887, The word of "rickshaw/ricksha" was inserted in Oxford English Dictionary as a relation of "jinricksha/jinrikisha". (Word of "ricksha" is used as manual laborer's colloquialism in Japan. )

The history of the three-wheeler is formally explained in Web of Royal Thai embassy Tokyo.

Please present evidence that "Web of the Royal Thai embassy and Oxford English Dictionary is not true". JR789 (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Please take a moment to review the policy regarding sources at Wikipedia:Verifiability and pay particular attention to the second on non-English sources. Perhaps your edits may be more appropriate over at ja.wikipedia.org where their primary language is the same as this source material. Tiggerjay (talk) 07:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

READ Oxford English Dictionary, OK?JR789 (talk) 15:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Your response shows lack of civility on your part. Despite warnings, you still continue to post non-English language sources in Auto rickshaw and Rickshaw. Don't know when you would learn a lesson. —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 16:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Please do proof whose Oxford English Dictionary is non-English language sources. JR789 (talk) 22:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

About Non-english sources

Folks, You seem to be beating this editor up pretty hard about non-english sources. They're not prohibited. Please see WP:NONENG. Perhaps encouraging this editor to provide the translation would be more effective than mobbing him/her with criticism and reverting edits.

That being said, WP:CIVIL is applicable and both JR789 and his/her commentators must abide by it or risk being blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 00:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I am questioning many times. Please present evidence that "Web of the Royal Thai embassy and Oxford English Dictionary is not true". JR789 (talk) 02:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is questioning if Web of the Royal Thai Embassy or the OED is reliable. I think some folks are having problems with non-english sources. Toddst1 (talk) 02:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Please retrieve word of "Auto rickshaw, midget". Should I enumerate all those web? Please produce evidence against if my description is not correct. I say many times like that. JR789 (talk) 02:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

What is the "problems"? I questioned Royal Thai Embassy, and this Web was introduced to me by them. JR789 (talk) 02:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Communication is failing

Ok. At this point, it has become clear that the issue here is either difficulty with the english language or basic competence. Either way, I urge you to be much less confrontational with other users and please stop undoing the edits of others. Failure to do either of these will result in you being blocked, perhaps indefinitely.

Please be advised that I am a completely un-involved administrator in this case and have not disagreed with you about the Royal Thai Embassy or the OED. Toddst1 (talk) 03:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't change the subject. It is not well-grounded to their insistences. Your remark is contradicted.

"Royal Thai Embassy and the OED can be trusted. "

"However, it is not adopted as evidence. "

What is this ?

JR789 (talk) 23:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for Edit Warring, on Rickshaw, WP:Battleground interactions and WP:Competence issues. I recommend an indef block if problems persist after expiration of this block.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Toddst1 (talk) 23:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Calm down.

You leave a signature.

JR789 (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I say again. Your remark is contradicted.

"Royal Thai Embassy and the OED can be trusted. "

"However, it is not adopted as evidence. "

What is this ? Were you answering also at the school like this?

JR789 (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Very Nice Writing

↓

23:46, 3 June 2011 Toddst1

{{subst:uw-block|time=1 month|reason=Edit Warring, on Rickshaw, WP:Battleground interactions and [[WP:Competence][ issues. I recommend an indef block if problems persist after expiration of this block.|sig=true|subst=subst:}}

↑

Everyone can inspect OED and Thailad web. You(administrator and Indian) should read here. →"Gresham's law"

JR789 (talk) 00:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)