User talk:Furious Buddha

April 2017
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Predator (alien) has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Predator (alien) was changed by Furious Buddha (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.897869 on 2017-04-06T21:54:24+00:00.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Predator (alien). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges.  CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)  21:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Battlestar (reimagining), you may be blocked from editing. Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Battlestar (reimagining) was changed by Furious Buddha (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.863001 on 2017-04-07T21:19:22+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 21:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The edits I made were not vandalism. They were legitimate edits based on fact. Why you keep undoing them is confusing. You cannot cherry pick what information. I quoted sources and gave episode references. This is an ongoing issue that legit edits are undone for illegitimate purposes. I'd be happy to provide the sources (most of which come straight from the series itself) again if that makes everyone happy. But to mark my edits as 'vandalism' or threaten to ban me is discouraging and just wrong. Vandalism is an attempt to degrade and or an action involving deliberate destruction of or damage to public or private property. I did not and never have intentionally edited a page with the intent of degrading or damaging said page. I would like my recent edits included as they are relevant and legitimate to this pages central topic. I have been told and understand that my writing style is more essay like. I can appreciate this, and even noticed that someone went through and rewrote a large portion of it and I confess did a very good job, better than my original edit, So whoever you are, thank you. But this is ridiculous to continue to undo my edits and label them as vandalism when time and again I have gone back and rewritten them and tried to make them comply with Wiki. I really feel Wiki has lost it's purpose in many ways. I see people literally acting as gatekeepers on some pages. I feel as though these dungeon masters or hierophants police selected sites and delete any edit that challenges their preconceived bias of what that subject should be. When it should be that without bias or preconceived ideals of a subject if the edit is factually accurate (that is the source is legitimate and not corrupt, and no copyright has occurred) then it must be allowed to be included. I have tried to get the subject of DEWs and other shields added to this page. It's not that I agree or disagree or that it reinforces a bias, it is simply a matter of fact. The reference to both is clear as I pointed out in the edit. If it is a fact that can be undeniably verified then like it or not, if Wiki is about what is, then if an deductive argument and its premises are true than the conclusion must be also true. So how is my sources (the series its self) not a legitimate source? It can't be true that it's false. The series undeniably states as I sourced it, that what I claimed in my edit was true. And my other edits are also true as they are from Wiki its self.

Thank you for your time regarding this issue. oing t+h

July 2017
You are welcome to edit Wikipedia, but it seems many of your additions and edits to articles are written like essays, using little to no sources. Please look at Wikipedia's policies on original research and IINFO. Please also look at Notability (specifically NRVE). Aljelly (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

If you want to reply on talk pages just edit the source (or click [edit source] on the section you want to reply to). More information on Using talk pages. Aljelly (talk) 00:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello Furious Buddha, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Atago Gongen have been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.


 * 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 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 Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
 * Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Copyrights. You may also want to review Copy-paste.
 * If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Donating copyrighted materials.
 * In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
 * 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 can, but please follow the steps in Copying within Wikipedia.

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. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017
Your addition to Atago Gongen has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

November 2017
Your addition to Battlestar (reimagining) has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. ''This is your final warning. Further copyright violations will result in you being blocked from editing.'' — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Battlestar (reimagining), but we cannot accept original research. 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. Thank you. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler .☠ 21:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what more you want me to do. I've rewritten that material 3-times now to try and make in comply. In order to add material you have to start somewhere. If you would like to add the sources that would be great. I included the source in the edits so it's NOT a copyright violation. It apparent you and others don't care for me or my style of writing as has been stated by another person. it's so sad that gatekeepers and hierophants as yourself and others don't try and help with suggestions or contributions such as a simple "thank you for your edit and contribution. In order to accept it we need the following information, X, Y, Z. I can help you with that.  Please send me a link to the sites where you obtained the information and I'd be happy to show how to include citations and other information so that we can incorporate your contribution.  Thank you." Or how about, "So that we can get on the right track feel free to send me or leave me copy of edits before posting them, and I'll happily look them over and make suggestions so that they're compliant with FB regulations." That's called PR. But all you do is delete and posts threats I'll be blocked. Trying helping people instead of colluding and scheming against them to see they're banned or blocked simply because you don't agree with a particular way style or way they write, subject, or whatever. I know I'm not the only who'd appreciate you're help and guidance instead of your criticism and threats to block me. If you're going to take the time topoint out my deficiencies and inadequacies please take the time to help me correct them. I'm clearly not being malicious or trying to skirt FB policies.


 * The problem is a lot of the deleted material consists of pure reasoning, without any citable reference to the show itself or to reliable secondary sources that have made the claims you're making based on verifiable facts, whether seen directly in the show itself or stated explicitly by the writers or the VFX team. The whole thing about relativistic combat was a perfect example: none of what you wrote was in any way traceable back to actual facts on screen or in supporting materials or interviews.  The most that can be said of it is if you, again, found a source that pointed out that BSG's space combat sequences are only a little more realistic than those found in Star Trek (or whatever).  The point of Wikipedia is not to be a place where you can write out your own personal detailed analysis of (topic x); it's to be an encyclopedia summarizing published knowledge about many different topics.  Your lengthy analyses - while pretty good, honestly - just don't belong here, specifically.  There are any number of other homes for them on the wider internet.  ☯.Zen Swashbuckler .☠ 16:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Thank you for responding to my message. I'm unsure what this about. Did I say or do something? I haven't done any editing sense the last notification that I'd be banned or blocked. Please let me know if I need to respond or defend my myself. it si good to know that you do read and respond to messages. Thank you.

Battlestar Galactica
The article you keep adding DEW and shield speculation to is titled Battlestar (reimagining), which should make clear that any information about the lasers and other things in the 1978 version is irrelevant and off-topic. If you want to write an article about the earlier ship, I don't think one exists yet. Maybe start from this article and work your way up? Regardless, please stop adding original research and anything at all about lasers, shields, and the like to the 2003 ship's article. Thanks. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler .☠ 21:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

You really need to cut it out. The content you keep adding to that page is not supported by reliable sources - or if some of it is, you haven't bothered to cite a single one. This is an encyclopedia, not a brainstorming forum. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler .☠ 16:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Thread regarding your editing at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Constant OR/SYN at Battlestar (reimagining). ☯.Zen Swashbuckler .☠ 15:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018
Hi, Furious Buddha. You have ignored the good advice of Zenswashbuckler. If you continue to add unsourced content, or reasoning based on your own original research, or irrelevant material to Battlestar (reimagining), you will be sanctioned. This is a final warning. Bishonen &#124; talk 18:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC).

Your addition to Lilium occidentale has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.  Scr ★ pIron IV 18:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have blocked you indefinitely for copyright violations. You were first warned about this in July of last year, and it's somehow still a problem, therefore I don't think you can be trusted to edit here. S warm   ♠  23:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Please note that if you are unblocked, the final warning you have received above will continue to stand indefinitely. S warm   ♠  23:37, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I request arbitration. I believe you are incorrect and bias in your judgment.

Please inform at this email address (izunamyojin@gmail.com) of the dates and time of the arbitration and also that i wish to speak directly via phone with your supervisor(s).

Thank you for you time regarding this communication.

April 2018
 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] • [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user=&project=en.wikipedia.org autoblocks] • contribs • deleted contribs • [ abuse filter log] • [ • change block settings • [ unblock] • [ checkuser] ([ log]))

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice. S warm  ♠  01:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * FYI, I don't have a supervisor. S warm   ♠  01:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)