User talk:Uamaol
 | Uamaol is busy and is going to be on Wikipedia in off-and-on doses, and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
Welcome!
[edit]
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:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- How to write a great article
- Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
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)
Welcome to Wikipedia and good work
[edit]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)
Uamaol, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
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) |
A barnstar for you!
[edit]
|
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) |
Warning
[edit]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)
February 2015
[edit]
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)
- 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)
Valentine Greets!!!
[edit]
|
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. Spread the love by adding {{subst:Valentine Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
Britain
[edit]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) )
Welcoming note - Reply
[edit]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)
- I completely understand where you are coming from, all a matter of conversing with the other party if I feel I'm being unfairly reverted. Happy week! --84.90.219.128 (talk) 02:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
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)
- He knows "a thing or two" about kicking a ball, hopefully we'll see some displays of that today ;) --84.90.219.128 (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
WikiProject Abandoned Articles
[edit]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
[edit]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)
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:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- 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)
Second warning
[edit]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)
SuggestBot
[edit]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)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
[edit]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.
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)
Capital punishment in Japan
[edit]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)
- You misunderstand, this is a banned user, thus see above. Materialscientist (talk) 10:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Assume good faith and what it means.
[edit]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)
- 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)
- (TPS, per request) Maybe just a case of a terrible misunderstanding here people, quite sure. Yes Uamaol, the IP user may use a ton of IPs and not be socking at all (a dynamic IP versus a standard - like mine - one). But maybe you thought he was and thus related his actions to vandalism? I think all can be sorted out through peaceful dialogue, no need to take anything "further" for the time being.
Happy 2016 to both (and please, fellow IP, before anything else is blown out of proportion, I only dropped my two cents because Uamaol asked me to on my talkpage), from Portugal --84.90.219.128 (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I see you've added things claiming "multiple issues" with the article. Can you give some examples of these issues, e.g. by quoting from it? I'm particularly interested in why you feel "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject". What leads you to claim that? Thanks. CurrentUK (talk) 10:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- Again... If you believe there are "issues" with the article, you must explain on the article talk page what you believe they are, in order that other editors can consider them and, if necessary, address them. Or, you can address the issues by editing the article yourself. If you continue to add the tags without any explanation, they will continue to be removed. See WP:TC: "an editor who places a template message to indicate a problem like this should explain their rationale fully on the talkpage of the article. If the consensus of the other editors is that there is a problem or an editorial dispute that deserves such a clean-up template, then the editors should work to fix the problem as quickly and cleanly as possible so the template message can be removed. If the consensus is that there is no problem, then the message can be removed immediately." Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
[edit]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.
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) 02:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 18
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Labour Party Irish Society, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Labour Party. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
January 2016
[edit]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to British Science Association may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- | revenue = £2,908,598 (year ending Dec 2014<ref name=charities>{{cite web|title=Financial history - 212479 - BRITISH
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I could really use your help on Cyber Defense Labs, thanks DrSchlagger (talk) 09:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 25
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited British Science Association, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charity. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
[edit]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.
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) 01:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Cyber Defense Labs
[edit]I could use some help on tone neutrality for the Cyber Defense Labs Draft Entry. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cyber_Defense_Labs> I'm tearing my hair out it read like every other entry for companies in this category, and I have about 25 more companies in this space to profile, for the cyber security project, it is taking weeks to get this one through. Please help DrSchlagger 2f6o5oahqu11:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- @DrSchlagger:25 more companies? How come? Uamaol (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- There is a wiki project on cyber security and cyber security companies. It is very sparse. Wikipedia has article on every starlet who has ever bared her chest on tv or cinema, every Indy filmmaker who does a coffee house release or some obscure film about his/her/its feeling about society. But there is a war going on that the western world is losing, it is fought by small companies and it departments against state sponsored actors. I know something about this fight I have seen the Iranians, Chinese Russian and other take over our critical infrastructure. I have called the FBI, CERT and others in the government and heard their apologies and excuses and watched as they did nothing. Then you call a small company and they drop what they are doing, rush over whether its the middle of the night or on a weekend, and they take care of the problem. People wonder why I'm passionate about this subject ? It's not because I work for one of these companies, its because I've seen them respond when the safety of drinking water or gas pipelines is at stake. I plan to do a series of interconnecting articles on the entire ecosystem of cyber security. If I can get past the deletionists who now seem to control all submissions. Its easy to run edit number up by simply denying everything reflexively. I'm asking for help getting something published. I have made every single change everyone has suggested. I see lots of less notable things published, there are thousands of stubs and article with no sources whatsoever, but in the AFC que people act like publication is some kind of special event. Cyber security and critical infrastructure are only matters of life and death for individuals and our civilization, it would be nice to see them covered with the same thoroughness as the pop-star of the week on some self congratulatory awards show. DrSchlagger (talk) 11:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- @DrSchlagger:Most articles which you see with very little or no references, are so because when they were created, the encyclopædia was in its infancy, and so far, those articles have not yet reached the attention of editors either with an interest in the topic, or one of the many groups that work solely on expanding articles. You're quarrel is clearly with the draft review process, something I personally have not ever gone through. Notability in print and click with notable, independent sources as well as material not written like a promotion is what would be acceptable for an article. I can see your viewpoint that such services should receive coverage, but small companies, especially non-notable ones, do not meet the scope of WP. On the subject matter, I know many individuals who work within cyber security who would agree that as an industry, it isn't very well established or widely known about. Even the larger firms are pretty much unknown outside the hacker community, let alone the world as a whole. Whilst it may be useful to let people know who exists and has done what, it can be concluded that as said article will likely get very few hits and it could be assumed that its creation was for promotion only (seeWP:PROMOTION); Therefore it will likely receive an AfD tag (see WP:AFD). If you want to expand the area of cyber security, I suggest focusing upon the larger companies and of the technologies and nomenclature, first. There are many areas, particularly within the history and jargon of the subject which are lacking attention, as well as with extension to numerous other computer science topics. Uamaol (talk) 21:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- By the current "broken" notability guidelines there are no cyber security companies big enough to be notable, General Dynamics Mission Systems and GE Energy systems are apparently not significant enough to be "notable" and they do billions in business a year and push technology forward. sot the guardians of notability are going to turn an encyclopedia into a pop culture wasteland because that is what gets coverage in the main stream press. I'm starting to remember what I quit spending my time editing here 8 years ago and why most of the founders have moved on. but after I spend my 90 days in purgatory I will be eligible to be on the AFC project and I can get this back to the way it should be. DrSchlagger (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- @DrSchlagger:You are missing the many scientific, geographical and historical articles which exist on WP. The number of articles which people make for living persons and companies which get rejected is a bit ridiculous. If the foundation allowed anything to be accepted, then WP would be a much worse off place. Plus, mentions in the press may denote notability, but it doesn't mean that is written is correct. The press often gets alot of things wrong, especially facts. If there are larger companies which are not covered, but that you believe would be of notability, go ahead and create articles for them. A company like the above, which people even in the industry have never heard of, and probably isn't very well known outside the USA probably has very little note for mention. On notability: "the topic must have been covered in mainstream media or major academic journal sources that are independent of the article's subject. Further, WP intends to convey only knowledge that is already established and recognized." Cyber Security Labs reads like a promotion for the company. Most of the article, especially "Filling the Personnel Gap" & "CDL In the Cyber Community" looks like something you'd find on its website, and would therefore be deemed as uncyclopædic. The style of writing makes it sound more like an advertisement, which WP is not for. ND: can you please not remove the indentation marks, it makes it very difficult to read. Uamaol (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
[edit]We'd like to invite you to participate in a user study closely related to SuggestBot. User:Another Article is seeking to understand more about the workflow and time commitment of contributors to the English Wikipedia. As part of this study you will occasionally be prompted to answer questions about your editing activity, and these questions should never take more than a minute or two to complete. The intended length of the study is two weeks, but your actual time commitment is totally up to you. If you would like to see more details you can read the project proposal at Research:Measuring editor time commitment and workflow (on meta), but if you are feeling bold and would like just like to sign up right now you can add the line importScript("User:Another_Article/workflowstudyclient.js"); to your common.js. Contact User:Another Article if you have any questions about this study!
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.
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. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi, at Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge we're striving to bring about 10,000 article improvements and creations for the UK and Ireland and inspire others to create more content. In order to achieve this we need diversity of content, in all parts of the UK and Ireland on all topics. Eventually a regional contest will be held for all parts of the British Isles, like they were for Wales and the Wedt Country. We currently have just over 1900 articles and need contributors! If you think you'd be interested in collaborating on this and helping reach the target quicker, please sign up and begin listing your entries there as soon as possible! Thanks.♦ --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
You might want to look at the edit content before thinking about 3RR warnings. That was a clear case of reverting vandalism while waiting for an admin to act on the AIV report. Meters (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- You should also be a bit more careful about what you say in your warnings. It's not correct to say that someone will be banned if they continue edit warring [1]. They may be blocked, but you don't know that for sure since you are not an admin, and they certainly won't be banned. Banning takes a community consensus. Meters (talk) 00:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Stay off my talk page. You clearly don't know enough to be leaving 3RR warnings, and suggesting that I could be banned for this is ludicrous. You made an egregious mistake, and now you are making it worse. Meters (talk) 00:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Knock it off
[edit]Stop reverting Meters on his own page or i will block you from editing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Always Learning
[edit]Hi there UAMAOL, feeling is mutual,
i created another account (Be Quiet AL) after getting tired of editing logged off, then god fed up again and "received" this new IP after an overhaul to my computer (please see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:85.242.133.151). Now, as you can see from the banner on the top of that page, i am going on another long hiatus (this time probably for good, ten years and eight days are a pretty good run overall), working in real life for a change :)
Attentively, from Portugal --85.242.133.151 (talk) 21:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Matter of fact, i never managed to stay away for very long like intended :) --85.242.133.151 (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Asian 10,000 Challenge invite
[edit]Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 04:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
[edit]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.
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. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Europe 10,000 Challenge invite
[edit]Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
[edit]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.
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. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, Uamaol. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
[edit]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.
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. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Molony baronets
[edit]I was tipped off by a post on "Peerage News" at Google Groups; the 4th baronet was recently enrolled on the official Roll of the Baronetage. I'm not sure where to look for reliable sources on the family in general, I'm afraid. Choess (talk) 17:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
[edit]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.
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. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
[edit]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.
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. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
February 2017
[edit]
Your recent editing history at Charlie and the Bhoys shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Ronhjones (Talk) 03:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Ronhjones:, thanks for the notification but I've had at least two admins confirm my actions to be justified. I requested "extended confirmed user" not "full protection". Said edit war is over and was only the result of a vandal with a CoI. I sought help in IRC and was told I was doing the right thing. Uamaol (talk) 03:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- May well be. I don't like to see editors get blocked for trying to keep pages OK. The 3RR rule can be easily breached without realising it, if you need to do a 3rd or more edit then you must make sure the edit summary claims a valid exemption under WP:3RRNO (and there are not many reasons there!), otherwise someone will just count 1,2,3,4 - block 24 hours! I've seen it happen. Ronhjones (Talk) 03:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Ronhjones: Fair enough. I would have assumed that exemptions 4 & 5 would apply here but fair doos with the edit summaries but my big reverts were Twinkle's vandalism revert so it annoyingly doesn't let you add a summary. User kept removing content and adding material copied from (a) website(s). Thanks again for your concern. :) Uamaol (talk) 03:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- Something to suggest to improve Twinkle perhaps? Ronhjones (Talk) 16:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Ronhjones: Fair enough. I would have assumed that exemptions 4 & 5 would apply here but fair doos with the edit summaries but my big reverts were Twinkle's vandalism revert so it annoyingly doesn't let you add a summary. User kept removing content and adding material copied from (a) website(s). Thanks again for your concern. :) Uamaol (talk) 03:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- May well be. I don't like to see editors get blocked for trying to keep pages OK. The 3RR rule can be easily breached without realising it, if you need to do a 3rd or more edit then you must make sure the edit summary claims a valid exemption under WP:3RRNO (and there are not many reasons there!), otherwise someone will just count 1,2,3,4 - block 24 hours! I've seen it happen. Ronhjones (Talk) 03:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
St Michael's Catholic School, High Wycombe
[edit]Hi. You have italicised the prior names for St Michael's Catholic School, High Wycombe in the history section, with the edit summary "restored bold to reflect previous names, a common styling on wp)". Can you point me to the section of the Manual of Style that deals with this, as I've never come across it? Or point out some other examples where it is done, as again I have never come across it? Thanks CalzGuy (talk) 07:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 10
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Charlie and the Bhoys, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Territorial Army. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
[edit]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.
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. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 17
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brian J. Ford, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page FLS. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
On the rv of the rv.... I agree that "flop" is subjective, but Christopher Walken is not the star of Kangaroo Jack, and according to CinemaBlend (here) he has "five minutes of screen time" in the film. This review at a Detroit paper says, "Unfortunately for Kangaroo Jack, Walken and the kangaroo get a fairly equal amount of screen time, which is to say not much at all." here Pittsburgh Post Gazette says "doesn't have alot of screen time" here. As the current lede says, Walken has appeared in over 100 films, and frankly Kangaroo Jack is not notable enough to include in the list of examples, and frankly wikilinking it violates the spirit of WP:CONTEXTLINK. Finally, you do realize that this movie was added to the lede quite recently by an IP user who has never edited any other article, and did this addition on April 1? --Krelnik (talk) 13:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Krelnik: That's enough evidence for me to warrant an "rv of the rv of the rv" hahahaha :) On the matter of the IP and their single edit, I like to assume good faith with IP users as there are some pretty prolificly constructive ones out there (see my wikifriend "Always Learning", an individual who has contributed MASSIVELY to Spanish football articles and who prefers being an IP user for some reason, here: Special:Contributions/85.242.133.151 as an example). Just because its a first edit doesn't mean much either, as sometimes registered users edit away from home or (like myself) forget they're not logged in and leave the world seeing their IP! Hopefully no hard feelings chap! :) UaMaol (talk) 22:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. I went ahead and removed Kangaroo Jack from the lede. --Krelnik (talk) 14:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
[edit]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.
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. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 22
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mary Elmes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cork. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 29
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited El Monte Flores 13, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Department of Justice. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Irish slaves myth
[edit]Uamaol, rather than make yet another bad edit, I would be obliged if you could add the following new source to the Irish slaves myth article on my behalf. I'll really have to take tuition on how to do this myself! Fergananim (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC) http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/10.1163/22134360-09101056
- @Fergananim: Ah yes, that bane of an article. If I was Jimmy Wales I would perma-delete it, hahahaha. Was there a specific page you wanted to reference or just the entire journal? UaMaol (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- Not at present; so long as it is added, it can be edited at leisure. Fergananim (talk) 12:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Fergananim: Done. The wikicode in in the Irish slaves myth#Background section. If you want to cite something inline, which can be at the end of a paragraph of text if you wish, you can now use
<ref name="NWIG"/>in that article, which makes it easier to add content, if that was your original aim. :) UaMaol (talk) 13:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Fergananim: Done. The wikicode in in the Irish slaves myth#Background section. If you want to cite something inline, which can be at the end of a paragraph of text if you wish, you can now use
- Not at present; so long as it is added, it can be edited at leisure. Fergananim (talk) 12:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Survey Invite
[edit]I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they effect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take 5 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.
I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.
Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 21:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Porteclefs:"I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest." Really? I was not aware of this. Was I hand picked or was this automated?UaMaol (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
King of Gibraltar
[edit]Hello. The edit was reverted by me since the editor in the previous edits claimed that the king of Spain still is king of Gibraltar, with Elizabeth II "only" being head of state (don't me ask me to explain the logic in that...). The Spanish use of the title "king of Gibraltar" is also relevant only for the article named King of Gibraltar, not the article about Gibraltar itself, since Spain gave up sovereignty over Gibraltar in 1713. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 19:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Thomas.W: Maybe so, but Elizabeth II is still the Duke of Normandy (not Duchess) despite her ancestors relinquishing any claim over continental Normandy and other French claims in the Treaty of Paris in 1259. The Normandy article mentions this fact in the lead, along with how she is still known by the title in the Channel Islands, which were exempt from the treaty. Also, this conversation would be better suited on the respective talk page. UaMaol (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- You have to differentiate between political facts and claims in titles. Royalty can use whatever titles they want, whether it be the queen of the UK claiming to be Duke of Normandy or the king of Spain claiming to be king of Gibraltar, but those title claims have nothing whatsoever to do with Normandy in the first case or Gibraltar in the second case. And just like there's no mention of the queen of the UK claiming to be Duke of Normandy in Normandy there should be no mention of the king of Spain claiming to be king of Gibraltar in Gibraltar. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Ahem
[edit]WP:DONTBITE. 81.156.182.211 (talk) 22:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Thankyou for your participation in the challenge series or/and contests. In November The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There will be over $4000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. If this would appeal to you and you think you'd be interested in contributing new articles on women during this month for your region or wherever please sign up in the participants section. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate and raise money to buy books about women for others to use, this is also fine. Thankyou, and if taking part, good luck!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 12
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Emerge Stimulation Drink, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Rockstar and Relentless (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
[edit]Hello, Uamaol. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 17
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Southend News Network, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page RT (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
A beer for you!
[edit]
|
toasting you for improving, sourcing an old article E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC) |
@E.M.Gregory: ooh, I just noticed this. It's not often you get recognition for stuff. I might put this on my user page. ;) By "toast" I assume you are referring to the Toastmasters International article. There's not a great deal of media reporting on them but Google Books is worth a look when you can't find any news stories. The two gems I pulled up are evidence of that, the 1970 one is the jewel on the two. They certainly do seem incredibly shy and that nearly all media presence comes from clubs or districts themselves. If you liked those, check out the 1966 one I have just added, along with loads of other references. UaMaol (talk) 01:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Reply
[edit]Hi there UAMAOL,
yes, you got it right! Still here and counting, this is my new (and last) account.
Kind regards --Quite A Character (talk) 03:51, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Toastmasters International
[edit]People use Wikipedia to learn about things and every edit I've done to the Toastmasters International was intended to clarify this subject to readers who wish to know: "what is this organization?" Your suspicions that these changes resulted in a promotional tone are incorrect. You and another editor do not seem to be reading my edits with clear eyes but rather suspicious eyes clouded by your suspicion. Please be neutral and clear in reading edits rather than blinded by your intentions to implement the five pillars. This article is a mess and not informative enough to readers. Not only am I NOT promoting them but some of my clarifications would have certainly make some readers quite uninterested in that organization. We can't let the rules of Wikipedia stop us from informing readers. The article needs high quality sources to cite and I'm looking for those. Meanwhile it sits there with spelling errors and inaccurate content. Toastmasters International does not "place a large emphasis on building the public speaking and leadership of it's members" rather It's one and only mission is to build..... The word "mission" struck you as promotional? Metaphysics Man (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Template message/Edit summaries
[edit]Hi Uamaol, if you're going to issue a warning please make sure it's consistent with policy. My edit summary did explain the reasoning behind my editorial judgment to remove the content I did. If you chose to revert it because you disagreed with my judgment, you are well within established practice to do so. You are NOT operating within policy to revert on sight and then template me for blanking... or to assert I should take something to talk before editing when there aren't page specific requirements to do so (See WP:BRD). 198.119.225.212 (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 21
[edit]An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Aylesbury, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Abingdon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 2
[edit]An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alfie Best, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stationery Office (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
[edit]Hello, Uamaol. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 26
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Socialist Labour Party (UK), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Labour Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:11, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
John Tennant MEP
[edit]I removed the bottom section because hearsay about how close someone may be to someone else doesn't exactly seem relevant, reliable or even useful. And unless you're going through every Councillor in Hartlepool and listing what job they held previously I don't see why it's relevant.--TacticalDiplomacy (talk) 10:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- @TacticalDiplomacy: It may not seem relevant, but it explains how a councillor from Hartlepool managed to get in the good books and become and MEP for the Brexit party. The job mentioned is in the Guardian article (Cite error: A
<ref>tag is missing the closing</ref>(see the help page).</nowiki> and one or more<ref name="foo"/>referring to it. Someone then removed the<ref name="foo">...</ref>but left the<ref name="foo"/>, which results in a big red error in the article. I replaced one of the remaining<ref name="foo"/>with a copy of the<ref name="foo">...</ref>; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any big red error.
If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 01:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}} to your talk page.
Concubinage in Islam
[edit]Uamaol, I've gone through the sources and been pretty active on the talk page. I can explain my changes in more detail there as well. You actually deleted the quotation from the source itself. My edits could be parsed out better though. In any case, it was not a blanket removal of material. Just wanted to inform you. 119.155.0.8 (talk) 04:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Contributions/119.155.0.8: I didn't read the edit summary. IP users that remove content are usually doing so maliciously, and articles like this are common targets. I forgot to apply good faith. Apologies. Have you considered registering? Users will take your edits more seriously. Thanks UaMaol (talk) 05:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Veteran's and Peoples Party
[edit]Hi
I've been trying to provide updates to the above wikipage that you created but an editor Vif12vf, keeps on reverting changes even when the evidence is provided as follows:
<http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Registrations/PP6719> this link is the latest registration of VAPP with UK EC with George Reid as Leader.
<https://www.ukvpp.org/> this link is the official VAPP website and not the one currently seen on the wikipage <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veterans_and_People%27s_Party>
Is there anyway you can help with ensuring this page is factual and current. Vif12vf persists in having the party labelled Right-Wing with no evidence to support such a label yet VAPP website and manifesto has them identified as Centrist. I have googled and found no sources that indicate the party to be Right-Wing. Your assistance is greatly appreciatedDingapottamuss (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Disambiguation link notification for January 8
[edit]An automated process has detected that when you recently edited B&M, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barking.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
League of Mercy
[edit]Thank you for your help with the vandalism on League of Mercy. I was unaware of your major revision, which would have been much easier for me to go back to instead of going through it line by line. If the vandalism on it continues, I think we should seek semi-protect status for it. Ortolan57 (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 14
[edit]An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wyldecrest Parks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Abingdon.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 4
[edit]An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Asphalt Princess, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Canada Building.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Disambiguation link notification for December 19
[edit]An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tin whistle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Great Britain and Ireland.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Concern regarding User:Uamaol/Lorus
[edit] Hello, Uamaol. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that User:Uamaol/Lorus, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 06:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 27
[edit]An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ross McWhirter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page La Vergne.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
July 2023
[edit]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Britain First. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. DanielRigal (talk) 23:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 23
[edit]An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Housing estate, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Britain.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:25, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_September_29#Category:Tristanian_medical_doctors. – Fayenatic London 12:13, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 3
[edit]An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 5 ft 3 in gauge railways, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Britain.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 12
[edit]An automated process has detected that when you recently edited William Campbell-Taylor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hackney.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
William Campbell-Taylor
[edit]User User:Uamaol
Please refer to the following Wikipedia policies in relation to your editing:
1. See WP:OWN Template:In use Template was placed more than 24 hours ago, last edit more than 5 hours ago. "Specifying periods of around a day or longer for this template goes against the spirit of simply avoiding edit conflicts...If this template has been left in place for more than two hours since the last edit, you may assume the placing editor has forgotten to remove it, and you may remove it yourself" You have blocked editing by others of the article with the InUse for more than 24 hours sometimes with several hours between editing - in contravention of this policy, and a breach of WP:OWN 2. See WP:BLPSELFPUB WP:BLPSELFPUB "Use of self-published source by the subject himself...Such material may be used as a source only if: it does not involve claims about third parties;[d] If a self-published denial does additionally make claims about third parties, those additional claims do fall under this criteria, and do not merit inclusion in Wikipedia". Likewise where copied and repeated by the subject's personal friend. I share the concern that WP:BLP should have WP:RELIABLE non-self published sources, and Wikipedia policies therefore do not allow the subject's self-published sources to make claims about third parties 3. See WP:PUBLICFIGURE WP:BLPPUBLIC The subject is a public figure. "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it". The Church of England Newspaper is a respected and authoritative source where the newspaper's Editor reports on the current official live legal Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 against the subject, and this source is quoted directly without editor comment or opinion. See WP:NPOV balance of material. In relation to WP:NPOV you have reverted or deleted respected, reliable and independent sources pertaining to the subject, without explanation, while keeping self-published sources. This is disruptive editing. WhiteHartInn (talk) 00:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- I am happy to discuss with you collaboration in the editing of the page to avoid edit conflict. WhiteHartInn (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- @WhiteHartInn:
- I previously asked you nicely to stop editing the article due to edit conflicts, yet you persisted, which in itself is disruptive editing. You have since reverted my edits twice now. As I previously stated, I am actively making a major edit to the article, therefore to actively abide by the two hour guideline you mentioned is not assuming good faith. Instead of continually using the edit summaries as your soapbox, put something in the article talk page and ping me.
- Your last edits to the article were back in December and consisted solely of a self-published source consisting of a letter complaint, and before this every edit since your account creation on 6 September 2023 has been minor copy editing. The contributions that I am allegedly blocking are actually complaints about my editing and not new content. It's interesting that you are mentioning WP:OWN as your actions are showing perceived ownership of the article.
- The self-published source that you keep removing is there as a direct link to the source of the secondary source provided (City Matters). As per WP:SECONDARY: A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. There's a single self-published source as opposed to "sources", which technically complies with WP:ABOUTSELF. This partially breaks rule #2 of "not involv[ing] claims about third parties", however the source relates directly towards what the subject has experienced, and involves a secondary source beside it for scrutiny.
- I agree with you about NPOV, however when I found this article whilst reading about City of London ward elections I was shocked at how heavily libellous it was and gave undue weight towards negative allegations against the subject, coupled with awful sourcing. The state it was in would have given Campbell-Taylor sufficient grounds to sue the Wikimedia Foundation on the grounds of defamation and part our duty as editors we must strive towards preventing such. As per WP:LIBEL [sic] It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that the material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory. It is a Wikipedia policy to immediately delete libelous material when it has been identified... Libelous material (otherwise known as defamation) is reasonably likely to damage a person or company's reputation and could expose Wikipedia to legal consequences. As per WP:UNDUE Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery.
- As per WP:AGF, Assuming good faith (AGF) means assuming that people are not deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia, even when their actions are harmful. This is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. Most people try to help the project, not hurt it. If this were untrue, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning.
- Wikipedia's fifth pillar (WP:5P5) Wikipedia has no firm rules: Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions. Be bold, but not reckless, in updating articles. And do not agonize over making mistakes: they can be corrected easily because (almost) every past version of each article is saved.
- I have no issues with negative press on individuals, and am guilty of adding it on other BLPs, however some of the content that was present is very fishy, in contrast to some that I have found of the internet, including in the sources, which is downright bonkers. The solution to the stalement is to ignore articles with inuse tags and come back to them a few days afterwards and remove them if unnecessary. On the matter of NPOV, I am happy to collaborate.UaMaol (talk) 02:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Uamaol:
- It is good we are talking. Firstly, I have never reverted any of your edits. In accordance with my reading of what seemed clearly stated Wikipedia policies for Template:In use and time limits for that, and as per WP:AGF I saw your InUse template hanging for well over 2 hours with no editing by you - and in good faith I followed policy - and did not revert your edits, which I have never done, but edited myself including adding verifiably sourced content. If you had communicated with me and explained that you were going to be doing your major edit for X length of time, I would have understood and of course left it to you for that whole specified period, but instead you simply reverted my edit, and maintained the tag for much longer than the Wikipedia policies state - without explanation, giving the impression of WP:OWN. But that is water under the bridge and it is good we are communicating now.
- As I have reached out to you, I am happy to collaborate to achieve WP:CONSENSUS on the article.
- In relation to content, the retention of self-published material by the subject that makes allegations about third parties - particularly when the said third party has brought live, active legal proceedings against the subject for alleged abuse offences - is not merely a partial breach of rule #2 of WP:ABOUTSELF, it is an evident breach. It is also a breach in England of Section 1 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Acts 1992 to 2003, prohibiting any publication which may indirectly identify a purported victim of an alleged offence, which some of what the subject's blog says does. It is widely known that the journalist who rehearses in her articles what the subject says is a close friend-cum-ex-partner of the subject. While her first article about the distribution of flyers during the election might be argued to be as you say WP: SECONDARY "A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event"...her second article which is a blog and plainly a verbatim copy-and-paste job from the subject's self-published personal blog in which he attacks and makes self-published claims about an alleged victim who has filed complaints and instituted legal proceedings against the subject for alleged offences - that is not a genuinely independent secondary source.
- In relation to achieving WP:NPOV in content and space of content, the allegations by the subject against third parties need to be balanced against the reported fact that his alleged victim has brought official legal proceedings against the subject who is a Public figure - and we both agree that robustly independent, trustworthy and reliable sources need to apply. On both sides. The sources written by the Editor of a national Church of England newspaper is such a robust, independent and reliable source. In order to achieve dispassionate neutrality, I have always simply quoted directly verbatim from the independent reliable source without any commentary or paraphrasing of my own.
- As you suggest, I am happy to let a few days pass, and then re-engage in editing towards WP:NPOV. I have no problem with the other content you have added to the article which is fair enough. WhiteHartInn (talk) 09:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- I have just discovered this reply and I'm a tad blown away by some of the things you've brought to the table. Firstly, you reverted my edits twice on 12 February. As previously stated about policies they are not carved in stone. Before editing this article I had no reason to be in contact with you, therefore would have no reason to alert you about edits. It was not obvious before deciding to edit this article that you would be be so protective over its contents.
- Consensus can be made, but you keep stating in edit summaries that consensus has already been established when it very clearly has not been!
- I have removed the self-published source, however I only had it in there to back up the secondary source. On Wikipedia it's very common to see a secondary source followed by a primary one, so a news article about a tweet followed by the actual tweet, for example.
- If you genuinely believe that the blog and the article by City Matters does indeed break the law then take it up with the City of London Police. Regardless of legality, if it's published, like these two sources are, it's fair game. They were both published almost six and half years ago. Are you trying to imply that I am committing an offence in adding the sources? Where exactly in the blog does he identify the alleged victim?
It is widely known that the journalist who rehearses in her articles what the subject says is a close friend-cum-ex-partner of the subject.
Widely known by who exactly? I tried Googling her twice and found nothing. What's your source of this alleged COI? Do you know her personally?- It's interesting that you complain about a "copy-and-paste job" when you keep insisting on keeping your own contributions of the very same nature. News articles and encyclopæedias are not the same things and require different writing styles. Excessive quotation is not encyclopædic and is honestly lazy editing. You do it too much and your individual edits will literally be deleted (not even just reverted) by an admin for WP:COPYVIO.
- I've seen no indication that the Church of England Newspaper (COEN) is a reliable source. It's a glorified religious newsletter. City Matters is questionably reliable also, however as a local newspaper it has some level of notability as a source. COEN is independent of the Church of England and is privately run by the for-profit company, Political and Religious Intelligence Ltd. The Church Times has at least three times the circulation, also.
- Do not insert excessive quotes, paraphrase. UaMaol (talk) 02:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
The Mary Wallopers "Anglophobia"
[edit]Hi there Uamaol, I saw that you were also involved in the "Anglophobia"... conflict, shall we say, on The Mary Wallopers. There's a discussion happening on the talk about it's inclusion, if you'd like to weigh in. Xx78900 (talk) 23:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Xx78900: Belated cheers! :) UaMaol (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 18
[edit]An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ronald S. Mangum, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Evanston and New York.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 3
[edit]An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
- Anti-Irish sentiment
- added a link pointing to Barking
- Irish people in Great Britain
- added a link pointing to Barking
- White Irish
- added a link pointing to Barking
- White people in the United Kingdom
- added a link pointing to Barking
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
May 2024
[edit] Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Cordless Larry: Which article are the referring to? My edit summaries show me showing attribution. UaMaol (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- It came to my attention via this and this. Those edit summaries don't meet the requirement to disclose the copying and link to the copied page that's outlined in my message above. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- Attribution was clearly given in first edit summary. For the second, it would be reasonable to assume the source was the former, especially as the contents of the former is in the latter. UaMaol (talk) 23:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- And the link? Cordless Larry (talk) 06:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- You've provided them both. UaMaol (talk) 00:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- What I meant was, you've not been including links to the source article in your edit summaries when copying material, which is part of the attribution requirements. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- You say that like it's a prolific problem, when in reality it's three and a half edits within 8 minutes. UaMaol (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- It wasn't a comment on the extent of the problem (I haven't checked whether you'd made this mistake before) but an explanation of what you failed to do. I suggest that rather than arguing, you just fix the attribution. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not arguing at all. How does one edit an edit summary? Is that even a thing? UaMaol (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately it's not possible, but you can make a dummy edit (for example, just adding a space somewhere) and accompany it with a new edit summary. How to do this is explained at WP:RIA. You could also use Template:Copied on the talk pages of the source and destination articles. Thanks for your co-operation. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not arguing at all. How does one edit an edit summary? Is that even a thing? UaMaol (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- It wasn't a comment on the extent of the problem (I haven't checked whether you'd made this mistake before) but an explanation of what you failed to do. I suggest that rather than arguing, you just fix the attribution. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- You say that like it's a prolific problem, when in reality it's three and a half edits within 8 minutes. UaMaol (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- What I meant was, you've not been including links to the source article in your edit summaries when copying material, which is part of the attribution requirements. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- You've provided them both. UaMaol (talk) 00:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- And the link? Cordless Larry (talk) 06:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- Attribution was clearly given in first edit summary. For the second, it would be reasonable to assume the source was the former, especially as the contents of the former is in the latter. UaMaol (talk) 23:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- It came to my attention via this and this. Those edit summaries don't meet the requirement to disclose the copying and link to the copied page that's outlined in my message above. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 12
[edit]An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aylesbury duck, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crest.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
WikiProject Eurovision Invitation!
[edit]WikiProject Eurovision invitation for Uamaol!
Hello, I've noticed that you contributed to an article within our project's scope, and would like to formally invite you to join our team of editors at WikiProject Eurovision, a WikiProject dedicated to the Eurovision family of events. If you would like to join, then please add your name to this list and add the project talk page to your watchlist.
You may also wish to receive our Project's newsletter; if so then please add your name to the mailing list.
Thanks and have a nice day! Grk1011 (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
[edit]
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
PicturePerfect666 (talk) 23:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- The reason for inclusion is the proposal to create a new article is open states to be a vehicle to be a repository for including everything under the sun on Israel as quoted here “as well as a big chunk of the Israel in Eurovision 2024 article”
- Therefor I thought it best to include those involved o that discussion as that is also listed as a discussion to try and resolve the issue. I hope that this explanation helps. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Where is this stated? UaMaol (talk) 04:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- The last line of the first comment in the discussion by the person who started the discussion. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 04:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Which discussion are you referring to exactly? UaMaol (talk) 04:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- The last line of the first comment in the discussion by the person who started the discussion. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 04:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Where is this stated? UaMaol (talk) 04:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 9
[edit]An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Christian Aid, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Testament Church of God.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)