User talk:Ulyvoei

Ulyvoei, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Ulyvoei! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like GreenMeansGo (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Edward II

I have undone your edit to Edward II; as i point out in the edit summary there is an entire section already discussing his death and assorted disputes and controversies around it; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 08:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent modifications of dates

Hello, you've made a large number of birth and dead date modifications without citing a source, can you explain why? Also, you should not mark such edits as "minor". --Cyfal (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Dred Scott, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. jp×g 11:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make disruptive edits to Wikipedia contrary to the Manual of Style. jp×g 11:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Long Beach Jane Doe, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.
There are no sources to verify the approximate birthdate of 1950. The ages of unidentified decedents cannot be determined as a precise age. They are also not represented by the average of an age range; many after identification are either on the lower or the higher end of the estimation. --GouramiWatcher^Talk 18:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Eadwig, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:37, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Mary I of England, you may be blocked from editing. Please take note of the messages you have received; you are liable to be blocked from editing unless you start behaving within the norms of the community; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 06:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Long Beach Jane Doe. --GouramiWatcher^Talk 14:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:12, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the article and any footnotes in the date parameters before changing them. You've made several changes that are contradicted by the article text, even (as in the case of Mary I) changing a date so that it directly contradicts the text immediately adjacent to the date. When exact dates are not known, wikipedia does not select one at random or one over another. Please do not make any further changes to dates without providing an explicit reliable source and checking the article text and talk page for discussions, hidden comments and explanatory footnotes. DrKay (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse host

You don't appear to be listed as a host at the Teahouse and you don't meet the criteria of length of edit history or number of edits. Therefore, I removed the note on your user page where you said you were a host. Please be sure not to mislead fellow editors, especially ones who might be new to Wikipedia. DMacks (talk) 07:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. DMacks (talk) 22:34, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated addition of uncited information, uncited claims of "what most people think" (even to the exclusion of what WP articles themselves say), and edit-warring over it. You can spend the next day or so reading some policies and guidelines, and recognizing that you must follow the site's standards if you wish to participate after the block expires. DMacks (talk) 22:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. DMacks (talk) 06:21, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing

Hello Ulyvoei. I thought i would take a couple of minutes to ask if you understand what the issues are which have been raised here on your talk page? DMacks is not looking for a reason to block you, believe me; it is just that there is frustration with the things that you are doing, which is leading a number of editors to come along after you and revert almost all of your edits, which wastes everyone's time. So, let me ask:

Do you understand about dates? Their formatting (you can find a lot here), their use, and the requirement that we source them (along with, potentially, almost everything else we say)?
Do you know about the way we style things? The Manual of Style is useful, here, though it is big and sometimes difficult to find one's way around in.
I know you know about the Teahouse; are you aware you can ask questions in lots of places? Including right here? I am currently watching this page, and i would guess that two or three others who have posted here are, too. Mostly we are pretty nice people, and if you ask a question we'll generally be very happy to try and answer it or help you find an answer. I would include in this (questioning) using the talk pages of articles you are thinking of editing to check if what you are doing would be or is useful. Again, you'll often get a response which is more friendly than a warning or, even, a block.

In the end, i just want to reiterate the welcome further up the page, and suggest that, even though you've not got off on a great start, there's huge potential for a successful WP career.

If you have any questions...i'm sure you know what i'm suggesting! Thanks, happy days, Lindsay^Hello 09:09, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lindsay.

You are a decent person to me.

But it just feels like Dmacks is stalking me and I may have to quit because of this. Ulyvoei (talk) 13:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you are not feeling great about your participation here. But the bottom line is that content needs to be traceable to reliable sources (cited refs), not just what you think (original research, including novel analysis of other cited work) or "have heard". That's just one of the major site policies and guidelines that your edits kept violating. As you were just getting started, it's totally okay not to know everything. Although we all assume you were trying to help build our encyclopedia, many other editors who have a lot of experience in your areas of interest felt you were having the opposite effect. You did not seem to be improving in this regard even after lots of messages were left for you, so I acted in my role as an administrator to prevent further disruption. It was (as you saw) only a temporary block, so now are welcome to demonstrate that you have moved beyond your rough start. DMacks (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ulyvoei, I just came here from undoing your edit to Owain Glyndŵr, as the date of his death is not known for certain. I share the concerns that other editors have discussed with you here, and just to further what they've already said, please make sure that when making an important change such as this you have a source that meets our reliable sources policy, and you explain why you're making this change in your edit summary.

As LindsayH has said, there are many editors here who would be happy to help you. When regular editors interact with new users, they often add the new user's userpage and talkpage to their watchlist, so they can follow up on any questions, provide more help and check things are working well. This is why DMacks has been keeping an eye on your contributions and had to issue warnings, they aren't "stalking you", and their motivation is a desire to see you succeed here. Best, Jr8825 • Talk 17:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020

Hello, Ulyvoei, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as KitchenScience (talk · contribs). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. S0091 (talk) 23:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! S0091 (talk) 23:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, this is in response to the message you left on my talk page. For more information about vandalism, you can read the policy here. I also found this page helpful. S0091 (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey.

Thanks for helping.

Also what is redwarn? Ulyvoei (talk) 23:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Before I answer that, do you admit the KitchenScience account is yours and you are ok with it being blocked thus you will only edit with this account? S0091 (talk)

Sure, block it I guess. Ulyvoei (talk) 23:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I do need you to confirm it is your account. I certainly do not want an unaffiliated account blocked. S0091 (talk) 23:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What’s the definition of Sockpuppet?

Just so I know exactly what it is Ulyvoei (talk) 23:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like DMacks took care of it. A sockpuppet is the misuse of multiple accounts by the same person. You can read more at WP:SOCK. Redwarn is a tool to counter act vandalism. Please do not use it until you understand what vandalism is. If interested, check out WP:CVU for training opportunities. S0091 (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, it's at the CU level now, out of regular admin hands. DMacks (talk) 00:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020

UTRS decline

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time. Please describe in greater detail how your editing was unconstructive and how you would edit constructively if unblocked. ( Please read Wikipedia's Guide to appealing blocks for more information. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks) As you still have access to your talk page, please post your unblock request to your user talk page, omitting any off-Wiki personally identifying information. If you have not already done so, please place the following at the bottom of your talk page, filling in "Your reason here "

 {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Thank you for your attention to these matters.

Please see UTRS appeal #37245 --Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ban Appeal

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ulyvoei (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand what I did was wrong and if I was unblocked I would never abuse multiple accounts again, I would also make sure my edits are sourced from reliable sources and will not abuse any accounts again, if I am removed from a Permanent Ban, I will do everything I can to make constructive edits and undo vandalism if someone has vandalised a page. Ulyvoei (talk) 14:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You do not have a "permanent ban", you have an indefinite block(blocks and bans are different) which is only a block without an end date. What topics might you edit about? 331dot (talk) 14:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How long do Indefinite Blocks tend to last?

Also I would edit pages about books and other things, also I would edit about Modern Kings/Queens.

Ulyvoei (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ulyvoei, you can read about what an indefinite block means here. You don't need to worry about the difference between a block and a ban as it doesn't apply here as far as I'm aware. A block is essentially a preventative measure taken to prevent a user from further disruptively editing Wikipedia. An indefinite block is not an "infinite" block, but instead a block with no specified end date; they are usually ended through an appeal. If you need any further details about appealing blocks, you can find that here. (Note: I'm not an admin, I'm just answering your question) Perryprog (talk) 16:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ban Appeal

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ulyvoei (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have learned my lesson that sock puppetry is wrong and that it is blockable, I understand that was I being dumb at the time, I will not edit war or break the rules if I’m unbanned. I now understand and blame myself for being dumb at the time, if I am able to be unblocked, I will make sure sources are added to my work and to take advice from others on my talk page. Ulyvoei (talk) 17:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

No response to query below in ten days. — Daniel Case (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You were socking as recently as December. What's caused the sudden change of heart? SQL ^{Query me!} 23:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Tangwystl

Hello, Ulyvoei. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Tangwystl".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]