User talk:Samuraiantiqueworld

Welcome!

Hello, Samuraiantiqueworld, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! DS (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

/archive 1

Vandalism accusations

WP:NOTVANDALISM. Read it. Stay away from my talk page. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 12:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 2012

Your recent editing history at Katana shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You need to discuss this or invite some outside opinions (maybe start an RfC). You can't just keep on reverting eathother and calling eachother names like "vandal" or "troll". DanielRigal (talk) 12:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, this user has attempted to take the dispute to talk, but gotten no responses. The ip in question seems to blank all talk warnings and is using increasingly sarcastic edit summaries. While both editors are in dispute and have reverted three times, this user has made some attempt to discuss. BusterD (talk) 13:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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.

Nyttend (talk) 13:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you weigh in on Talk:Katana?

I've got the ip editor talking civilly. Why is the suggestion made incorrect (or not as correct)? Why is your version superior? BTW, the lede on this page is very brief and I think it would benefit from expansion. That's just my opinion. BusterD (talk) 03:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I added my comment, as for the lede, it is brief but all the Japanese sword articles are works in progress, they are being gone through and unreferenced material is being verified or removed, it is a slow process finding legitimate information and references for so many articles, for a long time people with no real knowledge of the subject were just adding personal opinion or information taken from the internet without actually reading any books on the subject and the people who did have some knowledge did not bother to leave many references as to were they got their information from. Thanks for taking the time to help sort things out. Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 12:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

I appreciate your attempts to organize and tighten up the horse tack categories, but Please DISCUSS your category changes on the horse tack articles before you make them. You don't understand a lot of the equipment or how it is used, so please stop making a bunch of work for those of us who use this equipment every day. Montanabw(talk) 22:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unacceptable

Please do not remove sources as you did on the article saddle. In a longterm stable article such as this, it is more helpful to tag problematic links and allow them to be fixed. Please respect the process. Montanabw(talk) 21:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is "unacceptable" is mass-reverting good-faith edits as "vandalism". Joefromrandb (talk) 23:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This was also misuse of Twinkle, which can lead to removal of the tool and/or being blocked from editiing. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the two articles Montanabw linked; at one of them I reverted you, and at the other I restored your edits after Montanabw's reversion. I don't see any reason to say that you're in the wrong or that Montanabw is in the wrong, so I'm not going to be getting involved. Nyttend (talk) 00:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. I'm not sure how, but I misunderstood what was going on and thought that you'd added problematic links, rather than removing them. Please see this edit and then this one, immediately following it — I again reverted your edits, but then as soon as I realised what was going on, I restored them. Nyttend (talk) 00:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He had removed links without any discussion or collaboration. You don't do things that way. You work with people. I am concerned with this behavior, which is not helping improve wikipedia, and I am particularly concerned about this attack on an article with which I have minimal involvement. Montanabw(talk) 16:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was going to start a new section - but since this is here... Samurai, please - a bit more calm? I can't claim any great knowledge of the equine related topics - but I am familiar with some of the people who are. Montanabw, Pesky, and Dana are all great people to work with - please give the collaboration aspect a chance before firing off your guns. Open a thread on an article talk page - discuss the matter calmly, and remember - part of communication is listening as well as speaking. I see you've already run into an issue or two, and I DO understand how that can make a person very defensive ... but these folks you're dealing with are really wonderful folks to work with - just give them a chance - listen to what they say .. and if you have questions .. then ask .. nicely. They won't bite. Trust me - they will GLADLY welcome another helpful hand at building up horsey type articles .. but if ya run in and just start deleting a whole bunch of stuff - it's gonna put any and all editors who have worked so hard to build the articles off. Deep breath please. OK? Thanks. Chedzilla (talk) 18:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chedzilla, how nice of you to come here to say hello, feel free to drop in any time with one of your funny little quotes like this one newforestpony.com: I've had about enough .. do you really want to get blocked? .. cause I will do that if you persist in this manner. "TALK" .. don't demand.) I am glad to know that your poor communications skills have not hindered your ability to make friends here at Wikipedia but maybe you should stick to Facebook until you develop some social skills, now go run along and play with your friends as I have some work to do, bye!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuraiantiqueworld (talk • contribs)

Don't be absurd. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I'm unclear on how this account wasn't renamed or blocked per WP:UAA, but the additional and continued harassment and civility violations are unacceptable, so I have indefinitely blocked this account. Dreadstar ☥ 22:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For any unblock requests this account, please see this thread for more information. Dreadstar ☥ 22:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

The admin who originally blocked me is dead, The reason I was originally blocked did not deserve an indef block in the first place, it was a simple dispute that was blown way out of proportion, it was me against a group of editors who all knew each other and worked together, the blocking admin worked with this group of editors as well. I am requesting to be unblocked as I have some additional editing to do on articles I have created and articles that I have previously edited. As for my name, there is no longer any business with the same name but I do intend to change my name in the event that I am unblocked, thank you for reviewing this request.

Decline reason:

The blocking admin being dead is hardly relevant to this review. You were blocked for harassment, incivility and general disruption.

Reading through the ANI discussion that preceded your block I am seeing you being combative, calling people paranoid, being rude(saying Duh to people), imagining conspiracies. I see diffs where you are nasty to our editors. I see a history of edit warring.

The idea that the block was incorrect is a non-starter. This block was correct and it was viewed by many eyes and nobody thought it out of order then, and I do not find it out of order now. We also have the matter of you evading your block in 2013 as Darkness_walks

Given you are not recognizing the disruption that resulted in your block and have instead blamed a conspiracy of editors plotting against you I have no reason to think the disruption would not simply continue if I unblocked you.

I suggest if you made an unblock request in the future you look at the standard offer and that you explain why the disruption will not repeat rather than blaming others. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 18:10, 29 June 2016 (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.

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Samuraiantiqueworld. 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)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Samuraiantiqueworld. 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)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Early modern firearms

Template:Early modern firearms has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Japanese (samurai) armour

Template:Japanese (samurai) armour has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional Japanese swords has been nominated for discussion

Category:Fictional Japanese swords, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]