Jump to content

User talk:Uamaol: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 486: Line 486:


Sort yourself out or I will have to take this further. [[Special:Contributions/86.170.4.253|86.170.4.253]] ([[User talk:86.170.4.253|talk]]) 22:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Sort yourself out or I will have to take this further. [[Special:Contributions/86.170.4.253|86.170.4.253]] ([[User talk:86.170.4.253|talk]]) 22:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
:There's a problem when you threaten that someone 'will not be tolerated' when all they have done is made good faith edits and explained why the edits were made and why the original information was wrong. There's also a problem when you revert those edits purely because they are from an IP user (you admit doing this), which is in clear violation of Assume good faith. Then after reading what the edits made were and realising they were valid you (re)incorporated some of them back in to the article but missed part off. You are not the gatekeeper to Wikipedia, it is not up to you to maintain a tight grip on your 'pet' articles and revert first and ask questions later. You like to throw around threats against people who aren't violating policy (including nonsense about sock puppetry, do you not know what an IP address is?) but feel threatened yourself when your believe your frequent and blatant violations of policy will come to the attention of other, perhaps more senior users? The fact that you seem to believe that other people following Wikipedia policy is a direct threat to you but that it's acceptable for you to threaten other people who haven't violated policy seems the clearest indicator of all that you know you are in the wrong. The messages from other users on this page only further confirm that you don't believe Wikipedia policy applies to you and and also you think you own personal and made up rules apply to everyone else.
:There's a problem when you threaten that someone 'will not be tolerated' when all they have done is made good faith edits and explained why the edits were made and why the original information was wrong. There's also a problem when you revert those edits purely because they are from an IP user (you admit doing this), which is in clear violation of Assume good faith. Then after reading what the edits made were and realising they were valid you (re)incorporated some of them back in to the article but missed part off. You are not the gatekeeper to Wikipedia, it is not up to you to maintain a tight grip on your 'pet' articles and revert first and ask questions later. You like to throw around threats against people who aren't violating policy (including nonsense about sock puppetry, do you not know what an IP address is?) but feel threatened yourself when your believe your frequent and blatant violations of policy will come to the attention of other, perhaps more senior users? The fact that you seem to believe that other people following Wikipedia policy is a direct threat to you but that it's acceptable for you to threaten other people who haven't violated policy seems the clearest indicator of all that you know you are in the wrong. The messages from other users on this page only further confirm that you don't believe Wikipedia policy applies to you and and also you think you own personal and made up rules apply to everyone else. [[Special:Contributions/86.170.4.253|86.170.4.253]] ([[User talk:86.170.4.253|talk]]) 12:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:51, 28 December 2015

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Uamaol! Thank you for your contributions. I am Lixxx235 and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Cheers, Thanks, L235-Talk Ping when replying 20:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Welcome to Wikipedia and good work

Welcome and thank you for joining and editing Wikipedia.

This is not an automated bot that placed this message. Yes, it is boilerplate, but it won't appear anywhere if I don't put it there. You are reading this because I've looked at your contributions and it's obvious that we'd like to keep you around.

If you have any questions, please click this link, then hit the new section and rock and roll. I really like to pretend to know what I'm doing here, so I'm sure I'll give you the right answer, and if I don't, you can whack me with a trout.

Thanks, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uamaol, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Teahouse logo

Hi Uamaol! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! Technical 13 (I'm a Teahouse host)

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thank you very much for your anti-vandal contributions. Cheers, Thanks, L235-Talk Ping when replying 20:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Hello Uamaol. You re-installed an obvious hoax and stupid joke on the Danish pastry page. Was it a mistake perhaps?

The page is currently under sporadic attack. Please do not escalate the problems there.

RhinoMind (talk) 02:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

Information icon Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Girlicious. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Reventtalk 00:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For 'future reference' after this gets archived (and I mentioned this to Uamaol on IRC) this was a somewhat 'pro-forma' warning of both parties... the edit war in question was over repeated section blanking by an IP, who continued the blanking after logging in to a sleeper account and was temp blocked after an AN3 report. While Uamaol 'technically' violated 3RR, I don't think (he?) was really 'at fault' for doing so, and this should be interpreted more as a 'new editor indiscretion' due to a lack of familiarity with how to handle the matter than an indication of 'contentious behavior'. Reventtalk 13:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Valentine Greets!!!

Valentine Greets!!!

Hello Uamaol, love is the language of hearts and is the feeling that joins two souls and brings two hearts together in a bond. Taking love to the level of Wikipedia, spread the WikiLove by wishing each other Happy Valentine's Day, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person.
Sending you a heartfelt and warm love on the eve,
Happy editing,
--L235 (talk) As a courtesy, please ping me when replying. 01:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Valentine Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Britain

Britain or Great Britain is the largest island in the British Isles. The UK or United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a country. The edit you self-reverted was actually correct, the IP editor is wrong. Regards, WCMemail 19:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC) )[reply]

Welcoming note - Reply

Hi there UAMAOL, (formerly known as) ALWAYSLEARNING here,

I had an account (name above), but decided to have it vanished after a serious run-in with a troll (more details here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:188.81.115.107, quite "charming" the person, then taunted me even more when I went to the pages of my wikifriends to notify them of my departure by writing there "Bye AL"), with the intention of leaving forever. Guess I cannot, I'm "hooked"... I have been here for almost nine years by the way.

For the moment, don't see the purpose of creating a new account. Plus, this IP is static, so I'm easily caught for good or bad.

Best wishes for you too, happy editing --84.90.219.128 (talk) 02:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, I feel humbled (darn, I can't return the favour without an account, will I get another one after all?)... Saúde ("cheers" in Portuguese)! --84.90.219.128 (talk) 03:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Abandoned Articles

I am no longer involved in Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Articles only on Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories and Wikiquote. Miszatomic (talk) 23:21, 24 Feruary 2015 (UTC)

Editing conventions

Please read WP:BOLD. It's up to you to justify your edit, particularly your claim that Newfoundland is a primary division of Irish, or indeed that it's a single dialect at all. — kwami (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  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.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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.

Your edit is still unsupported. Unless you have evidence, I will continue to revert you. And don't be an ass by posting BS on my talk page. — kwami (talk) 21:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second warning

People have been thanking me for reverting your edits. Even if you have evidence to support them, per BOLD you should take them to the talk page. Your edits, up to you to prove them. So far all you've done is to deny yourself. — kwami (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day Quality Title Content Headings Images Links Sources Tagged with…
16 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Haddenham, Buckinghamshire (talk) Please add more content Please add more sources Add sources
495 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: C Buckinghamshire (talk) Add sources
35 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C A41 road (talk) Please add more content Please add more sources Add sources
2 Quality: High, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: GA Sins Invalid (talk) Please add more content Please create proper section headings Please add more images Please add more wikilinks Please add more sources Add sources
19 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Aylesbury (UK Parliament constituency) (talk) Please add more sources Add sources
631 Quality: High, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: GA Gigi Gorgeous (talk) Please add more content Please add more images Please add more sources Add sources
1,125 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Professional certification (talk) Please add more sources Cleanup
59 Quality: High, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: FA Western Pennsylvania English (talk) Cleanup
728 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Intranet (talk) Please add more content Please create proper section headings Please add more images Please add more wikilinks Please add more sources Cleanup
3,070 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: FA, Predicted class: B Istanbul (talk) Expand
1,910 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: B Human papillomavirus (talk) Expand
7 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Andaman district (talk) Please add more content Please create proper section headings Please add more images Please add more wikilinks Please add more sources Expand
501 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: B Debate (talk) Please add more sources Unencyclopaedic
2 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: Start Shameer Aziz Quidwai (talk) Please add more content Please add more images Please add more wikilinks Please add more sources Unencyclopaedic
108 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: Start Housing estate (talk) Please add more content Please add more images Please add more sources Unencyclopaedic
1,728 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: B High school (talk) Please add more sources Merge
605 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: B Software development (talk) Please add more sources Merge
1,278 Quality: High, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: A Software engineering (talk) Merge
539 Quality: Low, Assessed class: List, Predicted class: Start Ben Affleck filmography (talk) Please add more content Please add more images Please add more sources Wikify
8 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Noiselet (talk) Please add more content Please create proper section headings Please add more images Please add more wikilinks Please add more sources Wikify
176 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Niger Delta (talk) Please add more content Please add more sources Wikify
1 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Ascodroutes (talk) Please add more content Please create proper section headings Please add more images Please add more wikilinks Please add more sources Orphan
10 Quality: Low, Assessed class: List, Predicted class: Stub Ehren (talk) Please add more content Please create proper section headings Please add more images Please add more wikilinks Please add more sources Orphan
0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Ajjanahalli, Arsikere (talk) Please add more content Please create proper section headings Please add more images Please add more sources Orphan
9 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Stub A413 road (talk) Please add more content Please create proper section headings Please add more sources Stub
4 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Edlesborough Northall and Dagnall (talk) Please add more content Please create proper section headings Please add more images Please add more sources Stub
2 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Little Meadle (talk) Please add more content Please create proper section headings Please add more images Please add more sources Stub
6 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Gawcott (talk) Please add more content Please create proper section headings Please add more sources Stub
5 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Mutia, Zamboanga del Norte (talk) Please add more content Please create proper section headings Please add more wikilinks Please add more sources Stub
3 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: Stub Bucks Herald (talk) Please add more content Please create proper section headings Please add more images Please add more wikilinks Please add more sources Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Capital punishment in Japan

Note that reverting (and blocking) an editor who evades their block via open proxies does not constitute edit warring. Materialscientist (talk) 09:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand, this is a banned user, thus see above. Materialscientist (talk) 10:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith and what it means.

Deleting incorrect information and explaining why the information is incorrect does not in any way violate the rules on assuming good faith.

However reverting that correction simply because it was made by an IP user does violate it. Making threats to that user is hardly assuming good faith either.

Sort yourself out or I will have to take this further. 86.170.4.253 (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a problem when you threaten that someone 'will not be tolerated' when all they have done is made good faith edits and explained why the edits were made and why the original information was wrong. There's also a problem when you revert those edits purely because they are from an IP user (you admit doing this), which is in clear violation of Assume good faith. Then after reading what the edits made were and realising they were valid you (re)incorporated some of them back in to the article but missed part off. You are not the gatekeeper to Wikipedia, it is not up to you to maintain a tight grip on your 'pet' articles and revert first and ask questions later. You like to throw around threats against people who aren't violating policy (including nonsense about sock puppetry, do you not know what an IP address is?) but feel threatened yourself when your believe your frequent and blatant violations of policy will come to the attention of other, perhaps more senior users? The fact that you seem to believe that other people following Wikipedia policy is a direct threat to you but that it's acceptable for you to threaten other people who haven't violated policy seems the clearest indicator of all that you know you are in the wrong. The messages from other users on this page only further confirm that you don't believe Wikipedia policy applies to you and and also you think you own personal and made up rules apply to everyone else. 86.170.4.253 (talk) 12:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]