User talk:Wikileeks5

December 2022
Hello, I'm Meters. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to University of Windsor have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Meters (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The point of Wikipedia is to provide knowledge. I added a person of significance to a school page; a very commonly provided bit of information. I fail to understand why you felt the need to remove it. What you personally find relevant/irrelevant is subjective, whereas Wikipedia provides objective information. The latter of which regularly includes school alumni of note.
 * Keep your removal of other people's work to things that are inaccurate or actually irrelevant, as Wikipedia's edit policy suggests. Wikileeks5 (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at University of Windsor, you may be blocked from editing. He is not notable, he does not have a Wikipedia article, there is no source to show he attended, and the supposed claim to notability is garbage. Meters (talk) 23:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * 1) The person is a she. You're taking down info without even bothering to see what it is or who it is.
 * 2) It's not disruptive editing. It's adding in facts.
 * 3) The person is notable; if you google them, they come up in hundreds of major news sources.
 * 4) You're a rather mean and nasty person. I encourage you to add more to your life than filling your sense of self worth by gatekeeping knowledge on what is supposed to be a community knowledge hub. I shudder to think the life you lead where a small Wikipedia edit causes you such irritation and needless anger. Wikileeks5 (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Your recent edit to University of Windsor Faculty of Law appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. Meters (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at User talk:Wikileeks5. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. ''Yes, Yasmin is a female name. So I made a mistake. It doesn't excuse your personal attacks. or your continued attempts to add this apparently non-notable person to alumni lists. If the person is notable then WP:WTAF and provide a reliable source showing their attendance. And owning an IKEA Monkey does not sound like much of a claim to notability.'' Meters (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Stop_hand_nuvola.svg This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at Wikileeks5, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.
 * You cannot refer to a user as "garbage" as it is against Wikipedia's code of conduct. You are also not allowed to trash the content of their submissions with baseless personal feelings. Reread the Wikipedia user agreement and adhere, or be banned. Wikileeks5 (talk) 00:09, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow! So many things wrong in your statement:
 * Jumping straight to a level 4 warning.
 * Leaving the warning on your own page rather than mine.
 * Perhaps you should reread what I wrote. I wrote the supposed claim to notability is garbage (emphasis added), nothing about you or any other user. So, not a personal attack at all, let alone something worthy of jumping straight to level 4.
 * Suggesting that I might be "banned". Really? I'm going to be permanently banned by the community for saying that owning an Ikea monkey is a garbage claim of notability? If there's something wrong with my understanding of what you are claiming makes this person notable then please enlighten me. Otherwise, good luck with that one. WP:ANI is the place to make your case, but I suggest that that you first learn the difference between a ban and a block, and read WP:BOOMERANG. Meters (talk) 00:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If you type "Ikea monkey" into Google, the first page is full of recent articles from major publications, and that event happened 10 years ago. Just because it isn't important to you, does not mean it isn't relevant to other people. Wikipedia does not exist to serve one person's individual idea of important. Wikileeks5 (talk) 01:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, if the person is notable then WP:WTAF. The monkey incident may be notable, but I doubt the person is. Meters (talk) 07:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) You can't see how person who makes an incident possible isn't notable?
 * 2) You're just being petty now. I go to the school, people love talking about how the owner used to go here. You're also deleting another famous alumna who is extremely significant to the school and legal profession just to be petty. You're a grown adult picking a fight with a stranger online because you don’t agree with who should be listed as an alumna? You do not get a say in who is significant. She has numerous articles from major publications and is significant to a popular event; those are objective Wikipedia standards you're ignoring to suit a weird, petty malice. Wikileeks5 (talk) 08:28, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Thoroughbred, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 08:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

A bit of advice
Hello Wikileeks (great username btw!) I noticed you've got yourself into a bit of a pickle with various editors on your first day here, and even felt the need to complain at the Teahouse of harassment. I hope by now you have understood their various points and the responses you were given given. But the one thing that concerns me from looking at your talk page and your reactions is that you did seem extremely belligerent towards other editors who were simply trying to explain how you have made poor or problematic edits. We usually do this via 'templated messages' which, I admit, can sound rather blunt if one is not expecting them.

For someone who appears to have only edited here for 24 hours, this does not bode well, and I would invite you to consider changing how you interact with people. We work in cooperation with one another, and good editors are always willing to explain if you have done something that does not conform with our guidelines, but which you don't understand. You just have to ask them politely for an explanation. What we don't accept is the kind of attitude you exhibited in this response yesterday. This tends to attract administrator attention, hence why I thought I'd drop by and offer a gentle steer.

It can be hard for those who may be new here to appreciate all the guidelines that editors must follow if they want to improve any of our 6 million+ articles. If you are willing and able to remain calm and reset your approach to editing, we are willing to welcome you as a constructive editor. Just ask people what you did wrong if they revert your edits and listen to their advice. Discuss and exchange ideas in a reasonable tone with them, and ask if they could point you to specific guidance or policy pages if you want to read more about why they said what they said. Just don't act like a 'know-it'-all' or attack people immediately because you happen to believe you are in the right, and that they are all stupid and wrong. As a Teahouse Host, I and my fellow editors there are always willing to help people, and I hope you accept this advice in the spirit in which it is given. Take things slowly from now on, citing sources whenever you add new factual information, and take a look at WP:NOTABILITY which is a key part of what is and isn't an acceptable subject here. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're having difficulties
Hello Wikileeks5, I'm sorry that you feel your edits are being deleted without a good reason. When I started my Wikipedia account in 2007 I had the advantage of doing a little freelance writing for print publications, so I came to Wikipedia with a background of knowing that all publishers have their own rules and regulations. I understood that there would be a learning curve as I tried to figure out just how everything worked on this online encyclopedia. At first I made some mistakes, became flustered, and wondered if I was up to the task of helping out at Wikipedia. (I grew up pre-Internet, had great respect for printed encyclopedias, and was in awe of the opportunity of editing an online encyclopedia.) Over the past 15 years I've learned a lot about editing Wikipedia. I don't always agree with all of the rules, but I follow them, for I'm just a volunteer, and not someone with the responsibility of making those rules.
 * I hope that you decide to continue on as a volunteer editor. It can be confusing to learn about reliable references, and what is and isn't allowed, but I get great satisfaction from my volunteer work. Perhaps it would be helpful to take a small break from Wikipedia, and then come back when you're not so upset over recent difficulties. Best wishes on your future endeavors.

Karenthewriter (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: IKEA Monkey (December 31)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Idoghor Melody was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:IKEA Monkey and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:IKEA_Monkey Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Idoghor_Melody&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:IKEA_Monkey reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

 Comr Melody Idoghor  (talk)  22:47, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:IKEA Monkey
Hello, Wikileeks5. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:IKEA Monkey, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 23:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC)