User talk:Obsidian Soul

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Re: Philipandrew[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your help on those problematic edits by sockpuppet. I have reopened his case at SPI. I understand you were the first to catch his dubious activities here. But someone removed his indefinite block so he is back to spread more OR. He insists on his "Classical period" as the date of establishment or formation of the Philippine territory/state which is just plain wrong.--RioHondo (talk) 07:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. I've tried to reason with him numerous times in the past, but he either simply doesn't understand or doesn't care. He keeps adding numerous hand-drawn and/or badly-sourced images to various articles with captions that intentionally mislead people into thinking they are historical. From experience, he's probably already done so with numerous other Philippine-related articles. Can't be arsed to follow him around again though. I suggest starting with the people giving him barnstars. They are usually sock puppets. -- OBSIDIANSOUL 07:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Images[edit]

the WP:OR is not violated since its not violates the non-free content policy (NFCC)

  • i think riohondo tries to talk you about this deletions ? — Preceding unsigned

Look the dead Philipandrew become branded Problematic editor in the past but for now i trying to read the Policies here , it had sources in free rights so i dont think it was a propaganda as the Riohondo stated here ({ ᜉ᜔ ᜀ᜔| ໑ } P.A.-II (talk) 08:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC))

WP:OR means "original research", walang kinalaman yan sa copyright/NFCC. Sa nakaraan, ilang beses ko nang ipinaliwanag sa iyo kung bakit mali yang ginagagawa mo, pero hindo mo pa rin naiintindihan. Hindi angkop sa Wikipedia ang mga bagay na gawa gawa mo lang. Gumamit ka ng WP:Reliable sources at wag mong gawan ng storya na wala sa batayan. Hindi ito project sa Grade 6 ng Sibika at Kultura. Encyclopedia ho ito. Hindi ka pwedeng basta basta na lang mangguhit ng "fanart" ng kahit ano base sa iyong sariling mga hakahaka at sabihing historical ito. Bawal ang personal na opinyon mo mismo. Yung pwede lang yung materyal na mapagkakatiwalaan, gaya ng mga scientific articles, mga libro galing sa unibersidad, mga peryodikal, et cetera. Basahin mo sa kabuoan ang WP:OR at intindihin mo ito. Na-block ka na noon, ngunit eto ka na naman, dateng gawi.
ENGLISH: WP:OR means "original research", copyright/NFCC has nothing to do with it. I've tried to explain what you were doing wrong multiple times in the past, but you still don't understand it. Things you just made up are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Use WP:Reliable sources and don't add anything that isn't found in your references. This isn't a Grade 6 Civics and Culture school project. It's an encyclopedia. You can't simply draw "fanart" of anything you want from what you believe is true and claim that it's historical. Your own opinions are irrelevant. Use reliable source materials like scientific articles, books published by universities, periodicals, et cetera. Read and understand WP:OR in its entirety. You've been blocked before and here you are again, doing exactly the same thing.
-- OBSIDIANSOUL 08:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Anong hindi original research ang ginawa ko The resources was free source with own wordings , Hindi yan made up Base yan sa mga article dito sa wiki ,na Binabasa ko Papaano naging fan art yan wala naman akong binabasehan sa gawa ko kundi ang article din dito at Statements ng Article... Anyway Anung laban ko pala dito sa mga admins at mga Deletionsit ... Good day ({ ᜉ᜔ ᜀ᜔| ໑ } P.A.-II (talk) 08:35, 10 July 2016 (UTC))
  • Hindi ko din po sinasabi na Nag exist daw ang Pilipinas before 1560's (As Riohondo stated) Alam nating lahat yun.. pinupunto ko lang po yung pag kumpleto sa infobox (kase nangaling din naman sa Precolonial era naka stated sa article. kaya inilagay ko yun sa infobox mula Precolonial up to Classical (na hindi nauunawaan ni RioHondo). duon po nag umpisa yan hangang sa mga WP:OR issue Sabagay (wala nang saysay to) pero pang nahap ko ang proper policy term dito baka maliwanagan, thanks ({ ᜉ᜔ ᜀ᜔| ໑ } P.A.-II (talk))
  • PS :Try to review the worthiness of a media before you judge or ...the neutrality will be disregarded (If you are an Admin and if you know what i mean)

({ ᜉ᜔ ᜀ᜔| ໑ } P.A.-II (talk) 09:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC))

Bawal nga ang original research. Yun nga ang problema. Dapat mayroon kang basehan. Hindi ka ba tinuroan kung paano magresearch sa eskwela? Pag tinanong kita, paano mo nalaman kung anong itsura ng mga idjang? Paano mo mo nalaman kung anong itsura ng sombrero ng mga pre-Hispanic na mga Tagalog? Paano mo nalaman kung gaano kalawak ang teritoryo ng Sultanate of Maguindanao? May basehan ka ba nito? Wala. Sarili mo lang imahinasyon. Hindi yan angkop dito, at lalong mas hindi angkop ang revisionism. Isa sa mga pinakaimportanteng polisiya sa Wikipedia ay ang paggamit ng RELIABLE SOURCES (saklaw rin niyan ang illustrations). At hindi reliable source ang Wikipedia articles o ang iyong sariling pagunawa. Matuto ka muna nito.
And yes, simply put, sorry pero hindi worthy ang pictures mo para sa isang encyclopedia. Poorly researched or completely unsourced, badly made, at haka haka.
Bukod nito, ilang beses ka na bang sinabihan na wag kang gumawa gawa ng ibang accounts at ipagkunwari na ibang mga tao ito? Pero ginagawa mo pa rin. Maba-ban ka na naman dahil nito. Anyway, wala akong oras or enerhiya para ipaliwanag ito ng paulit ulit dahil hindi ka naman nakikinig. Ewan ko kung dahil ito sa hindi ka masyadong marunong mag-English o talagang matigas lang talaga ang ulo mo, pero last ko na to na reply. Kausapin mo si RioHondo.
ENGLISH: As I said, original research is forbidden. That's the problem. You need sources. Weren't you taught how to do proper research in school? If I asked you right now, how do you know how the idjang fortresses looked like? How do you know what hats pre-Hispanic Tagalog women wore? How do you know the full extent of the territories of the pre-Hispanic Sultanate of Maguindanao? Do you have any basis for this? No. All of it is from your own imagination. That's not appropriate here, neither is revisionism. One of the most important policies of Wikipedia is the use of RELIABLE SOURCES (including for illustrations). And Wikipedia articles or your own personal opinions are not considered reliable sources. Find out what that is first.
And yes, simply put, sorry but your images are not worthy of being in an encyclopedia. Poorly researched or completely unsourced, badly made, and conjectural.
Furthermore, how many times have you been told not to make other accounts and pass them off as different people? But you're still doing it. You can be blocked again for this. Anyway, I neither have the time nor energy to explain this over and over when you're not even listening. I don't know if it's because you can't speak English well or if you're just naturally stubborn, but this is my last reply. Talk to RioHondo.
-- OBSIDIANSOUL 09:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
    • And you are not the reliable one who can judge mt work, of the Deletionist here accused me of a Sock puppet issue idont own I hope wikimafia was break out, i have now idea why wikipedia is ruined (some admin in one side) thanks ({ ᜉ᜔ ᜀ᜔| ໑ } P.A.-II (talk))

Disambiguation link notification for September 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Binaki, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bogo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Banana article titles again[edit]

Hi, I'd welcome your views at Talk:Cooking plantain. It needs input from editors with knowledge outside North America and Europe. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Obsidian Soul. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png Hi! I just came across your wonderful finished Tiktaalik reconstruction. I remember all the work you put into it, and I'm so happy to see the result. Really great work! Petter Bøckman (talk) 23:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Cheers! :) -- OBSIDIANSOUL 00:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Caulerpa lentillifera, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sea grape (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Sampaguita (1978).jpg[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

Thanks for uploading File:Sampaguita (1978).jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
  2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)