User talk:Uakari

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! MRSC (talk) 13:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Lewis Waller
Thanks for the edits! Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:PROD
Really, an article can only be PRODed once, and anyone can remove the tag. That is how PROD works; it has a very narrow purpose in Wikipedia, to deal with abandoned bad articles that no cares about. Please read WP:PROD. You will need to WP:AFD the article if you want it gone. Jytdog (talk) 02:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

If there are no reliable sources, as per the article in question, the tag may not be removed - see the section on living persons. However I shall afd Uakari (talk) 02:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Jameela Jamil article
Hi, Uakari. Thanks for your lengthy explanation about this article on my Talk page, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tgeller#Jameela_Jamil_article. It looks like the discussion has been taken up (today!) at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jameela_Jamil#The_challenging_of_the_veracity_of_Jamil's_claims_from_Feburary_2020,_and_how_this_affects_the_article -- and by someone much more experienced than I am. I have nothing to add. Cheers, --tgeller (talk) 18:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I just read a bit further into it and commented on that page. In short: Your thesis is a conspiracy theory, and there's no evidentiary basis for your edits. I've removed your comments from my Talk page. --tgeller (talk) 18:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Jameela Jamil
Hi Uakari. Your edit summary in this edit and past comments at Talk:Jameela Jamil makes it clear to me that you're having some trouble with Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources, which we all do initially. Encyclopediae such as Wikipedia are tertiary sources and so they are largely based on secondary source material: thus, the point of an article is not to make new claims based on our own research and opinions but to summarize existing claims made specifically and clearly by secondary sources, without putting words in anyone's mouths. WP:PRIMARY says that Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. This is why it's not acceptable to cite a video to contradict an unrelated statement made years later: it's an interpretation of material not made by a published author who was fact-checked by an editor. You may watch the video and say "Video footage is self-evident" but I could watch it and say "she's limping here", "obviously her rib is sore from her facial reaction at this timestamp" etc. Both of us would then be making personal interpretations that do not belong on Wikipedia. How do you know that the footage came after the claimed injuries, that such injuries would be visible from low-quality camera footage, that the video is the most relevant footage to the claim she made etc.? These are rhetorical questions. I know you can answer these questions on a personal level but those answers will all be interpretations which are not just simple uncontroversial repetition of biographical or factual content from a primary source. This is dangerous because your brain is not subject to the same professional fact-checking and oversight that reliable sources have.

Similarly, you ask for a link proving that the Daily Mirror has been "banned as a source". This confusion is made even by very experienced editors sometimes, but though we often say "reliable source" it's short for "reliable source [in this context]": no source is reliable for all facts or unreliable for all facts. At WP:RSP, you'll see that the Daily Mirror specifically is coloured yellow, indicating that editors should pay particular attention to the context of coverage where it has relevant content. In this case, the context is the subject of a BLP being accused of lying maliciously for personal gain, a very serious claim which needs high-quality sourcing only, whereas tabloids like the Mirror are deliberately sensationalist and exaggerative in such topics. Thus the source is unreliable in this context.

If you have questions about any of this material or anything else on Wikipedia, you can ask me at my talk page. Thanks! — Bilorv ( talk ) 02:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Many thanks! See my latest comments at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_London#User_Roger8Roger_and_historic_counties How to we get admins involved to take action against these people (or this person?). In the end all the articles about London neighbourhoods will become a laughing stock - even Westminster will be referred to as being in Middlesex and not in London! I have tried to suggest alternative wording to them but they refuse to budge from their false view that not only do historic counties persist, but that this persistence means that nowhere outside the City of London is actually in London! This is despite the existence of the 32 London boroughs and the London region. As already shown by their blatant disregard for the consensus, there is no compromising with them and they will continue to unilaterally edit articles unless and until they are stopped. Uakari (talk) 21:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Indenting
Please can you indent your responses to make it clear who you're responding to and to enable other editors to join in and also respond to that comment? WP:THREAD provides guidance on this, but the basic principle is that you should indent one deeper than the comment you're responding to. When the indentation's become quite deep, I find sometimes the easiest way is to simply copy the colons at the start of the previous comment, paste them in front of mine and add one, but you may find other ways work better for you. The main point is to follow the convention to make it easier for all your fellow editors in the discussion. NebY (talk) 14:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for this - I agree with this principle and that this is important, but I would point out that it is not always used consistently by many editors, so things can get confusing! My latest comment was responding to an unindented comment by Hogweard. Therefore I put one colon at the beginning of my comment. However, I was not aware that making a numbered list seems to reverse the indent in front of the numbers, so in future I'll try to remember to put a colon before each number as well. However, as my latest comment has now apparently been responded to by another editor, I don't want to indent my latest comment further as this will then make that user's reply comment on the same indent level as mine. Also, sometimes eventually there can be so many replies to replies, that legibility is affected. In this case do you suggest returning to zero indent when adding yet another reply? Uakari (talk) 14:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi and thanks for taking this well. Yes, others are very messy too and all I can say is that it's easier to pull them into line, one way or another, if most of the rest of us are careful. Numbered lists, new paragraphs and bullets can easily catch us out; preview helps, fixing up afterwards helps, but also if the rest of the indenting's good it's a lot easier to see what's happening anyway. I wouldn't complain about that (and I might be able to fix it without disrupting the follow-up - I'll take a look); it was after doing this fix-up I thought I'd better come here.
 * For going back when the indentation's massive, there's an outdent available, as described at WP:OUTDENT. It looks like this:
 * Massively Indented Comment.

outdented response. It's best used sparingly, of course, not least because it still makes it hard for anyone else who also wants to respond to Massively Indented Comment, but it's good to know you'll be able to do it if things get extreme. NebY (talk) 15:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks! I'm still learning all the time about Wikipedia. Also when using the quick 'reply' box on Android, you have to guess/count the number of colons because only the non-editable prior text shows above it. But at least the mobile interface is improving now; previously you couldn't even see an article's talk page! Uakari (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! I don't think anyone can keep up with all Wikipedia's development - and faults. I only edit in desktop and only know how bad mobile editing can be from some discussions earlier this year after some IP editors just weren't heeding messages and warnings. Would you believe it, the iOS app doesn't tell IP editors they have messages or even that they've got a talk page. Village pump (WMF)/Archive 4 if you want to kill some time. There's a link to the page about Android app updates at the end of it. NebY (talk) 16:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

a wp:egg in your proposal
This for you to use or ignore as you wish, the talk page is already messy without me quibbling with your words there. Where you wrote I suggest a better wording that avoids WP:egg would be but better still As I say, up to you. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "[Historic counties of England|Historically], [Westminster] was in the county of [Middlesex]."
 * "Historically, [Westminster] was in the [Historic counties of England|historic county] of [Middlesex]."
 * Until 1889, [Westminster] was in the [Historic counties of England|historic county] of [Middlesex].


 * Hi, thanks for this suggestion. I did consider "Historically, [Westminster] was in the [Historic counties of England|historic county] of [Middlesex]" but then I thought it sounded too tautological - my way still gives the link to the historic county. But I also see what you mean, as my way could imply that Middlesex itself still continues. This is also related to whether the 'Middlesex' article is rewritten to be in the past tense throughout. "Until 1889, [Westminster] was in the [Historic counties of England|historic county] of [Middlesex]" is perhaps better, but this can run into problems if we consider areas that joined London in 1965: For example, was Bromley still part of the 'historic county' of 'Kent' (just with reduced boundaries) from 1889-1965, or was it only part of a Ceremonial County created in 1889 called 'Kent', which replaced the 'historic county' of 'Kent' at the same time? I would maintain the latter, but it's not something that I think we necessarily need need to take a view on to edit the articles effectively. Uakari (talk) 21:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Well I see that the trench warfare has resumed so I suspect that niceties like this one are a long way down a road that may never end. I admire your patience.
 * So let's park this discussion sine die. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert
Firefangledfeathers 21:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)