User talk:Platinumshadow153

Welcome!
Hi Platinumshadow153! 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:

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:

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

Happy editing! Drmies (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

July 2023
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Sbai. 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: 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. Drmies (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 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.

 You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Sbai) for a period of 1 month for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page:. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Making huge edits and then edit warring without explaining what you're doing is really not a wise thing to do. Drmies (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, would like to explain please see the details on the reference that I mention on the information has been reverted and I have the evidence to support my information. Platinumshadow153 (talk) 16:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't be silly; it's a bit late for that. You could have given proper explanations in your edit summaries ("History fact" is kind of useless), and you can explain on the talk page. Leave me out of the content discussion. Drmies (talk) 17:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not familiar with talk page much. Sorry for that and what part of the history or citation you are unsure about? Also, it is not my version that is revert first the one before me just revese it and said it is only minor edit not put information at all. Platinumshadow153 (talk) 00:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

August 2023
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Steamed curry. As stated clearly in the edit summary, your edits were disputed by another user via edit request hence you're required to establish WP:CONSENSUS per WP:BRD in the article's talk page before restoring, failure to do so (as you had clearly did so) will be considered as signs of disruptive editing.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  11:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)


 * so if someone revert all my edit and said minor change is it okay? and when I put my information it would be offensive? Platinumshadow153 (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Platinumshadow153 As far as I'm aware of through the article's history, nobody "revert all [of your] edit and said [it's] minor change" nor did anyone stated your information is "offsensive" hence I'm not sure where you gotten this misconception of something that didn't happened. It's WP:ONUS to discuss this with the relevant party (i.e. with Pierrevang3) whom disputed your edits via Talk:Steamed curry, continuing doing so while ignoring advice will be considered as signs of disruptive editing and is a blockable offense as explicitly stated above. Please also note that your disputed materials is also mostly WP:UNSOURCED hence violating WP:VERIFY policy regardless you must establish WP:CONSENSUS with Pierrevang3 through the article's talk page before you can restore the disputed materials. Also noting that you were partially blocked for WP:EDITWAR as evidence above hence my recommendation is that you better tread the line carefully otherwise you risk getting a sitewide block.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  12:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * so I am quite confused with wikipedia system. I was banned unfare since I used critation fact to edit the articles. Could you explain more on Consensus thing? Platinumshadow153 (talk) 12:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Platinumshadow153 Why not you just read WP:CONSENSUS if you haven't done so which already explained anything there? If you still couldn't understand it and/or there is some English barrier difficulties, then kindly go to WP:TEAHOUSE and create a discussion about "what is consensus?" where a group of editors will explain more about it as I'm not sure how to even break it down and explain to you in layman terms, the TEAHHOUSE's editors will do a better job in explanation instead.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  12:51, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Cambodia Angkor Revolution Empire


The article Cambodia Angkor Revolution Empire has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Confusingly written page that appears to be a POV-fork essay of various existing articles that doesn't form a coherent topic in and of itself."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Paul_012 (talk) 03:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I believe that it is clear historic evidence that the is the revolution period of Angkor in Chinese embassy journal, French summarization of Indianisation in SE Asia, Chronicle of Thai and Chronicle of Cambodia  Platinumshadow153 (talk) 03:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Cambodia Angkor Revolution Empire for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cambodia Angkor Revolution Empire is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Cambodia Angkor Revolution Empire until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Paul_012 (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I think it mentioned clearly about the revolution of the Cambodian people against the rulers in that time. From the reference source of the Chronicle of Ayutthaya and the record of Zhou Daguan is definitely clear on this point and clear evidence to support it. Especially, the Chronicle of Cambodia itself state about this event too. All of the evidence supports the fact that there is the Revolution in Angkor in this period Platinumshadow153 (talk) 18:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)