This is an archive of past discussions with User:LilianaUwU. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I suggest reading WP:SPAM. References like the one I added are generally not spam. My intention was not to promote an author or any other individual, but to provide a source for my addition. Maybe be more careful when determining whether a link is spam or not. 47.227.95.73 (talk) 14:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Problem editor
Thanks for the message you left on my user page. I am sorry, but the user I insulted has been carrying out vandalism for years on Wikipedia and refuses to stop doing so. They insist on breaking Wikipedia's house style on an almost daily basis, make edits that repeatedly introduce errors and have ignored requests from a number of editors to stop. They also refuse to set up an account and instead hide behind anonymity, and have been doing this for at least four years. Their edits are rarely helpful, consistently wrong and they refuse to listen to anyone. I agree it was wrong to insult them but after years of this behaviour and their constant vandalism they are driving people mad! Neilinabbey (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.
You have been trouted for: I'm not sure. I just really wanted to click on the trout button. So, if you enjoy trout, today is your lucky day. OwO. That Coptic Guy21:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello! I'd like to ask something: I saw that my version of Ciro Gomes does not provide a reliable source & therefore removed & put into archives.
I'm a new editor to Wikipedia & I'd like to ask how I add in my references to certain areas. Ellisevanelli (talk) 19:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
I was about to answer it when I saw you had removed the question. I'm doing fine, but a bit tired, so here is a resting cat for you. Thanks for your question, it was very nice. Isabelle Belato🏳🌈02:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Just for future reference, you might want to read WP:Should you ask a question at RfA? Your question wasn't one that would cause unnecessary stress to the candidate (always my main concern), but at RfA it's probably irrelevant and therefore not really helpful to the candidate, other !voters, or you. Valereee (talk) 21:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Rollback granted
Hi LilianaUwU. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:
Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or RedWarn.
If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 03:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Lighter touch?
Hello, for User:JamesTurnerIII, the edit was problematic but perhaps a lighter warning rather then a block warning as their first welcome? WP:BITE would apply a bit here. What they did was bad but the kids gloves for all but the most egregious stuff is what works best for first edits and welcomes! Happy editing. Unbroken Chain (talk) 03:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Actually, the ADW website is fine to use as a reference. I regularly have to clean up the articles when they are added, but they are fine to use as reference on animal articles. - UtherSRG(talk)01:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
The first link is Twinkle, an in-browser tool that can revert vandalism and tag pages. The second link is Huggle, a browser made specifically for that (though one needs rollback to truly use it, something I have). LilianaUwU(talk / contribs)04:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Hey. Sorry you're having to deal with a horrendous troll. If a CU doesn't get a chance to by the time I wake up tomorrow, I'll take a look through the list of IPs that have been harassing you tonight to identify any that can be blocked per the open proxy policy. I do have one piece of friendly advice for you though, don't engage with them any further beyond reverting and reporting any ongoing vandalism or harassment. While it can be tempting to try and talk with them, this sort of person thrives on that sort of attention, so following WP:DENY is the safest call for minimum disruption. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:26, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi Liliana. This is the second edit I've seen from you lately where you used rollback to revert a constructive edit. Please be more careful in the future. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)00:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
November 2022
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. –DMartin05:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Dmartin969 Thanks for the advice, but that's already a thing I use most of the time (in fact, 40% of my edits are just that). I do understand that I occasionally miss a template every now and then, though. LilianaUwU(talk / contribs)06:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Drake in California, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Do not remove other users' talk page comments.WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!16:30, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
WikiDan61 I wanna point out that the edit I reverted was a supposed sock, and thus I had a legitimate concern in removing the comment. As your template says, though, I should've been more cautious about it. LilianaUwU(talk / contribs)23:01, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
List of equipment of the Pakistan Army
Hello there. This edit here[1], is it definitely the correct (or most constructive) revision? The last half dozen edits look somewhat confusing. Thanks. --Coldtrack (talk) 06:08, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
You and me both (from his previous incarnation). I don't want it removed from view. Let everyone see it. Well if anyone comes along and restores an older revision, then you and I are not to blame. Anyone can see we were trying at least to uphold the rules. --Coldtrack (talk) 06:19, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Coldtrack Billy Fiddle isn't even his first account. He had many, with a notable case where an account had a name directly attacking my gender identity that was so bad it was renamed. It's been ongoing for a while now, you just randomly happened to be caught in the crossfire of one of his accounts while I was asleep. Now I start to sound like I'm rambling, but let's just say that LTA case is personal. LilianaUwU(talk / contribs)06:26, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Oh don't worry! I know who the "suspected" sockmaster is as I dealt with Billy Fiddle in (virtually) real time. You might find the onward prompts from this edit to be quite eye-opening. There is definitely one or more jokers on the case, but take it from me, none of them are the proverbial "him", as in the person who edited until 2013. I came across anomalies over a year ago, and I've got to say that Zzuuzz to his immense credibility had admitted some uncertainty. Whoever he is, I am sorry that you have experienced harassment. Keep your chin up! :) --Coldtrack (talk) 06:34, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Coldtrack I figured that it was "the LTA known as Evlekis", but the idea of multiple people/automation has been floated around before (I think it was Drmies?). I'm almost certain that is the case now, especially considering that the SPI case has been going on for a literal decade now. LilianaUwU(talk / contribs)06:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
When a person is editing a page, citations are not always placed right away. The proper way to handle this is either to be patient and give the editor a chance or one can shoot the editor a message asking about citations. Reverting edits made in good faith (i.e. not vandalism) is a poor approach. Ewingdo16:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Did the editor make a mistake by not immediately including one or more citations? yes. Did the editor make a mistake by not leaving a summary of the changes that were made? yes. Is the editor an expert at editing Wikipedia articles? Obviously not. Was the editor vandalizing the article? Obviously not. Is Wikipedia editing only allowed by those who are experts or is it allowed by people who are learning/trying to do the right but haven't made it there yet? I would suggest that sometimes we should be patient and supportive. Thank you :) Ewingdo07:11, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
@Ewingdo: Was the editor told by LilianaUwU or I that he was bad and wrong for not leaving a citation? I don't see any threats on the editor's talk page. I left clear instructions on how to leave a citation. I gave clear instructions and offered to give them assistance. No requests were forthcoming. LilianaUwU's comment on the editor's page was a little more direct than mine, but not a threat by any means. Both talk comments assumed good faith. The editor seems to have gotten the message and cited the content.
The edits were immediately reverted. Once 6 minutes after they were published. The second time 1 minute after publication. I think that we run the risk of elitism if we delete another person's work instead of thanking them and encouraging them to do better. BTW, I never suggested that anybody made any threats. I have only suggested that we should take a softer approach in dealing with Wikipedia editors that are not yet experts. Ewingdo22:47, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Do you have any idea why there are suddenly all of these editors wanting this article to exist? I wonder if the subject put out a call to fans to create a biography for them. LizRead!Talk!03:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Please do not tag pages CSD G5 until sockpuppetry is confirmed. The editor you believe is a sockpuppet has been editing on Wikipedia since 2014 and I doubt they have suddenly become a sockpuppet. It's fine to file a SPI case but please don't jump the gun in tagging pages for deletion. I ended up deleting the page on CSD G4 grounds as it has been discussed and deleted multiple times.
Most sockpuppets you'll come across are recently created accounts, not ones that have been editing for 8 years so please look into the editor's contribution history in the future. You could be proven right but that's for checkusers to confirm. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!04:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Can we please block that dimbus already!? I have now been WARNED on my talk page supposedly edit warring to clean up that vandalism! —Moops⋠T⋡01:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Jeez. Any way that I can get "unwarned" over that silliness? It was a 3RR warning that I believe was issued incorrectly given that I clearly was reverting clear vandalism. —Moops⋠T⋡01:57, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
I've declined the revdel request as there was no source provided for the copyvio, and I could not find a source when I looked myself. I can see in the edit history that user:Cannolis identified the edits as a copyvio. If either of you can provide a URL so I can verify the copyvio, I'll revisit the revdel request. Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 13:53, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Sorry to overrule you on the CSD tagging of this User page. It didn't look promotional to me. But now the editor is globally blocked so I guess you had a better sense of who they were than I did. LizRead!Talk!06:52, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm baffled why you tagged User:Kweenwitak/sandbox for speedy deletion. It just has the editor's name on the page! This is not what CSD U5 is for. This is probably a new editor and their first efforts are meant with a warning that their sandbox is being deleted! That is not how to welcome a new editor. There is no problem at all with this sandbox. Please do not tag pages for deletion unless they are harmful to the project. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!02:03, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
@Liz Their edit summary creating the page was promotional in nature, hence my U5. I wasn't sure how to handle a promotional edit summary, so it's fair if the CSD is declined. LilianaUwU(talk / contribs)02:05, 22 December 2022 (UTC)