User talk:Yoyi ling

Welcome

Talk to me. Yoyi ling (talk) 05:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made a change to an article, marble, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hindko

It was also moved with out any discussion.₯€₠€₯ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.60.148.193 (talk) 01:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 2016

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Hindko has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Hindko was changed by Yoyi ling (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.889834 on 2016-10-26T17:16:38+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one article to another (your addition has since been removed by another user). 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. 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. If you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Piece of advice

Re this: I don't think that particular page is the proper venue for such requests. If you think I should be topic banned, you're welcome to raise that at the WP:ANI. And regarding virtually all of your edits to articles I've seen so far, I just want to give you an idle piece of advice. If there's anything specific you disagree with, you should either fix this specific thing yourself (but please bear in mind that content should be sourced), or bring it up with the editor you disagree with. What you seem to be doing instead is large-scale reverts of apparently anything you dislike. And this is disruptive. Thanks. – Uanfala (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Problamistic User Uanfala

It had been extended edit war by Uanfala [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] .

Despite nearly 10 Wikipedians not agreeing with his views on talk pages of effected Talk pages.
He cherry picks and tries to define dialects in to Language.
Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
Wikipedians can not cherry pick.
Wikipedians can not impose a point a view.
Wikipedians move with consensus.
Wikipedia is an informational project. It can not misguide about language hierarchy.
Only standardisation of few dialects can not make them language. However few follow this rule for defining Hindko Saraiki Potwari as language. He cherry pick those.
Even those "few" along with "opposite others" have details whether "Explicit" or "Implicit" which demonstrate a common hierarchy Language Family: Indo European, Branch: Indo Iranian, Sub branch: Indo Aryan, Macro Language: Punjabi, Language: Western Punjabi, Dialects: Potwari Hindko Saraiki and many others, Sub dialects: North Hindko South Hindko.
All such linguistic sources are mentioned / added by many wikipedians.
If we accept Uanfala version of "cherry pick" and "Defining" then we will end up with a dilemma mentioned by User Flipro on this move request for 30 odd Punjabi dialects [6].

Time to report User Uanfala for topic ban for Cherry picking, Forum shoping, Edit warring, ignoring talk page consensus on western punjabi diffrent dialect talk pages. Please you being a registered senior editor start the proceeding for Topic Ban and violation of 3Rs. 39.60.232.41 (talk) 01:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)₯€₠€₯[reply]

Unfortunate allegations

Please follow [7] . ₯€₠€₯ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.60.129.46 (talk) 17:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yoyi ling. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uanfala (talk • contribs) 18:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of LanguageXpert (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. —SpacemanSpiff 06:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Honest request

@SpacemanSpiff: it is second time check user@Bbb23: has confirmed I am not LX. I was also passed by @Vanjagenije:. I was telling you many times. You never trusted me. LX and his socks have edited 200 plus articles. Common pages between me and him are two or three. This is not behavior basis. IP has edited totally different 20 plus articles. I can apply for unblock and have hundred percent confidence that truth will prevail from some uninvolved admim. But I trust you and putting a personal brotherly request to you. Please dont block me. You yourself had decided to stay away. But recall how I showed believe in you. And allowed you to take a decision. Here again I ask for just decision. I don't question your point of view. You are right in your duty. But some time every human ignores second side of coin. You can topic ban me or ATLEAST convert indefinite ban to few days ban. In real life once my father was blamed for others wrong. He lost every thing but he stood and got back his dignity. It is so easy to sock but i am my father son. I want my dignity my account back please.Yoyi ling (talk) 17:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He did not confirm that you aren't LX, he asked me to go ahead with my action if I wished, just did not endorse it. —SpacemanSpiff 23:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SpacemanSpiff and Bbb23: Wrong block again, there was not enough behavioral evidence, this was another epic misjudgment. User should be unblocked as there is a clear conflict between two admins here, the blocking admin is blocking the user as LX while the other admin is vehement that user is not LX and the case should not even move to LX archive. We should not be so desperate to get people blocked. Sorry, I was late to notice this case otherwise would have noted this before archival. @Yoyi ling:, you should appeal your block if its not overturned, I do not think there is any justification for this block. As an alternative course of action, I would suggest a fresh check if SpacemanSpiff is so sure that this user is LX, if they are LX, they must have shared an IP space by now as more time have passed since last check. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal your block

You should properly appeal your block and request that an unrelated admin reviews your appeal, there is nothing substantive against you, you are blocked for no reason basically. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]