User talk:AnywaaAciel

Anuak people

Hi and welcome to Wikipedia,

I have had to revert all your edits to Anuak people as you broke numerous references, links and images asserting that "Anywaa" is more correct than "Anuak". We often have these assertions on Wikipedia, and then someone else will assert their version. As these people appear to be validly known as "Anuak", "Anyuak", "Agnwak" and "Anywaa" we can not have all, one has to be the prime name used, and so everyone can not have their preference.

Wikipedia is for sourced information, see [[Wikipedia:Verifiability], and not personal experience/assertions, see Wikipedia:No original research, and the sources so far point to "Anuak" being more often used:

• Links you broke include sites that use Anuak in the domain name i.e. : www.anyuakmedia.com and www.anuakjustice.org
• Wikimedia Commons has 54 images in Anuak people and none in Anywaa people
• Doing a Google search gives "Anywaa" as only 16,100 hits compared to "Anuak" with 110,000 hits.
• The article has existed since 2005, and I can see no one else claiming this is an error (that doesn't mean it isn't just that you need to provide a good source to back it up)

I looked for an official government source, or something with a close link to the people themselves, but found nothing - so if you have one please add.

However, even if you have a valid sourced reason for this name change you must be much more careful when editing. You can not change, and thus break, references (page urls), image file names, wikipedia article links, etc. Just look at how you actually left the article here. All the images are broken, several references are broken, the link to the language, etc.

I understand this can be frustrating if you think you are correct, but just think how you would feel if this was the other way around and you had an article backup up by references and someone just came along and asserted a change. This is why sourced information with valid references is what is used.

Regards KylieTastic (talk) 20:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

October 2015

Hello, I'm Oshwah. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Anuak people— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Anuak people with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Anuak people with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. Materialscientist (talk) 05:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Materialscientist (talk) 05:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)