User talk:Loaka1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Loaka1! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Doug Weller talk 17:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous


Hello. There's a user who keeps removing several reliable sources that I added to the article Moors claiming that the wording is "finalized". I explained that the statement was not cited before but they keep removing the sources and the statement. Loaka1 (talk) 15:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Talk:Moors and discuss your concerns there. If you look at Talk:Moors#RfC on Lead you can see that there was a consensus formed as to what the lead should read. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Drmies! WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE policy states: "Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances." I have provided the reasons for the change in Talk:Moors. Please read them, thanks. Loaka1 (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did, thanks! You're good with the abbreviations, I must say--probably better than me, though I'm familiar with WP:SOCKING. Sorry, but you know the rules. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, no need for the SPI, Swazzo and El Bass both belong to me. I'd like to say that I didn't misuse multiple accounts as WP:SOCK states and that my use was valid. Thank you. Loaka1 (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: sorry for bothering you, but regarding the article Moors, you said that you've read the reasons for the change. Was the reason for your revert is that you declined them? If so, may I at least be told the reasons why? Thank you, and sorry again. Loaka1 (talk) 10:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, the reason is that you didn't have talk page consensus--you just threw out a couple of inapplicable all-caps phrases. Also, you don't need to apologize for the bother. All you need to apologize for is the socking. It would be a positive thing if you declared your first account, in which case we can consider WP:OFFER. Drmies (talk) 15:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First of all Drmies, I want to thank you for seeing good in me. I appreciate that a lot, I really do. My first account was Tarook97. Please do what you see works best. Loaka1 (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. We'll see; I left a note for the closing administrator at the SPI. Drmies (talk) 17:24, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:OFFER I recommend you wait at least six months without editing, then request an unblock at User talk:Tarook97. Sro23 (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you control any other accounts not yet admitted? Batternut (talk) 07:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I do not. Loaka1 (talk) 07:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please show good faith to other editors and don't tell them that their replies have no merit[edit]

See WP:AGF. Removing posts such as this or the 3RR warning is taken as evidence that you have read them. So, for instance, you don't need another 3RR warning, you can simply be blocked if you break 3RR or edit war. Doug Weller talk 17:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thank you. Loaka1 (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018[edit]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.
Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
Drmies (talk) 17:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question..[edit]

@Drmies: in the article Nasrid dynasty, can you please take a look at the statement "The Nasrid dynasty was descended from the Arab Banu'l-Ahmar" in the Lineage section? Page 429 of the source states:

The rising of Ibn Hud and the departure of the Caliph al-Ma'mun for Morocco induced Muhammad b. Yusuf b. Nasr, a member of the Arab family of the Banu'l-Ahmar, to proclaim himself king in his turn.

It mentions "Banu'l-Ahmar" as another Arabic name of the dynasty, as the opening sentence of the article reads, and not a different tribe that the dynasty was descended from. I'm aware of the policy regarding edits on behalf of blocked users, but I think that edits correcting the misinformation would be "verifiable" and "productive" as the policy states. Thanks again. Loaka1 (talk) 09:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know this topic and will not a. get involved and b. be your proxy. Here's the advantage of being an editor with one single account for a long time: you build up a network of editors who may do things for the good of the project if you run into trouble. And if your edits, past and proposed, indeed improve our project, you should be able to make a good unblock request. But I am not yet sure that many believe that this Tarook account is your earliest. For all I know you're someone I have run into before, perhaps even blocked before. I'm sure you are aware of AGF--but you also know, since you're an adult, that trust is something that is built over time. BTW it is probably best to drop this account altogether and move back to Tarook, esp. if you want to work toward a successful unblock request. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 18:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I completely understand. And I will move back to Tarook. Thank you.
I will ping Kansas Bear just to make sure they know of this. Loaka1 (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. I guess if Loaka/Tarook/et.al. would use edit summaries to explain their removal of a reference and referenced information then this could have been avoided. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Loaka1&oldid=825183543"