User talk:Hagemaruii

Welcome![edit]

Hi Hagemaruii! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Apologies about the warning I gave you earlier. It is better, if you can, to edit a page in one go, rather than removing a section to add back in another edit, which may appear like vandalism. ButterCashier (talk) 10:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dr. María del Socorro Flores González (January 23)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MarcGarver was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Dr. María del Socorro Flores González and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MarcGarver (talk) 16:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hagemaruii! 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! MarcGarver (talk) 16:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Sangaku into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Verification failed[edit]

Hello Hagemaruii! I just reverted your edits to the atomism and history of chemistry pages because the information added was not supported by the source you cited. I checked Needham 1986, p. 91, and it contains nothing about either Mozi or atomism. Did you perhaps cite the wrong volume of Needham? Misrepresenting sources is a serious issue on Wikipedia, so it's important that you post the correct reference here as soon as possible. Thanks!

Needham, Joseph (1986), Science & Civilisation in China, Volume 5 Part 7: The Gunpowder Epic, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-30358-3

☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I got that reference and about the article in another Wikipedia articles on mohism and Islamic atomism was mentioned in the Wikipedia article on atomism. Hagemaruii (talk) 22:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hagemaruii, as DanCherek explained to you above, you should always give proper attribution by writing in your edit summary which article you were copying from. Do not copy any text again without doing so.

Can you tell me which article you copied the information about Mozi from, so I can remove it from there too? I've seen that the misinformation about Islamic atomism is present in other articles too, but there is a reason why we at Wikipedia are explicit that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. You should never just trust anything you read on Wikipedia, especially not when you are editing Wikipedia.

In general, I would like to tell you that by copying text around without checking the sources you are creating a lot of work for other editors. Your English writing skills may also not be strong enough to edit the English Wikipedia. Please consider editing the Wikipedia of your native language instead.

Thanks for taking this into consideration, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for the mistake but you need to understand that the history of atomism talks about how did ancient civilizations depicted atoms it's not that they had depicted atoms correctly.For example ancient Greeks and Indian sources says that the matter consist of fire,air,earth and light which is not true but they are early conceptions. Hagemaruii (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Hagemaruii! Please tell which Wikipedia article you copied the Mozi-related content citing Needham 1986 from. That will already solve a lot of problems. I have left some more comments for you on Talk:Atomism, but please just first answer this. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, by looking at your contributions I now divined that you copied the ref from the Mohism article and that you did in fact cite the wrong volume of Science and Civilisation in China. Something resembling the information you added is indeed found in Needham 1959, p. 92 However, Needham is comparing there a Chinese theory with a mathematical theory held in Democritus' school, and this type of 'mathematical atomism' should not be confused with atomism as a physical theory.

Needham, Joseph (1959). Science and Civilisation in China. Vol. 3, Mathematics and the Sciences of the Heavens and the Earth. Cambridge University Press.

☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 07:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023[edit]

Hi Hagemaruii! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Atomism several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Atomism, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. DMacks (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But my edit that i did had citation about the ancient Chinese theory of atomism. Hagemaruii (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The entire section of the article is primarily eurocentric.When i uploaded anything about what other civilizations had talked about the atomic theory you guys would remove it saying that it has nothing to do with atoms but i have correctly mentioned the reference and citation of the link but you guys won't read it and secondly why in the Indian section it is given that the atomic theory did by india has similarities of ancient Greek philosopher democritus.Why not it is mentioned in the Greek section that the Greek theory of atomism is similar to india.Its just eurocentric. Hagemaruii (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking a stand against how you are going about this, regardless of whether the content is viable. Obviously you think it is. Obviously other(s) do not. So you keep trying to add it and others remove it. That's not productive. Talk about it with them. Explain your sources. Get WP:CONSENSUS. DMacks (talk) 02:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.jstor.org/stable/6621 first source Hagemaruii (talk) 06:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

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:Hagemaruii reported by User:Apaugasma (Result: ). Thank you. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 07:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:Obiwana per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Obiwana. 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, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Girth Summit _(blether) 12:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shut up i am not obiwana. Hagemaruii (talk) 12:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]