User talk:Rikki.doolan

Thank you for your comments

Hi, Rikki.doolan, welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your comments at Talk:Uebert Angel. I understand it seems logical to add them to the relevant already existing sections somewhere in the middle of the page; but since those sections are pretty old, nobody's going to look for new comments there, so your posts are actually unlikely to be read. The best thing is to create a new section at the bottom of the page. Also, you need to sign your posts by typing four tildes, ~~~~, so people can see they're not merely part of what somebody else said. Would you like to move your posts? Or I can do it if you like. Bishonen | talk 10:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Yes please I would appreciate that, I thought I put the four tides so I am surprised it didn't add my signature. Thanks for the advice and help. RDPaul 13:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

It didn't put your signature because you'd left ref tags unclosed which prevented the tildas from being changed into your signature, as well as hiding half of the rest of the talk page from view. When you simply give a source on a talk page, either leave out the <ref>...</ref> tags or write them properly: the closing /ref> that you wrote without an angel-bracket < creates non-obvious problems that others have to spend time cleaning up. --RexxS (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have personally known Uebert Angel for over 10 years. Mudzaire has never been his surname. I don't understand about moving this

Please just leave out this Mudzaire surname. Also there is no proof it is a Pentacostal Church Rikki

May 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Uebert Angel, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You removed the template that I had added to collect the refs that you had made such a mess of. If you don't know what you're doing, please seek assistance instead of creating further problems. RexxS (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC) I did not delete any comments at all. Is this how you speak to everyone who is a fairly new user because your attitude to me is coming across loud and clear and is not welcome. RDPaul 10:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved both your comments down to where they have a chance of being seen. RexxS, is there a problem with ref tags now? I didn't see any refs template. Could you fix, please, if there's a problem? See, I don't know what I'm doing, so I'm seeking assistance! Bishonen | talk 15:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: Nope, there is no longer any problem with ref tags. Compare the 12 items in the TOC of the 11:44, 19 May 2017 version with the 18 items visible in the TOC in the 12:23, 19 May 2017 version. If I ever wanted to do subtle vandalism, unclosed ref tags would be my weapon of choice. --RexxS (talk) 15:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

reply to |RexxS I am a new user so your jargon language and the exact way to do things I am still learning. I don't even know how I ask for help. Patronising language and insinuating I am vandalising is clear to see though and very unwelcoming for a new user as myself. I want to be a positive contributor on Wikipedia and just need some technical guidance as a newcomer. Although from your attitude and reading the Uebert Angel article, you may be too emotionally involved in that particular one don't you think? RDPaul 17:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't think. And you need help with learning the standards we expect from sources, not technical help. Your refs were fixed by me. You're welcome, and thanks for calling my judgement "poor", by the way. You will probably also work out at some point who is trying to keep the article neutral and factual, and who is trying to turn it into a hagiography. Feel free to let me know when you've figured out who is who. --RexxS (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Uebert Angel. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. —Paleo Neonate - 16:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]