User talk:User090998

September 2023[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Bersiap. —C.Fred (talk) 05:20, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours 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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. —C.Fred (talk) 05:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm AntiDionysius. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for what motive. Adding public domain images is legitimate.[edit]

What are you talking about? I never made a comment. I asked whether you could update the Bersiap page with working links and adequate/appropriate sources. And apparently I am not the only one that has tried to add new information without success. Please stay professional. 2A02:8440:3413:F955:0:48:70B6:3F01 (talk) 16:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Calling people "useless abusive Wiki moderators" is clearly a violation of the WP:AGF policy. Even if you strongly believe a wrong decision has been made, you are not meant to treat other editors that way. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is based on reality. Abusive restrictions are abusive. It is not a violation to point this out. Who are you to decide what the rules are, when you are clearly not even familiar with the subject.

"Useless" because the link I removed under [5] was not working, YET you pretended it was disruptive editing/vandalism.

Again, please be more respectful and PROFESSIONAL in the future.2A02:8440:3413:F955:0:48:70B6:3F01 (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a good idea if you read the assume good faith policy in detail. I do not think you have.

It's in your interest to do so. I have no idea if you are right about the issue with the source on the Bersiap article (this is not a topic I know enough to contribute on; I have requested the assistance of experienced editors with subject knowledge), but if you are right, being belligerent towards other editors could cause an admin to ban you or people just to ignore what you're saying. Then the issue wouldn't get fixed, which would be bad for everyone. So let's all try to figure this out in a productive manner. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what I said. Please read under Talk section as I am not logged in.

Blocking, placing restrictions or preventing editing is not productive. I have already pointed out that the link under [5] wasn't working. Only after repeated revert editing did I mention the abusive/unproductive moderation.

Please remain professional and respectful with regard to the topic. 2A02:8440:340A:D93F:0:48:70B9:CD01 (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Placing restrictions on editing where there has been edit warring (which objectively there was, regardless of who was in the right) is one of admins' key roles. Probably the definition of "productive" in that sense.

Anyway, we're not really getting anywhere with this. I'm not an admin, so even if I agreed with you about how admins should do their jobs, I wouldn't be able to do anything about it. I'm just here to advise you that if you talk to people like that, it's going to land you in trouble; again, not from me, because I am not an admin. I am merely telling you what admins will probably do if you keep saying stuff like that, so you can avoid having that problem.

I have, as I said, put a notice in the WikiProject Indonesia for someone better placed than I to help sort out the issue with the Bersiap article, so hopefully that will happen soon.

I have been professional and respectful throughout; please do so in future yourself. AntiDionysius (talk) 17:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would be more useful/ objective to put an independent editor on the Bersiap subject, not one that is managed or linked by Indonesia(ns). As Indonesia is renowned to aggressively push their own historical narratives. Which is the issue exactly. Take the example of the West Papuan conflict where Indonesian government are controlling the narratives and accusing Papuans of raping civilians. Which would then justify the occupation and human rights abuses committed by Indonesian military. (See edit history on Wikipage West Papuan conflict)

Luckily on the West Papuan conflict Wikipage moderators have been more attentive. Thus the edits to change towards Indonesian narratives have failed. Concerning the Bersiap I would hope the same. Especially since this "Indonesian historian" Bonnie Triyana, who is used as a source under [6] is a controversial figure that has tried to erase the term Bersiap under false pretexts and continues to stigmatise victims.

Please get an objective outsiders opinion and not exclusively Indonesian POV.

Note: you do not have to agree with me, just do what's right vis-a-vis the victims of this episode.

2A02:8440:340A:D93F:0:48:70B9:CD01 (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Indonesia isn't a group of editors from Indonesia, it's a project improving Indonesia-related articles. AntiDionysius (talk) 17:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait and see. However this doesn't change the fact that the source under [5] is a broken link that needs to be replaced. This is clearly a very legitimate point and should not be addressed as "disruptive behaviour" by some moderator 2A02:8440:340A:D93F:0:48:70B9:CD01 (talk) 18:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)2A02:8440:340A:D93F:0:48:70B9:CD01 (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024[edit]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Talk:Revo Soekatno, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Enough screwing around: thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]