Yukiaika3

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.

February 2022

Hi Yukiaika3! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an article 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, 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. CMD (talk) 10:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Spice trade has an edit summary that appears to be inadequate, inaccurate, or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Also, please stop using edit summaries to harass other users. Doing so may be blocked from editing. Severestorm28 22:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

False reporting

Hi, it seems that you made a false accusation on Verosaurus (talk · contribs) about reverting edit(s) in the page Undang-Undang Laut Melaka. I have reviewed the edits, and your argument is not necessarily right in itself:
- You're accusing the Verosaurus (talk · contribs) to be working for the Indonesian government. Do you have a source or proof for that?
- You're mentioning that the source they've used is not valid, and also asked where the source came from. But when I search the source myself, I can find it. This means that you're not actually looking for the said source.
- You said the Verosaurus (talk · contribs) is a buzzer for the Indonesian government. Do you have proof? This is an example of a personal attack (ad hominem) - instead of providing with better source, you blatantly accuse the user, and this should be taken seriously.
Consider this as a warning. Repeated false accusations may lead to blocking. Surijeal (talk) 06:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Yukiaika3, it seems that you made another false accusation this time on Xcelltrasi (talk · contribs) about reverting edit(s) in the page Undang-Undang Laut Melaka. I have reviewed the edits, and your argument is not necessarily right in itself:
- You're accusing the Xcelltrasi (talk · contribs) to be working for the Indonesian government. Do you have a source or proof for that?
- You're mentioning that the source they've used is not valid, and also asked where the source came from. But when I search the source myself, I can find it. This means that you're not actually looking for the said source.
- You said the Xcelltrasi (talk · contribs) is a buzzer for the Indonesian government. Do you have proof? This is an example of a personal attack (ad hominem) - instead of providing with better source, you blatantly accuse the user, and this should be taken seriously.
- You’re using the same accusations to Verosaurus (talk · contribs).
- From the edits you did, you insist the page was about the Sultanate of Malacca in Malaysia so Indonesian people should not edit it. It’s a fallacy logic, Wikipedia should be able to be edited by everyone provided that they’re using valid references and a neutral standpoint.
- You said that Undang-Undang Laut Malaka is from Malaysia. It does not necessarily from Malaysia, the code itself was made when the concept of Indonesia and Malaysia has not been invented in the 20th century.
- You said that the editors should use Malaysian journals or references. From what I’ve seen, Malaysian sources tend to take side with the Malays. If you wants to delete the sentence that mentions “It was composed by a group of Melakan shipowners, most of whom were Javanese in origin.”, you should add a reference that negates the claim. The currently-used reference is neutral in standpoint, it is researched by Southeast Asian professor emeritus Anthony Reid, who does not side with disputing countries.
- While claiming the others were not neutral, it is clear that it is you who is not neutral here. You wanted the information to be only from the Malaysian side and reject the Indonesian side, even to the point that you rejected research done by a New Zealand Professor.
Consider this as a second warning. Repeated false accusations may lead to blocking. Surijeal (talk) 06:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

February 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)