User talk:Samalik16

Hello, Samalik16, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
• and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Sandtalon (talk) 06:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

However, I unfortunately did revert your edits to lolicon. Don't take this personally; I know they were in good faith. Unfortunately, the content of those edits does not quite conform to Wikipedia's standards on sources. Every claim on Wikipedia has to be backed up by a reliable source (see WP:RS, and you can't bring in your own knowledge not found in the sources (the original research policy). In this case, the relevant passage sourced for the information about lolibaba says, "'None of this makes any sense if you try to read it without understanding the language,' Kagami explains to me, animated by his fifth cup of coffee during a lunch appointment. 'Let’s say I write a Lolita granny (roribaba). That’s a character type, you know, Lolita granny. It makes no sense unless you understand that Lolita means a young girl character with a small chest and granny refers to the fact that she speaks or sounds like an old woman. You know, saying ‘ja’ at the end of a sentence. You have to read the character in terms of design, scenario and sound.'" If you can find another reliable source to back up the additional claims you want to make, then you could add those back in. But regardless, I hope you continue to edit; we value all editor's contributions as long as they are in good faith, and one of the most important Wikipedia guidelines is to be bold with your edits! Sandtalon (talk) 06:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Sonic Unleashed shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 02:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Wikipelli. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Resident Evil 4, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Wikipelli ^Talk 12:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

At least 3 editors are telling you that your sources dont meet Wikipedia's standards for use. It's time to stop reverting and start discussing (and maybe reflect on your understanding of Wikipedia's sourcing standards.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:53, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Strike Witches, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Xexerss (talk) 04:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shukusei!! Loli Goddess Requiem, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page EDM. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Good evening @Samalik16: Have you heard anything about the song being banned by NHK in Japan for being rated as a NG song? Ui also told in a stream that the song is entirely based on an inside joke but I could not find any reliable sources for it. --Goroth (talk) 17:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Ui implies that the song was banned on the basis of insulting language, which was likely derived from the sadomasochistic nature of the lyrics. She even implies a line that may have been too much. The song was still played as a background music during her radio interview though.

It's not based on an inside joke, but rather recurring jokes and trends in her streams. Her audience melting over her loli self is one thing, and the fact that she calls us "gomi" aka "garbage" multiple times throughout the song is also her official fandom name. Samalik16 (talk) 10:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for my belated feedback and thank you for clarifying. --Goroth (talk) 21:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Spider-Man 2 (2023 video game), 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. You have had several warnings concerning edit warring. Follow WP:BRD instead. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 06:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Ghost Stories (Japanese TV series), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Xexerss (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:28, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

You have recently made edits related to Yasuke. This is a standard message to inform you that Yasuke 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. Relm (talk) 04:32, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Many of the things you are attempting to add to Thomas Lockley and Yasuke have been discussed before on the talk page with clear consensus against their addition. I am reaching out again to ask you to follow 1RR and BRD by discussing your proposed changes on the talk page - preferably after reviewing the RSN on Thomas Lockley, the previous RFCs, and other relevant discussions. Relm (talk) 08:27, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Strike Witches, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources to see how to add references to an article. Thank you. Xexerss (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Symphogear, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources to see how to add references to an article. Thank you. Xexerss (talk) 02:01, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Tokusatsu, you may be blocked from editing. Xexerss (talk) 02:02, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Arcanadea. Xexerss (talk) 02:02, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Isn't that excessive? especially in one day? Let alone the same 5 minutes?

even in the case of arcanadia, which is an established franchise of model kits. Instead threatening me with a full deletion, maybe contribute as well to the article's quality or give me a note that it needs sources instead of removing everything I'm doing and threatening my account for making good faith edits. This is a community project after all. Samalik16 (talk) 02:12, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

This isn't the first time you've been adding unsourced content to articles, and from what I see on your talk page, you have been ignoring warnings for some time. That is clearly not very participatory or constructive for someone who claims to care so much about this community project. Xexerss (talk) 02:19, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

"for some time"

You literally put all of these warnings on me in the same 5 minutes!!!!! not even half a day has passed on these articles and you slapped me with 3 tiers of excessive warnings!!!! This is not assuming good faith. Neither Wikipedia pages consist anything of "getting blocked for sourcing issues". So giving me these intense warnings is extremely uncalled for and is assuming bad faith off the cuff. The "citation needed" injection exists for a reason. I don't think of myself as a rogue editor, I'm just a guy who likes anime stuff and wants to help his niches be better understood when they catch my eye. Samalik16 (talk) 02:37, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Do you ever take the time to read your own talk page? This is my fourth section here giving you warnings (and by the way, I'm not the only editor who has done so), completely ignoring previous occasions, so you'll have to excuse me, but after asking you the same thing so many times, I find it hard to believe that you're acting in good faith, especially when you keep adding original content, which is against one of the site's main policies. Xexerss (talk) 02:44, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Why don't you look for the other times I've edited and and see for yourself? that never props up here. i wonder why?

I'm not a "pro wikipedian", certainly not to the point where I start outfiting my page, but I do try to write in good faith, but if it's not good enough to stay on the article then sometimes I usually move on unless there's an overdone removal like the constant removing lolicon from Saya no Uta.

Again, there is nothing in the rules saying i should be banned for citation issues, so you're overstepping a boundary here by threatening my ban over citations. Samalik16 (talk) 03:03, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

At no point was I "threatening" you, as you say. I am simply giving you the appropriate warnings to stop adding original content in the articles. True, you won't be banned just for adding original content (one would be more lenient about this if you were new here, but clearly you're not), but continuing with this habit and ignoring the warnings to stop doing so is problematic; there are "rules" for this, including WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, specifically the second point: [The disruptive editor] [i]s unwilling or unable to satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or performs original research. If this is not enough to make you realize and start adding citations properly, perhaps the best thing would be to take this issue to WP:AN/I. Xexerss (talk) 03:09, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

You literally posted the following, ending with increased intensity

"You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at (article)."

To the average layman, that sounds like a threat of a ban. Especially over citations or make a white mistake. I feel like the threat of a ban should be for more malicious behavior, not being a semi-noob at editing...

Again, i am not a "pro-wikipedian" nor am I a science scholar, I'm just a bloody nerd who is obsessed with his subcultures. Sometimes i end up editing articles that have so called "original content" and then come back later with more sources if I feel its still inadequate, assuming someone else hasn't already done it better than i have in its place. This is a community project in the end, so i am expecting everyone in the community to help bring the article together, with me jumping back in to help further if or when i can with what they do. That's good faith, is it not? Samalik16 (talk) 03:54, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

It seems that you have a misconception (and a somewhat naive one, in my opinion) about how adding content and citations works. It's not about you adding whatever content you want and then expecting someone else coming along to add the required sources for you. No, it doesn't work like that. You must add content and at the same time provide the respective sources from which you are extracting that information; see WP:NOTTRUTH. One can help you with things like correcting words, spelling, sentences, and so on with the content you are adding, but delegating to someone else the task to find the respective sources for you is not what is expected of a Wikipedia editor; that's too convenient and not what relying on a community is all about. I mean, if you want to add and write whatever content you like just like that, there are millions of other sites where you can edit, and if citations were mere adornments, we wouldn't have so many policies and guidelines on its use here. Xexerss (talk) 04:16, 13 March 2026 (UTC)