User talk:Usoejw9

Hello, I'm Sea Cow. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Nasiruddin Nasrat Shah, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Sea Cow (talk) 03:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neither there's a reliable source in Baro Shona Masjid article. There's given a reference with number 2 where it says page not found. Usoejw9 (talk) 03:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Junior wives of Krishna. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 08:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They both mean same. I was just added the real truth behind Krishna's other 16100 wives. I have to add that cause many people from other religions mock Krishna for having 16109/16108 wives. So, you tell me how should I edit. Usoejw9 (talk) 09:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Krishna, you may be blocked from editing. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 02:46, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Gautama Buddha, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. JimRenge (talk) 14:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Sajaypal007 (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even Koenraad E prove that he was an Hindu. Stop acting like an idiot & give me proofs if Suddhodana turned Buddhist or he was Buddhist before Buddha's birth or give me proofs that there was Buddhism before Gautama. Usoejw9 (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm JimRenge. 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. This edit looks like a personal attack: "Stop acting like an idiot .." JimRenge (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Ashoka and Gautam Buddha, you may be blocked from editing. JimRenge (talk) 19:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Ashoka and Gautama Buddha. JimRenge (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ashoka and Gautama Buddha. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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. Sajaypal007 (talk) 06:04, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Usoejw9! Your additions to Junior wives of Krishna have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't stop reverting against clear consensus and blanking factual information, you'll be blocked Bumbubookworm (talk) 03:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

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. Thank you. Sajaypal007 (talk) 12:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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.

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 ~~~~}}.  RegentsPark (comment) 12:25, 31 March 2022 (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).

Usoejw9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I've found some solid & crystal clear proofs about Gautama Buddha, Mahapajapai, Yashodara, Rahula & Devdutt's birth religion. I consider myself guilty and I wish not to continue such violation again.🙏 Usoejw9 (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The block is now expired. 331dot (talk) 20:31, 1 April 2022 (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.

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).

Usoejw9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I've found some solid & crystal clear proofs about Gautama Buddha, Mahapajapai, Yashodara, Rahula & Devdutt's birth religion. I consider myself guilty and I wish not to continue such violation again.🙏

Decline reason:

Procedural decline - this account is not blocked. firefly ( t · c ) 17:37, 2 April 2022 (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.

Hi. I don't think you are autoblocked (I checked and couldn't find one) or blocked since your block has expired. You should be able to edit any articles. --RegentsPark (comment) 00:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Gautama Buddha, you may be blocked from editing. You have just been unblocked and re-started WP:EDITWAR, you may find yourself blocked again if you continue doing edit warring. Get consensus on talk page first. Sajaypal007 (talk) 03:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, you don't get to remove another editor's post and order them to start a new section, as you did here. And here you remove it again! I've put it back. If you act like this on a talkpage again, you will be blocked. Bishonen | tålk 07:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Gautama Buddha. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

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 ~~~~}}.  RegentsPark (comment) 14:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this. You're blocked for edit warring on Gautama Buddha and you immediately start doing it again. Please use the talk page when your block is up. And, note that the block duration escalates.--RegentsPark (comment) 14:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{RegentsPark}} I didn't break the 3 revert rule of edit warring. Please don't block me for no reason. Usoejw9 (talk) 14:53, 3 April 2022 (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).

Usoejw9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I didn't do any edit war after my block expired. You can check the Gautama Buddha page history. I made 1 edit after my block expired & the 2nd hours later. Also I didn't break 3 revert rule in Sierra Leone page.

Decline reason:

Just based on what I saw at Talk:Gautama Buddha, a lot of IDHT and tendentious editing going on here. — Daniel Case (talk) 04:28, 5 April 2022 (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.

Usoejw9 (talk) 14:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can be edit warring without breaking the 3RR rule. My block is because you were edit warring to change the religion at Gautama Buddha and other articles, you were blocked, and then you return with this and this and this and this and others. Blitzing your views across multiple articles is not acceptable. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{RegentsPark}} I have left a reference in your talk page where it clearly states that Gautama Buddha was a Hindu by birth. That's the same source given by पाटलिपुत्र in Gautama Buddha's religion line on info box. You should be blocking पाटलिपुत्र not me. He reverted a reliable source. Usoejw9 (talk) 15:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter that you've left a reference. When a discussion is ongoing, you need to wait for consensus. But, another admin will review your unblock request so just hang on. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{RegentsPark}} but at that time no discussions were going on. I started the discussion after user:Sajaypal007 reverted the source. I have given plenty reliable sources but user:पाटलिपुत्र doesn't agree with them. Usoejw9 (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{Daniel Case}} are you serious? I gave pure facts with reliable sources. You want to block someone then block User:पाटलिपुत्र & Sajaypal007. Usoejw9 (talk) 07:13, 5 April 2022 (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).

Usoejw9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I can provide proofs which will help me seeking consensus in a controversial topic. Let me discuss the matter in talk pages.

Decline reason:

 Confirmed sockpuppetry, block extended indefinitely. Yamla (talk) 15:05, 7 April 2022 (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.

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.
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 why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public. You may instead email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-enwikimedia.org with your username and appeal.

---

Administrators: CheckUsers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. Therefore, a Checkuser must be consulted before this block can be removed. Administrators undoing checkuser blocks without permission or the prior approval from a checkuser risk having their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee (per this announcement).

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).

Usoejw9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

As I've said that I won't do any edit warring further. I'll seek consensus instead. Usoejw9 (talk) 05:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As Yamla and Bishonen have said below, following through with the standard offer is the only avenue to being unblocked in the future. Please wait to post another unblock request until after six months have passed without editing the English Wikipedia. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:26, 16 May 2022 (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.

This does not address your violations of WP:SOCK. --Yamla (talk) 10:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't fully addressed your violations of WP:SOCK. Why did you outright lie to us, over at User talk:Bharatiya283BC? It's very hard to regain the community's trust when you broke it in that manner. --Yamla (talk) 11:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla is it ok now? Usoejw9 (talk) 11:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not, no. --Yamla (talk) 11:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla so what should I do? Usoejw9 (talk) 11:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the problem is you've proven that you cannot be trusted. You've demonstrated you are willing to lie. It's very hard to regain the community's trust after proving you are not trustworthy. Your best bet is to go six months with zero edits, then apply under WP:SO. If taking this approach, please remove your open unblock request. You are free to refuse this advice and attempt to convince a reviewing admin that you should be unblocked sooner, but this typically doesn't work. --Yamla (talk) 11:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla that was my relative's account. She did that for me as I have talked about the matter. Usoejw9 (talk) 11:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't helping your case. In fact, it's demonstrating quite clearly that you should definitely not be unblocked at this time. --Yamla (talk) 11:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Usoejw9, you categorically must not change a post of your own that has already been replied to, thereby making the reply look stupid or irrelevant, and making the whole exchange incommprehensible to a reader. I have therefore reverted your change here. Please don't do that again. Instead, say it again below, and discuss with Yamla here. Bishonen | tålk 11:28, 10 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

@Yamla you can keep that account blocked forever. I had no idea about sockpuppetry before. I told the first blocking admin who blocked me that I didn't do any Edit warring after the discussion started. Usoejw9 (talk) 11:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just add a detail to Yamla's good advice above about going six months with zero edits, then appealing under WP:SO. Yes, zero edits to the English Wikipedia, but it's even better if you edit one of the sister projects during those six months. (You are only blocked from the English Wikipedia.) If you are able to point to constructive editing at for example Wiktionary when you apply for unblock, then your appeal is more likely to be viewed favorably. Bishonen | tålk 11:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen should I now apply for unblocking? It's been 6 months with zero edits in English Wikipedia. Usoejw9 (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most definitely not. A demonstrated inability to count to six would make it all but impossible to unblock you, on the grounds of WP:CIR. Hopefully you've been using this time to edit constructively on another project, otherwise the odds of us unblocking you once six months has elapsed is very, very poor. --Yamla (talk) 19:51, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, how many months I've to wait? Usoejw9 (talk) 19:52, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Six months. Six. Six. Six months. Not "less than five, even though I think it's six". Seriously, this will count against you in any future unblock request under WP:SO. We require a level of basic competence that you are singularly failing to demonstrate. --Yamla (talk) 19:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Under WP:SO I can give you a level of basic competence if you want! Usoejw9 (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Once you have counted six months since your last edit and are able to demonstrate competence and constructive edits on another project, feel free to make an unblock request. --Yamla (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should I put my basic competence in the unblock request reason? Usoejw9 (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla should I put my basic competence in unblock request reason? Usoejw9 (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Once six months have passed, make an unblock request. Show which other project you've been editing constructively. Address the problems that lead to your block here. Cite WP:SO. Be warned, failing to do that, or continuing to ask inane questions here, will count against you and may cause you to lose access to this talk page for another six months. Let me be clear: stop asking stupid questions. --Yamla (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, i just wanted to make myself clear & it became stupid? 6 months have already passed & I've edited in Bengali, Assamese, Simple English & Hindi Wikipedia. Are these projects ok? Usoejw9 (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What date is six months after 2022-04-06? Give me a specific date. Then tell me if today's date is less than or more than six months after 2022-04-06. --Yamla (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have blocked me on 3rd April. So, it should be 4th September if I count 6 months from April. Usoejw9 (talk) 20:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you lack sufficient competence to count to six, you are now not eligible to apply for unblocking under WP:SO until six months from today. That is 2023-03-03. I will protect your talk page for six months to make it easy for you. If you wish to contest this, you can use WP:UTRS, but I very, very strongly suggest you don't. In six months, you'll need to address the very serious concerns with your demonstrated lack of competence (see WP:CIR). --Yamla (talk) 20:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, wolfram alpha is helpful for basic math and for much more complex math. For example, it can help you determine six months past a date. Here is an example. --Yamla (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Usoejw9, the projects you name are all right, though Simple English is the only one I can check, as I don't understand the other languages. There's nothing wrong with editing other language Wikipedias, but since most of the people who discuss your unblock request won't understand them (though a few will), you'll do yourself a favour if you edit Simple some more. And note also the possibilities at other Wikipedias in English, see WP:SISTER. And I agree with Yamla that it makes a bad impression that you don't check your figures even after being told repeatedly — many times! — that you've got them wrong. I hope you'll be able to avoid such problems when you appeal your block six months from now. Bishonen | tålk 20:57, 3 September 2022 (UTC).[reply]