User talk:PeoplePowerRadio

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Your submission at Articles for creation: Historical battles (October 8)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Pbritti were:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
There are some WP:NPOV concerns here as well.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Pbritti (talk) 18:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, PeoplePowerRadio! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Pbritti (talk) 18:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023

Information icon Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Ryukyuan languages. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. WanderingMorpheme 19:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PeoplePowerRadio. Having reviewed your contributions, I am under the impression that you are attempting to advocate on behalf of Japanese nationalist thought. Wikipedia's editors adhere to a strict policy of neutrality and refrain from using Wikipedia as a soapbox. As such, fringe theories and content from unreliable sources are excluded. If you have questions about these or any policies, feel free to reply here, ask a question in the Teahouse, or review the links available here. Thank you. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pbritti is a very biased thinker. It must be very inconvenient for you to keep interrupting me because you can't even read Japanese academic papers properly, and you must have a particular political ideology.
I don't know how many of you there are, but it is ridiculous that you are running around unable to reply properly to my replies. Why can't you look at things from a middle-of-the-road perspective or analyze academic papers? I understand that there are many different opinions in the world. The act of publishing only the opinions that suit you and deleting all other research material violates wikipedia's no-power-solutions policy.
First of all, we recommend that you carefully read the wikipedia article "No Force Majeure". We also look forward to your rebuttal of the paper presented!PeoplePowerRadio (talk) 05:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Ryukyuan languages, you may be blocked from editing. WanderingMorpheme 23:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to return those words to you verbatim. The attitude of not even acknowledging both sides of an argument, even when the academic source is clearly stated, and the blocking action by a one-step party, is an obstacle to democratic discussion and is dictatorial. If not, then we must have both sides of the argument. It must be said that it is abnormal to unilaterally block the other party's speech by blocking, without regard to what they are doing.First you should stop soapboxing. It's easy, just write both arguments together.If you can't do that, then the two of you (WanderingMorpheme and Pbritti) who brought this on yourself by repeatedly rebutting one-sidedly without solid evidence and without reading the source should be blocked as well.PeoplePowerRadio (talk) 02:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Ryukyuan languages 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; read about 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Pbritti (talk) 00:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You (Pbritti and WanderingMorpheme) also revert three times, don't you? Even though you can't read Japanese very well without seeing the content. And you only state UNESCO's opinion one-sidedly. And it is not good to write one-sided political ideas on wikipedia, ignoring the research results of Ryukyu dialects and ignoring the process and background of the formation of the Japanese language. You have at least presented both sides of the argument or even a proper academic paper, so I think you should follow them.
Please read the following academic papers accurately in Japanese.
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/nihongonokenkyu/7/4/7_KJ00008017889/_pdf/-char/ja
This will help us determine your Japanese reading comprehension and whether or not you are doing a good job of peer review. It is probably a very head-scratching paper for those of you with a particular political ideology. Because in this paper, Ryukyuan dialect characters appear frequently, and it is also stated in considerable detail that there are Ryukyuan dialects, such as Naha dialect. In this paper by a professor of the University of the Ryukyus, the ancient Japanese character "kakari musubi no kakari no yawari", which is characteristic of the Okinawan dialect, appears. This is the result of research conducted by the Institute for Okinawan Studies at Hosei University.
PeoplePowerRadio (talk) 03:17, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring these facts, I think that those of you who revert three times, especially WanderingMorpheme who started the revert in the first place and Pbritti who stepped in to help to prevent WanderingMorpheme from reverting three times, are also people who should definitely be blocked.
It is difficult for two people who have not done any academic research, who cannot read Japanese, and who are not good at reading Japanese, to talk about the Ryukyuan language compilation, and who cannot even read Japanese papers properly. I think that the problem lies in the fact that these two people started the revert without reading the meaning.PeoplePowerRadio (talk) 03:17, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:PeoplePowerRadio reported by User:WanderingMorpheme (Result: ). Thank you. WanderingMorpheme 00:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.
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 ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 00:48, 9 October 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

There is no destructive editing. In the first place, it is strange that both sides of the issue are not mentioned, and it is problematic that the description seems to ignore the source of the Okinawa Prefecture involved. It is strange that you unilaterally blocked me without reading the source I provided, and the other party is not blocked, and the source and background are also mentioned on the talk page. At the very least, both sides of the argument should be stated, and ignoring one side of the argument cannot be the argument of a Japanese language scholar. To begin with, Okinawan dialect is not an independent language. If it were to be adapted, the language of all prefectures would not be Japanese.PeoplePowerRadio (talk) 01:16, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With additional notes

WanderingMorpheme replies to me on the Ryukyuan talk page, but he doesn't read the content at all.


>>I have read your source and it does not support your claim. WanderingMorpheme 00:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)


This site contains the following content in Japanese. The Language of Okinawa (Shimakutoba) The language of Okinawa (Shimakutoba) was originally the same as the language of the mainland, but it is said to have diverged during the Nara period (710-794). Since then, the language of Okinawa has been developed in the small island of Dokiji. For example, "mensore," meaning "irasshaimase," is said to be a variant of "mentsorai sorae," meaning "come in. There are also many words in the Okinawan language (Shimakutouba) that are no longer used on the mainland, such as "akezu" (= tonbo), which is used on the main island of Okinawa, for example. Although the words of the mainland and the Okinawan language (Shimakutoba) may seem far apart, a closer examination reveals that they were originally the same language.PeoplePowerRadio (talk) 01:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


In addition, Okinawa Prefecture is not a government but a local executive branch. There is also the following statement on the Ryukyu language talk page:


>>From page 1 of this academic text—which takes primacy over a government infopage website as a reliable source—includes a passage that reads "there is no strong argument for referring to Ryukyuan languages as Japanese dialects: there is no mutual intelligibility between Ryukyuan and Japanese, and even between Amami, Okinawan, Miyako, and Yaeyama." ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)


In addition, Okinawa Prefecture is not a government but a local executive branch.Also, this paper was written after the information was posted on the Okinawa Prefecture homepage. Furthermore, it is impossible to classify it as a Ryukyuan language based on this paper alone. because,Japanese is spoken in the Ryukyu Islands, but Ryukyuan and Japanese are mutually intelligible. It also retains elements of Japanese archaic language well. In the 2010s, the idea of Ryukyuan language has been spread by Chinese manipulation and is being used in historical battles[1], so care should be taken. Originally, in Japan, the popular words of the day were transmitted from Kyoto to the surrounding areas like a ripple effect. Therefore, Okinawa is located at the edge of the country, where the old Japanese language still remains[2].PeoplePowerRadio (talk) 02:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

An unblock request that continues exactly the activity that led to the block is not likely to succeed. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 03:45, 9 October 2023 (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.


PeoplePowerRadio, you are blocked for violating the three-revert rule and for POV-pushing, not for using the provincial source. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: The source you provided made no mention of chinese influence, never gave any date and did not talk about mutual intelligibility. All reliable sources state that there is not mutual intelligibility between the languages. WanderingMorpheme 01:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As described here, the paper describes Chinese information and cognitive warfare. The paper describes in detail even the name of the intelligence agency. If you can read Japanese, you can easily understand it, but if not, you can understand that you have stated false facts about the official website of Okinawa Prefecture. Perhaps you could not read Japanese.
http://www.nids.mod.go.jp/publication/chinareport/pdf/china_report_JP_web_2023_A01.pdf
PeoplePowerRadio (talk) 01:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PeoplePowerRadio, if you want to get unblocked for WP:SOAPBOXing, please stop SOAPBOXing. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to return those words to you verbatim. The attitude of not even acknowledging both sides of an argument, even when the academic source is clearly stated, and the blocking action by a one-step party, is an obstacle to democratic discussion and is dictatorial. If not, then we must have both sides of the argument. It must be said that it is abnormal to unilaterally block the other party's speech by blocking, without regard to what they are doing.First you should stop soapboxing. It's easy, just write both arguments together.If you can't do that, then the two of you (WanderingMorpheme and Pbritti) who brought this on yourself by repeatedly rebutting one-sidedly without solid evidence and without reading the source should be blocked as well.PeoplePowerRadio (talk) 02:11, 9 October 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

You (Pbritti and WanderingMorpheme) also revert three times, don't you? Even though you can't read Japanese very well without seeing the content. And you only state UNESCO's opinion one-sidedly. And it is not good to write one-sided political ideas on wikipedia, ignoring the research results of Ryukyu dialects and ignoring the process and background of the formation of the Japanese language. You have at least presented both sides of the argument or even a proper academic paper, so I think you should follow them. Please read the following academic papers accurately in Japanese. https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/nihongonokenkyu/7/4/7_KJ00008017889/_pdf/-char/ja This will help us determine your Japanese reading comprehension and whether or not you are doing a good job of peer review. It is probably a very head-scratching paper for those of you with a particular political ideology. Because in this paper, Ryukyuan dialect characters appear frequently, and it is also stated in considerable detail that there are Ryukyuan dialects, such as Naha dialect. In this paper by a professor of the University of the Ryukyus, the ancient Japanese character "kakari musubi no kakari no yawari", which is characteristic of the Okinawan dialect, appears. This is the result of research conducted by the Institute for Okinawan Studies at Hosei University. There should be no editorial battles, both sides of the issue should be discussed, and unilateral blocking is contrary to what wikipedia should be discussing in conversation.PeoplePowerRadio (talk) 04:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC) Ignoring these facts, I think that those of you who revert three times, especially WanderingMorpheme who started the revert in the first place and Pbritti who stepped in to help to prevent WanderingMorpheme from reverting three times, are also people who should definitely be blocked.It is difficult for two people who have not done any academic research, who cannot read Japanese, and who are not good at reading Japanese, to talk about the Ryukyuan language compilation, and who cannot even read Japanese papers properly. I think that the problem lies in the fact that these two people started the revert without reading the meaning.PeoplePowerRadio (talk) 04:10, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is a first. I've seen requests which were combative and focused on attacking and criticizing the blocking admin or other editors involved in the dispute. Even at length. That's nothing new.

But until this early morning I had yet to see a blocked editor demand that their antagonists demonstrate their foreign-language proficiency, as if they were the ones in total control of the process.

Wow. Just wow.

So not only am I declining, I will be taking Pbritti up on his suggestion below, although it will come as no shock, I suppose, if I share that the same idea would have crossed my mind without it. Have a nice day. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:16, 9 October 2023 (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.

  • Request that whoever clerks the above request consider a revocation of TPA for NOTHERE. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are so quick to suppress speech because you cannot refute it with the academic papers and arguments I have presented. You seem to be very biased in your ideology. This is not the behavior of a gentleman in the English-speaking world. Unilaterally blocking or revert because it doesn't fit your ideology is contrary to wikipedia's no force solution. I recommend that you first peruse the section of wikipedia on not resolving by force. You should not be able to argue with me in a debate, run away from the discussion, or edit your work with a bias toward certain content when you cannot scrutinize the Japanese language content. You should well read the wikipedia instructions. Otherwise, Pbritti will probably go to the block.PeoplePowerRadio (talk) 05:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stop hand
Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Daniel Case (talk) 07:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #80646 closed. Response carried over below.

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you. Please describe concisely and clearly how your edits merited a block, what you would do differently, and what constructive edits you would make. Please read Wikipedia's Guide to appealing blocks for more information. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks). The UTRS software may lock you out for a day or two. Please use this time to review your talk page and the reasons for your block, and to consider how you will address these reasons. Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Historical battles

Information icon Hello, PeoplePowerRadio. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Historical battles, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.nids.mod.go.jp/publication/chinareport/pdf/china_report_JP_web_2023_A01.pdf
  2. ^ https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/nihongonokenkyu/7/4/7_KJ00008017889/_pdf/-char/ja
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:PeoplePowerRadio"