User talk:Tpodvorec

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 post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

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 abortion. 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

—Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 19:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Racism in Japan, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 08:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I used Wikipedia's article. Is Wikipedia not allowed on Wikipedia? Tpodvorec (talk) 08:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot use Wikipedia articles to source other Wikipedia articles, see WP:CIRCULAR as well as Wikipedia is not a reliable source. If you want to call forced labor in Japan slavery, you need reliable sources that do so to support such a claim. Your own opinion is insufficient(regardless of its accuracy). If you want to remove the "far right" term from the Nazism article, you will need to offer your own sources to explain why it shouldn't be called that as most reliable sources do. 331dot (talk) 08:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

so then the very actions and circumstances fall under this websites own definition but yet we cannot say that why? Because slavery only existed in the America's? One person revised my edit and tried to use the post war circumstances of German WWII veterans. Trying to say that since the UK, France, and Norway enslaved German troops but didn't call it that. They called it the much prettier term "forced labor" so then according to them what the japanese did wasn't slavery. Even though they were taken forced to work for the sake of someone else and couldn't even leave if they so chose. Tpodvorec (talk) 09:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on Wikipedia exist to summarize what independent reliable sources say about the topic. They are not for summarizing the views or conclusions of the editors, again, regardless of their accuracy. You may very well be correct- but you need sources that state what you are claiming, not simply your own conclusions- this is for verifiability purposes. We cannot verify your conclusions or opinions. 331dot (talk) 09:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So I have to use someone elses opinion they formed after doing research and post a link to their opinion. And hope that it doesn't go against the left leaning views of the vast majority of editors and staff of Wikipedia, a site who's co-founder has even called out for being biased. Tpodvorec (talk) 10:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot use your own opinion, you must use independent reliable sources to support your edits.

Wikipedia does not claim to be unbiased, as all sources and people have biases. Sources are presented to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves as to bias and other factors in determining what to believe. Wikipedia does not claim to be the truth, only that what is presented is verifiable, see WP:TRUTH. You are free to disbelieve everything you read here. If you see sourced information that is not accurately summarized from the source, please detail the errors on the relevant talk page. If you feel that we are too biased for your tastes, you are free to go to a project more compatible with your views and stay in a bubble only reading what you want to read. 331dot (talk) 10:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Andre🚐 06:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.