User talk:Uncle uncle uncle

Hagerman Bot
I am being stalked by | The Hagerman Bot Uncle uncle uncle 19:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

RE:Ward Churchill
OK, I've taken a look at the page and picture in question. You certainly have a point about the verifiability of the source: although WP:V and WP:RS contain no specific guidelines about images, I would say that one editor's assertion of the origin of the drawing does not satisfy WP:V's rules on dubious and/or self-published sources. Furthermore, looking at the talk page, it seems that User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters violated WP:CIVIL in accusing you of "random destruction". Not that I'm necessarily saying the image should be removed, but I think you have a valid point as per WP policy. If it would help, I will contact the user in question and try to negotiate a compromise; the next step would be a request for comment on the page, and possibly a strawpoll. Please tell me (on my AMA desk, not my talkpage) whether you find this an acceptable plan. Walton monarchist89 10:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Verifiability as to the creator of the Rosa Luxemburg drawing
In preparation for an RFC at [WP:RFC/BIO] on the verifiability of the attribution of the the Rosa Luxemburg drawing to Ward Churchill, I have placed the appropriate section on the page. There is a location available for Statements by editors previously involved in dispute. I have placed this notice on the talk page of the editors previously involved in the dispute to allow time for supplying these comments prior to requesting broad input from the Wikipedia community.


 * Hello Uncle, I've had the chance to read your reply on the Talk:Ward Churchill page and I thought you made some good points. I appreciate your focusing on the specifics of the policy. I am putting together a comment or two but I have some things going on right now that I have to pay attention to.  I'll try to post it in the next couple of days or so.  Thanks for your patience, cheers!  Cafe Irlandais 18:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

An Automated Message from HagermanBot
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 23:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

About the Ward Churchill case
Hi, sorry I took so long to get back to you, I've been very busy both on WP and in RL. You did the right thing in going to RfC; the lack of comments from outside editors is unfortunate. The next thing you should do, since the RfC doesn't seem to have resolved matters, is start a strawpoll, i.e. a brief survey of users' views on the issue. It looks like the general consensus on the page is generally on your side and against LotLE, so the strawpoll should be helpful to you. If you like, I'll set up the strawpoll on the page myself. (After that, if the dispute isn't resolved, the next step is to take it to the Mediation Cabal or Mediation Committee, but hopefully it isn't a serious enough dispute to go that far.) Walton monarchist89 19:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Asking for an update
Hi, just out of interest, was the Ward Churchill image issue resolved amicably in the end? Wal ton  Vivat Regina!  17:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

wikinews: is acceptable ref?
Look at it as a wikilink to another article, rather than an extenal reference. When we write, e.g., "the collapse of the Soviet Union followed perestroika", we don't demand a reference for this fact, becase the wikilinked articles contain sufficient amount of references. The wikinews article about pope's mishap contains a summarized description of the event, as well as several newspaper references, i.e., there is no Verifiability problem. A general common sense rule is to demand and include external references only into the articles most immediately and specifically dedicated to the subject in question. Otherwise wikipedia will turn into a huge pile of references, duplicated everywhere. `'mikka 15:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to User:Kelly Martin
Hi - please don't edit people's userpages without their permission, it's generally not the done thing. If you have some issue with Kelly Martin's userpage content, please take it up with her on her talk page - this would probably be the courteous thing to do. Regards, – Riana ⁂  15:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Moreover, your justification is misguided. Aside from the section you cite being in dispute, it actually quite narrowly defines an "attack site" as that which (maliciously) publishes private information of a Wikipedians' identity. Kelly's blog clearly not such a site.--cj | talk 15:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a nonsense to suggest that there's such a rule. The issue here is simply what constitutes an "attack site". Because the relevant section is in dispute, it is necessary to consider an attack site within the bounds of the ArbCom's ruling and aside from the rest of the policy:
 * "The ArbCom has ruled that "[a] website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages under any circumstances," [2] and that "[l]inks to attack sites may be removed by any user; such removals are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking."


 * It is fine that you consider an attack site to constitute anything containing what normally would be considered a personal attack on-wiki, but at the present time, the only clear-cut definition is the ArbCom's ruling. It is inappropriate, IMV, to enforce anything else. --cj | talk 23:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * CJ's advice on this matter is most astute - I suggest you take it. I know that you were acting in good faith, for what it's worth. Regards, – Riana ⁂  00:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:Unionoida vs Unionidae
I am not a biologist either, so I could be wrong. I think I've been staring at the computer screen for too long. Please change it back if I've redirected in error. ... disco spinster   talk  22:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

TOR proxy users
I don't know all the editors using TOR proxies, and don't see any reason to reveal the editors who I do know using them. The issue is only relevant in this case because the person in question was running for adminship while violating Wikipedia policy. Jayjg (talk) 23:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Secret Page
You sort of cheated but still here you go. Sorry about the latness of this reward but I was busy doing other stuff.--DestructoTalk to me 03:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Request
Hi, please don't use the ArbCom case to post links to a page where people are speculating on the real name of an editor who wishes to remain anonymous. If you think a little more about individual human beings who might be affected, and then think is the link really really necessary, and then think is there any way around it, you might find that it's not actually necessary. If it were necessary, you could use email. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply for threading:


 * Hello,


 * With respect to your post here:


 * I believed that all information about the real name the editor in question had been removed from the site and that the editor in question no longer believed the site qualified as an attack site as stated: "I'm glad to see TNH's act of moderation and withdraw my objections to linking to her website."


 * I certainly did not intend to link to revealing information, I included a link to the text I quoted so that other's could verify the correctness of my quoting. Uncle uncle uncle 23:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

plot search
See User talk:Pleasantville for a possibility. Tvoz | talk 19:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Wp:Editors willing to make difficult edits
I agree in principle, but you've put the article in main space rather than Wiki talk. That, I believe is where it belongs. The deletion is only a proposal, not a decision, and one which should not be taken lightly. I would expect an admin to boot it to WP:AfD or WP:Move it into an appropriate location. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 01:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks - an editor has moved it already.
 * In that case, assuming I can find it, I'll take the speedy off. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 02:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

My talk in you browser favorites.
No, I haven't a clue why my talk page is in your browser favorites. Cheers, Cecropia 04:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Franchise
New accounts may discuss the candidacy, but their "votes" are not counted, nor should they be added to the totals. Corvus cornix 22:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Scooba
Have you given your Scooba a name? :) - http://www.news.com/8301-13580_3-9789960-39.html?tag=nefd.blgs Corvus cornix 23:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope nor the Roomba. I got them last year with some kind of deal.  Buy the Scooba, get a Rooba free.  The Scooba does a better job than I expected, but not as good as a human could do.  I don't use it much - I think I'm too lazy to move the chairs in the kitchen.   The Roomba works pretty well too - I'd like to have one of the auto-charging scheduler units, but even then the collection bin is too small and would have to be emptied every few days anyway. It needs a built in incinerator or the ability to empty the collection bin under my bed Uncle uncle uncle 00:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I had too many problems with my Scooba... and I've never managed to bond with it. *Dan T.* 14:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Editors willing to make difficult edits
Hi,

I noticed you created the above page a few weeks back. In principle, people helping each other is a Very Good Thing. However I had a couple of misgivings about it. (A lot of good ideas don't always work out as their well meaning founders intended, for example, we just had one of those closed at WP:MFD, the community sanctions noticeboard.) I've posted a note on the administrators' noticeboard to get others views. I thought you'd want to know so you could comment too, as its creator.

If you want to discuss let me know :)

Best

FT2 (Talk 06:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Editors willing_to_make_difficult_edits
Editors willing_to_make_difficult_edits, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Editors willing_to_make_difficult_edits and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Editors willing_to_make_difficult_edits during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. M er cury   12:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Break
==Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia== Egads! You're absolutely right about my error. I've responded on that talk page. Thanks! - Mtmelendez (Talk) 10:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Break
Merkinsmum (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the warning. It took me quite a while to find the source of the quote above, even with the correct spelling. The reference librarian I checked with seemed to have a low opinion of gentlemen who quote from "Lotita." Uncle uncle uncle (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Lol, you discovered my secret, do you mean Lolita or some less revered, more specialist literature?:) I was actually giving a nod to this sickeningly mawkish charity ad, which has been parodied by other charities who wanted a less cheesy method of advertising.:)  Merkinsmum (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I had no idea where the quote came from, but "He makes her eat desserts she just doesn't understand" looked like it could have been a quote from a novel that I should have read at one point.Uncle uncle uncle (talk) 05:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

email
Could you possibly enable email as I wish to ask you something more privately?Merkinsmum (talk) 14:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello - I have enabled email. Uncle uncle uncle (talk) 05:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia_editors_willing_to_make_difficult_edits
A category you created is currently being discussed at User_categories_for_discussion. User:Dorftrottel 16:51, January 15, 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 16:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa
I wish to thank you for being supportive of my effort to regain my adminship. Though it was not successful, your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 06:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

RfB questions
Thank you for asking those, I enjoyed having a think. I've responded. ~ Riana ⁂ 02:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

New Section
Uncle uncle uncle 04:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC) Uncle uncle uncle (talk) 04:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

X Uncle uncle uncle (talk) 04:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC) X Uncle uncle uncle 04:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Editors willing to make difficult edits
Editors willing to make difficult edits, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Editors willing to make difficult edits and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Editors willing to make difficult edits during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.  Equazcion •✗/C • 05:55, 11 Apr 2008 (UTC) 05:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked as a disruptive account
I have blocked this account, an admitted secondary account as you stated on your userpage, as it is not a legitimate use of an alternative account per policy. Nearly all of your contributions have been either to update your "sock counter," or to pop up to participate in particularly contentious discussions. This account has been blocked indefinitely; please cease use of any other disruptive alternate accounts as well.  krimpet ✽  02:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Help
Can someone please put some instructions on my page for requesting an unblock?

Thanks!

Uncle uncle uncle 03:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC) That would be your reason here, with "your reason here" being your reason for why you think you should be unblocked. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Uncle uncle uncle 04:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Unblock
Question: If you use only one account other than this, what is User Alt Acct Master with "This user is the owner of 92 Wikipedia accounts ... " at the top of this page about? — Athaenara ✉  06:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yow!
Hello,

I just read Krimpet's post here. 

It sounds terrible - I have no idea what Krimpet is talking about. I could look it up I suppose, but I have never had any association with either User:DepartedUser or User:PouponOnToast.

I don't want to waste anyone's time by looking into my history. I'm sure everyone proclaims their innocence (except maybe criminals who gloat in movies). But if anyone did, they would see no connection between me and those other accounts. At least I assume they would find no connection as there is none!.

Probably not much I can say to show innocence to a multiparagraph claim at the Administrator's Noticeboard Incident Report.

Even when it is wholly incorrect. I am not a disruptive single-purpose account or a vandal. That is obvious from my contribution history. Although I haven't done much other editting lately, I certainly haven't been disruptive either.

I do believe that the arbitration committee should arbitrate. Which I take to mean as creating binding decisions in important cases where the community is or has been unable to reach a decision. I don't consider the talk page incivility which they are discussing to have reached the level of being major problem needing arbitration. And I said so.

Uncle uncle uncle 04:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Tor
I editted Tor related pages due to the whole CharlotteWebb RFA shabang. Where someone mentioned that CharlotteWebb had been using TOR during his/her RFC. That should be verifiable if anyone wants to check. Uncle uncle uncle 04:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Other Account
If a checkuser is unable to find my other account, it may be due to me switching to ATT Uverse recently and now having another IP address. I can make an edit from it if needed.

Contributions
Please look at my expanded contribution list not just the latest 50.

Uncle uncle uncle 04:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Treatment of the Editor
Hello - I do not believe that I have inappropriately used an alternate account and I have never operated sock puppets.

 "There is a significant difference between an editor who inappropriately uses an alternative account and a person operating sock puppets. Thus, an editor who inappropriately uses an alternative account may still contribute to the encyclopedia through their main account. An inappropriate alternative account is not a sock puppet account and assumption of good faith still applies to the main account of that editor. Aggressive approaches applied to protect the encyclopedia from sock puppets ordinarily should not be applied to the main account of an editor in good standing who inappropriately used an alternative account."

And, as the Wikipedia Sockpuppet page section above says - "Aggressive approaches applied to protect the encyclopedia from sock puppets ordinarily should not be applied to the main account of an editor in good standing who inappropriately used an alternative account"

Which makes sense (although I hope now I am not accused of wikilawyering).

Beans
Someone on the page stated: Support Block. Krimpet has a pretty solid case here. I disagree - there is no case (at least in regards to me) - I have not inappropriately used alternate accounts and I have not created sock puppets. How someone could find "a pretty solid case" with respect to my account is silly - they could not have looked at any evidence as there is none.

I'll admit that it isn't as silly as the !! case as he (I have no idea who he was) apparently made many fine edits while I have made only a few fine edits and somewhat more so-so edits.

Uncle uncle uncle 05:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know if you are a sock puppet or not, but I don't agree with an indef block based on suspicion alone. -- Ned Scott 06:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Help Request
Can someone please put a link to my talk page (and a note that I have added some text) to the bottom of the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page where I am discussed. I don't want any more uninformed "Support - a pretty solid case" remarks from users who have not read my side of the other side. Here:

Thanks! Uncle uncle uncle 06:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Is this alright? -- Ned Scott 06:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes - thanks!

Maybe if the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents note for was split into sections for Uncle uncle uncle and for PouponOnToast it would make sense for people to Oppose or Support correctly for either. It makes no sense for them to Opppose/Support both as we are unrelated (according to me).

Although it does seem like a bit of a waste for you to have to go to the trouble of helping me as I haven't done much useful editing lately even though I am innocent of disruption.

Thanks again.

Uncle uncle uncle 06:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Unblock and apologies
New evidence has come forward that suggests to my satisfaction that you are not related to the sockpuppetry DepartedUser/PouponOnToast. This had played a large part in why I decided to block you indefinitely, rather than just warn... but I think it's clear that you are not him, and my block was in error.

Please keep in mind the reason that I stated for blocking, however; your claims of having "92 sockpuppets" and constantly adding to a counter saying so, in addition to only contributing once every few weeks in mostly contentious discussions, tends to suggest that you may in fact be sockpuppeting abusively. If this is just a joke or something, I ask you to please end it to avoid any later mix-ups. :)

I sincerely apologize for my error however, and any problems this may have caused.  krimpet ✽  06:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Who on earth could take that seriously- a hardcore sockmaster would not admit it. See my userpage:)  And no I wouldn't change it personally just because of a mistaken good-faith irony bypass on other's part. Sticky Parkin 13:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 02:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

92 socks!!!!
Lol!!! Can I see a list of them please. C.U.T.K.D T 08:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello - I no longer update my list of alternate accounts - none of them are sockpuppets (although I have not checked the WP:sockpuppet page recently to see how the definition for sockpuppet has changed). At Wikipedia, sockpuppets are bad, but alternate accounts are not.


 * I discovered that although not a single one of those 92 alternate accounts was ever blocked or even reverted (although some of the edits were of course modified by other users to suit their stylistic preference) I was still given an if-def block as a sock master. So - I decided to keep on doing what I had been doing in helping editors who did not want to edit themselves due to fear of harassment.


 * I did have one throwaway account that may have technically been a sock-puppet (that was not listed among the 92 accounts) - it was used as my Wikipedia account when I signed up on Wikipedia Review. That account made 3 main space edits which are still the last edits made on those main-space pages and 5 talk page edits.  I believe that Thatcher called it a "spit and giggles account" or something like that.  He made no mention about the other 92 accounts.

Uncle uncle uncle 21:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Cupcakes Here
[]

In recognition of the many anonymous words of praise that I have received
92 barnstars for Uncle Uncle Uncle for all he has done without recognition. Good work. {| class="wikitable"; style="border:50"

































{| class="wikitable"; style="border:50"























































{| class="wikitable"; style="border:50"
 * }

































Uncle uncle uncle 22:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * }
 * }
 * }
 * }
 * }

Film Project Barnstar given to Cirt
In spirit of comity I have given my Film Project Barnstar to user:Cirt 

Uncle uncle uncle 22:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

"remove wrong"
Please do not remove sourced information, as you did at the article The Next Three Days. Your edit summary is not backed up to anything. -- Cirt (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at The Next Three Days, you will be blocked from editing. '' = This is removal of sourced material with zero prior discussion. This is vandalism. Please stop now. Thanks.'' -- Cirt (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi - I added out of date tag - I think that will help. Uncle uncle uncle 20:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

ANI
Please see WP:ANI, regarding your disruption of the article The Next Three Days. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Removing sourced info with no discussion
In the future, please at the very least attempt to bring up discussion on the talk page, first - instead of simply removing sourced material from an article with no prior explanation or discussion for why you are doing so. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 20:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Quote on Disraeli
Hello,

The first one to tell me the source of this quote will receive one of my barnstars - your choice. I do know the source already. Sir,

'''My great-grandfather, to show his contempt for Benjamin Disraeli, devoured seven port chops in succession when he was 105 years of age. Those were indeed the days of robust and sincere politics.'''


 * So far three people have emailed me three different answers - unfortunately they were all wrong Uncle uncle uncle 04:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Minor link fixes
Hope you don't mind. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Roald Dahl
--sillybillypiggytalk to me sign! 16:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply to query

 * Sorry I'm late in reply. I've been outside sandpapering rust.
 * 'The doctor lit a cigarette himself . ."I'll try to tell you," he said quietly. "You, all of you, have suffered the insufferable and endured the unendurable".' James Clavell, King Rat, (1962) Dell Books 1974 p.345


 * "(Japanese text) 然レトモ朕ハ時運ノ趨ク所堪ヘ難キヲ堪ヘ忍ヒ難キヲ忍ヒ以テ萬世ノ爲ニ太平ヲ開カムト欲ス"
 * "(transcription)'Shikaredomo Chin wa jiun no omomuku tokoro, taegataki o tae, shinobigataki o shinobi, motte bansei no tame ni taihei o hirakan to hossu."
 * "(Official postwar translation) 'However, it is according to the dictate of time and fate that We have resolved to pave the way for grand peace for all the generations to come by enduring the unendurable and suffering what is insufferable.'"


 * Chin by the way is the personal pronoun 'I' reserved strictly for the Emperor's use. Hoi polloi have to sort out their status identity from more than a baker's dozen of other words for 'I'.


 * Clavell's book is full of allusions, starting from the Peter Marlowe, who gets his name from Joseph Conrad 's narrator in The Heart of Darkness (1902).


 * I'm afraid I can't remember who the informer was, It is 30 years since I read the book. I doubt it's Father Donovan though. Must start sandpapering my rusty memory. If you work it out, I'd be obliged, but I may just reread it. A very good novel.Nishidani (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for the information! I had looked up the Hirohito surrender speech and had read page 345 of the book and still didn't see the allusion. I've never been much good at seeing allusions or subtext.  Heck - I didn't even recognize the significance of the cages of rats until I thought about it more while driving to work today.  I remember being disappointed that nothing ever came of all those rats - the men only sold a few or them and then the war ended - I expected someone to fall through the floor and be swarmed by them or a riot to occur when the men learned that they were being fed rats or some other big event involving rats.

Yesterday I picked up a copy of Whirlwind and 2 volumes of Noble House in the local library free box Uncle uncle uncle 17:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Good you got that allusion to George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, in Winston's interview with O'Brien. To work out Clavell, King Rat is enough, though his film The Last Valley, a minor masterpiece, where the king rat figure is sanctified as Vogel, played by Omar Sharif, is also a help. He petered out in large books afterwards, though Shogun, which rings the changes on the same tune, is a good read. Nice to find someone in wikipedia who reads books in sequence.Nishidani (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Hello, Uncle uncle uncle, and welcome to Wikipedia! While efforts to improve Wikipedia are always welcome, unfortunately your contributions are not written in English that is good enough to be useful. You appear to be more familiar with Simple English; did you know there is a Wikipedia? You may prefer to contribute there instead. In any case, welcome to the project, and thank you for your efforts! -- Uncle uncle uncle 19:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Uncle uncle uncle, and welcome to Wikipedia! While efforts to improve Wikipedia are always welcome, unfortunately your contributions are not written in English that is good enough to be useful. You appear to be more familiar with ; did you know there is a Wikipedia? You may prefer to contribute there instead. In any case, welcome to the project, and thank you for your efforts! -- Uncle uncle uncle 19:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Uncle uncle uncle, and welcome to Wikipedia! While efforts to improve Wikipedia are always welcome, unfortunately your contributions are not written in English that is good enough to be useful. You appear to be more familiar with ; did you know there is a Wikipedia? You may prefer to contribute there instead. In any case, welcome to the project, and thank you for your efforts! -- Uncle uncle uncle 19:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

notaforumUncle uncle uncle 17:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC) notaforumUncle uncle uncle 17:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Walking
Uncle uncle uncle - I have noticed that you have contributed to the List of people who have walked across the United States, and cordially invite you to participate in a new WikiProject Walking that I have proposed. Your support for the project, active or passive, would be appreciated. Bezza84 (talk) 20:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Blank Page
User disliked the default showing of the block log for a blank page. Uncle uncle uncle 18:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Take your hands off me at once
I have responded to you here. The Countess of Scrotum (De facto) (talk) 21:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

After Pharmacy School
Supper Club

Clean up
Category:Not a Jackass

Echo Test
Echo test - you monkey! Uncle uncle uncle test (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Jimmy the Groundhog


Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Jimmy the Groundhog. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Wiarton Willie. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Wiarton Willie – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Pichpich (talk) 23:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Sandbox/subpage
Sandbox/subpage, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sandbox/subpage and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Sandbox/subpage during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Uncle uncle uncle 04:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Wizard!
Article wizard

Uncle uncle uncle 22:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Articles for Creation instead
Hello Uncle uncle uncle,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Articles for Creation instead for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. ubiquity (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process
Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

You have been removed from Editors willing to make difficult edits due to inactivity
Hi Uncle uncle uncle! You're receiving this notification because you were previously listed at Editors willing to make difficult edits, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over 2 years.

Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the list. If you would like to resubscribe, you can do so at any time by visiting Editors willing to make difficult edits.

Thank you! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 18:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)