User talk:Rakamuzhaffer777

Hi My name is Raka and I'am an Indonesian editor of Wikipedia.

Welcome!

Hi Rakamuzhaffer777! 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! -- Toddy1 (talk) 05:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

Wikipedia needs to have a neutral point of view. Since Wikipedia does not describe the killing of Brigadier Mallaby as terrorism in Indonesia, we cannot describe insurgency in Aceh as terrorism in Indonesia.-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Toddy1 Oh sorry because I edited based on historical facts from my country. Rakamuzhaffer777 (talk) 05:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine that history in your country is taught as though the independence struggle of Indonesia against the Netherlands was right, but the independence struggles of various peoples against Indonesia were wrong. That is not a neutral point of view. The Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy is that "articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias." -- Toddy1 (talk) 09:03, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding "supported by" to the infobox of articles on military conflicts is deprecated. That means that it has been agreed that it is not a good idea. Please could you self-revert the edits you made adding them to the infobox of Indonesian invasion of East Timor, and do not add them anywhere else. Please see the request for comment at Template talk:Infobox military conflict#RfC on "supported by" being used with the belligerent parameter. Per that, positive consensus is needed for any exceptions to it, see also guidance at WP:ONUS. -- Toddy1 (talk) 13:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes

You have recently made edits related to discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes. This is a standard message to inform you that discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes 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. Kathleen's bike (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:Rembo01 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rembo01. 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.

Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreamy Jazz Hi Dreamy Jazz, in advance I apologize to you for unblocking me, because I promise to obey all applicable laws and regulations, please give me one more chance. Rakamuzhaffer777 (talk) 01:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rakamuzhaffer777, you should appeal using your original account. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 08:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UNBLOCK ACCOUNT

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Rakamuzhaffer777 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

First of all, I apologize for my mistake in not obeying the rules on this website and I promise not to make or edit carelessly without clear explanation. I ask that you please give me a chance to unblock my account once again. Rakamuzhaffer777 (talk) 03:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not address the reasons that lead to your block. Yamla (talk) 12:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@Rembo01 and Rakamuzhaffer777: This unblock request is breaking the rules for unblocking sock puppet accounts. You can find the rules for this at: WP:SOCKBLOCK. -- Toddy1 (talk) 08:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]