Jump to content

User talk:YuukiHirohiko

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Kautilya3 (talk) 07:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

YuukiHirohiko, you are invited to the Teahouse!

[edit]
Teahouse logo

Hi YuukiHirohiko! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Missvain (talk).

Visit the Teahouse
We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


Signature error

[edit]

Did you change your signature from preferences? Because there seems to be an error in it. Your username comes up twice in your signature, one extra time in the end like here. Just though you might wanna look into it. Ping to reply. Regards, Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 20:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DS notice

[edit]

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.

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.

Siddsg (talk) 12:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that rants such as this are not permitted on pages covered by discretionary sanctions. If you have valid complaints, please report them at WP:ANI with evidence. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Go on, make sure India wins every war on Wikipedia. If you are gonna pretend that you are NPOV enough to warn me, at least remove the corresponding Indian claims that you deemed to be unreliable on sources of the same premise on the Chinese side. Deleting my opinion based on experience and calling it a rant sure made Wikipedia a lot more accessible and non biased. YuukiHirohiko (talk) 01:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please calm down, think it through as to what you want to convey, and write clear posts so that people can understand what you are talking about. Most of your posts are very vague and make random allegations that we can't figure out what they are about.
Even here, you say that I had "deemed [something] to be unreliable sources". I have no idea what sources you are talking about. Can you be specific? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020

[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Thanoscar21. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, 2020 China–India skirmishes, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Unnecessary, and it's confirmed Thanoscar21talk, contribs 16:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to 2020 China–India skirmishes. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.

Along with this, it was already brought to your notice about edit war. Better use talk page for such thing rather reverting or removing materials while addressing with self percieved narrative and opinion. Thank you. Drat8sub (talk) 02:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks. I'll try my best as multiple well researched edits on my end were reverted and deleted with no notice or a bad excuse. Though I'm happy some of those people were banned for doing so. YuukiHirohiko (talk) 03:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1RR

[edit]

It seems that you are gaming WP:1RR rule at Nathu La and Cho La clashes as your history shows. Fact that you made this revert instead of replying to the concern on talk page is nonetheless clear cut edit warring. You should self revert before I would be obliged to report your violation on WP:ARE. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 09:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry mate but you removing my entire edit with nothing backing it up sounds like intentional warring to me. If you are gonna use Indian government sources for the Indian side, there’s no reason to not use Chinese sources on the Chinese side. YuukiHirohiko (talk) 10:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not one "Indian government" was used for stating Indian victory and Indian advancement in the war. While you are only using non-scholarly unreliable sources for claiming any Chinese advance. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 10:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry mate again, then would you care to explain how China has Cho La in its LAC? Indian victory aside doesn’t change the fact that China also declared a victory. Scholar sources or not Xinhua or People’s Daily are mouthpieces or not they still claimed victory. I don’t see the reasoning behind this argument. YuukiHirohiko (talk) 10:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given your continued failure to recognize problems with your editing and refusal to self-revert, I have now filed a report against you at WP:ARE where you can comment. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 10:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nathu La and Cho La clashes; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  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 and 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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. A slow edit war is still an edit war. Please participate in resolving differences on the talk page, where we are trying to find common ground rather than reverting to your preferred version.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines

[edit]

Information icon I suggest you read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines.

  • "Editors have the option – not recommended – of simply blanking, instead of archiving, threads on their own talk pages." (WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE)
  • "Although archiving is preferred, users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages." (WP:OWNTALK)

So Kautilya3 was allowed to make this edit.[1] -- Toddy1 (talk) 10:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the rules for user talk pages are different from article talk pages in some respects. If your message had been posted on an article talk page (e.g. Talk:Nathu La and Cho La clashes), he/she could not have simply reverted your post. (There are exceptions to that.)-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.YuukiHirohiko (talk) 10:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Japanese carpentry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kanna. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Wareon (talk) 04:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


See WP:STONEWALLING and WP:GASLIGHTING. Consensus was already reached at Talk:2020 China–India skirmishes/Archive 4#United States is a biased source and also on Talk:2020_China–India_skirmishes/Archive_3#"35_Chinese_soldiers_killed" where you participated. Dont start it all over without any good reason. Wareon (talk) 04:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A consensus was reached where 35 CASUALTIES were the consensus. Not KILLED. Do NOT edit wiki for your own sake. YuukiHirohiko (talk) 07:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Show where the consensus was reached? Quote the parts which confirm your misleading view because I can't find it. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 13:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you don’t read the talk section, don’t edit. Fact bending isn’t going to change the truth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_China–India_skirmishes&action=edit&section=4

https://www.thequint.com/news/webqoof/whatsapp-forward-on-death-of-30-chinese-troops-aired-by-times-now-fact-check

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/govt-sources-cite-us-intelligence-to-claim-china-suffered-35-casualties-during-galwan-clash/article31849492.ece

“The figure could be a combination of total number of soldiers killed and seriously wounded, they added.”

Fight your nationalist war somewhere else, not Wikipedia, please.YuukiHirohiko (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon

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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

  • It doesn't matter how others misrepresent the original report which was made by US news, which said "35 Chinese troops died".[2] But other reliable sources have also said "35 died" so you need to stick to only those which have correctly interpreted the original report. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 08:48, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was agreed upon that there was an equal amount of reporting saying deaths and casualties, and the “30 deaths were debunked so that the only logical option would be casualties, hence the consensus. If you can find the original reporting that says 35 deaths, which the US News report isn’t the original, I’ll be more than happy to stick to that. YuukiHirohiko (talk) 09:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of sockpuppetry block

[edit]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/YuukiHirohiko. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
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 ~~~~}}.  Mz7 (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

Please explain which one is my Sockpuppet? I have so far made no edits with my accounts and I don’t see how I’m banned for this reason. YuukiHirohiko (talk) 7:40 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Hello Wikipedia administrators. I have been blocked for the reason of misusing Sockpuppets. First of all I would like to appeal that both “DharmaP4t3lDE” and “Xinjiang guy” are not my sock puppets. My main account name is YuukiHirohiko. I have been editing the 1967 Nathu la article and the admin’s reasoning behind banning me for the first time was that “[I] was making the problem seem worse than it is”, by using a Sockpuppet to vandalize the page further proving my talk section’s point. However he didn’t read the date of the talk page I created. It was almost a month before this “DharmaP4t3IDE” showed up. We clearly had a consensus in the talk page hence the motive is illogical. I do not know anyone named Dharma nor do I have an account named “Xinjiang guy”. The admin sees that Dharma and I are using the same IP which I also do not understand. I edited Japanese wiki way before this and I didn’t have an account back then. The person could’ve used my IP and there is this thing called IPS theft, with a dedicated VPN server they could use my IP as their IP. I hope this can be considered to the benefit of the doubt for my cause. My speculation is that I did anger some Indian editors in my editing and pushing for neutrality in the article of 1967 Chinese Indian clashes. This article is a part of the Indian national pride over China and a sensitive topic. This is worsened by my edits and push for 3rd Party US sources in the 2020 Galwan incident. Please check in the edit summary and talk section. The real Sockpuppet I have, Bobcat1997, was used today to restore the 2020 Galwan page to the agreed consensus state in the talk section. A few editors and I discussed and agreed that the “35 killed” figure was indeed fake news as it was debunked by multiple Indian outlets. The editor Amar Kumar Goel intentionally cherry picked earlier news which still cited “35 killed” figure without discussing nor consider the consensus we had. I had proper edit summaries restoring the page, then Amar and I went on discussing this in my talk page. Amar was unable to rebut me in my talk page yet still pushed for his own voice without considering the fact that the “killed” was incorrect. Later he reported me for “Xinjiang guy” being my Sockpuppet, as Xinjiang Guy helped me edit the page back to its prior state. However the admin at the time saw this “DharmaP4t3IDE” which I also had issues with in the 1967 article to be my Sockpuppet. I stand my ground of it being a case of IP duplication as the last edit done by “Dharma” was weeks after the consensus has been reached in my talk section. IPS/VPN laws are not strictly reinforced in India and I believe this could easily be done without legal consequences. I hope you could consider my case and I understand it’s very complicated. I hope admins can see I was a worth contribution to the community as I speak both English and Japanese. I have been editing English articles as well as Japanese articles in English. I was reported twice before, once by “Trojanishere”, which resulted him being banned as admin saw what I was doing beneficial. Another time by Amar Kumar Goel, and that time an admin named Toddy1 also aided to my cause and added US sources to the page. I hope admins can see my strict NPOV motive and understand I may have made many enemies on these sensitive topics. YuukiHirohiko (talk) 10:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You say that this is some sort of complicated technical heist involving a VPN / etc. I don't understand what the motivation would be there. Additionally, other technical evidence from checkuser strongly leads me to believe that these accounts are editing from the same machine - regardless of IP. SQLQuery me! 13:30, 22 August 2020 (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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:YuukiHirohiko&oldid=1048421083"