Noramiao
Welcome! edit
|
Noramiao, you are invited to the Teahouse! edit
|
Hi Noramiao! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC) |
- According to the 5 pillars
- Child and childish are not words with bad meaning
- Anyone who things differently has oppositional defiant disorder.
- Show me, let me see you addressing the person telling me to calm down.
- If you possess critical thinking you would be UPDATING info that is not harrassing me and wasting my time.
Who the heck do you think you are?
You said that I could be blocked, this is not going to change the fact that you are nobody to tell me to calm down. You might want to scream that to your wife,husband, kid, grandmother, but still who do you think you are ?
Tell me what I wrote wrong
- I never ever attacked anyone, I was attacked by being told to calm down. Show me this was addressed. Me saying that someone taking my words as an offensive and that someone has oppositional defiant disorder is not an attack, this is not rude.
- Last, I never ever wrote anything rude, I am and I always have been calm in my life.
- I want to see how was that person lectured about him allowing himself to talk to me that way that I should calm down and that I should be in control.
- This is the land of the free.
1. I never said anything rude, ever. I'm not responsible how others would interpret according to their level of education, decency, origin, etc.
NNN edit
You didn't understand.
I asked Fred about the words of wolf about " calm down" and being " under control" Let Fred answers for himself, you don't have to .
If you are not following with critical thinking, please stay out it.
I never ever attacked other editors. I was attacked by being told to calm down and to be under control.
Noramiao (talk) 21:52, 1 September
- No, within the Wikipedia definitions, you were not attacked. I suggest you drop the stick and move onto another topic: either focus on the content issues related to your desired edits to List of countries and dependencies by population, or find a different article to contribute to altogether. —C.Fred (talk) 22:02, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Fred,
1. First I never had the stick, so there is nothing to drop. 2. This is what I kept doing the whole time, I was contributing on articles while I was being attacked and I was being told to calm down and to be placed under control. 3. I made my point clear that I never ever offended anyone but others interpreted my words according to their education, decency, origin, etc. 4. No one answered me who the "Hadd" wolf thinks he is to dare talking to me that way. Which proves my point that I never attacked anyone but I was attacked. 5. Fred, I agree with your approach in your last message, if you followed what did consistently you would recognize I have the same approach in all my massages. I acted as an educator the whole time.
I'm user of Wikipedia for about 2-3 days now I think you should stop impying the word consistent. Also I think that you should stay out of it and let Fred answers for himself, he is not a kid. Last but not least talking about conistency, show me how did you address to the authorities about wolf talking to me so disrespectfully saying to calm down and that I should be placed under control.
Noramiao (talk) 22:27, 1 September 2018
- Wolf is another user who offered you constructive criticism. You were not attacked; let the issue go. —C.Fred (talk) 22:40, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
The critisim was NOT constructive, it was purely offensive. Telling someone to calm down and to be placed under control talks about manners, ethics, education,decency, origin, etc.
I don't have an issue, others keep interfere for no reason. All I did is reply to messages.
I did write multiple times that it's crucial to work with the latest data with the most updated data. T*U was sabotaging and interrupted me multiple times, so I wasn't able to finish what I was doing.
All I did the whole time was to tell anyone to stop wasting my time and instead focus on UPDATING the data.
Others have issues, I don't.
Before anyone sends me any message again I recommend to read all my messages not just here but the ones I left on the article talk page and other editors pages.
You should not imply that childish has bad meaning and you should not imply that I ever ever used the word mental, although there is nothing wrong with people being mental, it's still human.
I do claim that we here in the US we love the CIA, I never said CIA is most reliable although I think so, all I said was that CIA data I the most updated and I said that UN, WB and IMF don't have a methodology that's why they are using it from CIA.
I do say one more time, people for smokes sakes, it's important the data to be the most up-to-date. Noramiao (talk) 23:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
- Then you should be discussing the content of the article at the article's talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Fred,
I did that long time ago. Also I wrote before anyone sends me any message again and wastes my time, they should read what I wrote on the article's page and other editors pages. Noramiao (talk) 23:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
- And you've read the notice above about edit warring, yes? Yet you're still at it at List of countries and dependencies by population? —C.Fred (talk) 01:01, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not edit-warring, T*U is. I wrote on the talk page of the article long time ago. You are saying I can't update info ? Noramiao (talk) 01:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
- I'm saying you need to wait for consensus when multiple editors disagree with your edits. —C.Fred (talk) 01:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Wait for how long ? It's only one, not multiple editors. Noramiao (talk) 01:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
- As long as it takes. It's a holiday weekend; don't be surprised if there aren't responses until Tuesday. And looking at the edit history, three separate editors have reverted you today. —C.Fred (talk) 01:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I know it's a holiday weekend, I'm in the US, our troops are on the line and the info can't wait to be updated.
On Tuesday all info will be updated. Noramiao (talk) 01:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, it can wait. There is no deadline. It's better to take our time and be thorough than make rushed changes. Further, the article in question is about all nations of the world, so we should maintain a global perspective and not rely just on estimates made by the US CIA. —C.Fred (talk) 01:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
- Also, while you may remove other users' comments from your user talk page, if you do so, please remove the entire comment. Do not remove only a portion of the comment, because that would alter the meaning of the message. —C.Fred (talk) 01:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Fred,
I wrote to you something and it didn't go through because you wrote at the same time.CIA uses many sources so they maintain a global perspective of the data plus their data is cross referenced with many sources. What might not be important to you and T*U, should not be one sided and deprive others from updated info. So don't take the wrong side. I can edit my page, so I can get some edits. Noramiao (talk) 01:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
- Again, as I said, you are involved in a content dispute. Do not edit war by repeatedly trying to force your version of the page. Instead, discuss the matter at the talk page. Please review the bold, revert delete model for editing. Since you made the bold change, the burden is really on you to discuss and get consensus.
- And edit carefully. Given your track record, it would be very easy for an editor to (mis)construe your changes to others' comments as an attempt to distort the page or disrupt Wikipedia. —C.Fred (talk) 01:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Fred, I did discuss it on the article's talk page. Noramiao (talk) 01:53, 2 September 2018
- You made one comment. Yes, we're still waiting for other editors to reply, but that does not mean they quietly agree with you. —C.Fred (talk) 02:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Fred,
I know that they out loudly agree with me, because the common sense dictates that all info is most relevant when it's updated. As I mentioned before whether I cite the UN website, Worldometers, CIA or whatever other source the most important thing is the info to be updated first, then cited.
I reviewed the BRD and therefore I think you are obligated to address wolf,T*U, aussie, the good guy 3221, not just to read it too, but to read about being productive and not to interrupt others.
Also I hope you send them to read about ODD too. They have no reason to be offended by it, just to get familiar, so they won't harrass anyone who is trying to contribute. Noramiao (talk) 02:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
September 2018 edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. McSly (talk) 02:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Simple, straightforward advice edit
You've been given a number of suggestions, and you've either made an intentional effort to ignore them, or else you aren't comprehending the message. I will be as clear as possible now.
- Do not change the wording of a message left here by another user. You can delete the entire message, but don't delete just a phrase or sentence.
- Do not mention "oppositional defiant disorder" in relation to another user. I just Googled it, and while it isn't in the DSM, it is mentioned in psychological literature—so suggesting another user has it is a personal attack.
If you do either of those things again, then it may be necessary to block your account for the sake of the project. I will have to balance the potential constructiveness of your edits with the disruptiveness of your unwillingness or inability to comply with Wikipedia guidelines—and if the positives don't exceed the negatives, then a block is warranted. —C.Fred (talk) 02:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Fred,
1. You said delete the entire message.
2. I never said someone has ODD, I said you should let them know to get familiar with the definition of it, so they won't look strange to the majority of the people that they communicate with. Also according to:
According to the 5 pillars: Wikipedia has no firm rules Shortcut WP:5P5 Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions. Be bold but not reckless in updating articles. And do not agonize over making mistakes: every past version of a page is saved, so mistakes can be easily corrected. If you have any HUMAN decency, any at all, you would never EVER say "calm down". If you have any critical thinking you would draw conclusion from the above that "Wikipedia has no firm rules" and that "easily corrected".
Therefore I can't get what that fuss is all about. If you don't like something then just easily correct it. I keep doing the same thing and I'm not complaining about it. Noramiao (talk) 02:59, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I am deleting the entire message I'm simply doing it letter by letter. Is that wrong?
Wikipedia has no firm rules. I think some people don't know how to crack a joke. Noramiao (talk) 03:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
No, I did not say it. You are implying something wrong. I did not said for example " Fred,you have it". What I said was that I was never rude and anyone who things differently it's ovbious that it has issues.
Whether I do exist or I don't,regardless of me, people that are being offended, especially easily this means they have issues. Here the critical thinking is not if I point the problem, the thing is that the problem exists, not the one who points it.
Also if I delete the messages one letter a day until the message is fully deleted this should not be an issue due to the fact that wikipedia has no firm rules and also "easily corrected", therefore I should not be forced to abandone my shopping, babysitting, etc for the sake of deleting full messages.
Where is the compassion here, where is the patience? Noramiao (talk) 03:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
- Given that you haven't been blocked already, I'd say there's been a great deal of compassion and patience. —C.Fred (talk) 03:30, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Fred,
There is not a single reason for me to be blocked and not only that you know it, but the confirmation is that I'm still not blocked.
You can not block someone who gives you an advice and educates you.
Fred, you think the world would be better if I'm blocked ???
You think all these people including you are contributing for wikipedia to be updated with information or simply all of you wasted over 14 hours to prove to me about your manners, education, decency, origin, patience and compation ???
Fred, the world doesn't start with being a wikipedia admin, you know that right?
So stop taking yourself so seriously and crack a joke for once. Noramiao (talk) 03:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
There is not a single reason for me to be blocked
- The edit-warring is a good reason to block you, hence the following section. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
- As explained at WP:AN3, multiple editors have stated that you have edit-warred and the evidence demonstrates this. At the same time you've been told that TU-nor did NOT edit-war. Are you claiming we are all wrong and you are the only one who is right? --AussieLegend (✉) 16:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, because you are implying wrong information. Noramiao (talk) 16:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion edit
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Noramiao reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: ). Thank you. AussieLegend (✉) 07:59, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
- I think you should find something productive to do, instead of harrassing people.
- Noramiao (talk) 14:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
- You need to stop unjustly accusing others of harassment. There is a big difference between harassment and dealing with problematic editors. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
You are not accurate. You can not dictate what I can do in my life, what I can stop and what I can not stop. You have to find something productive to do instead of oppressing, harrassing, and abuse your rights. You have to cut it out. Noramiao (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Message for you edit
Just to tell you that I have given an answer at Talk:List of countries and dependencies by population#Recent edits. --T*U (talk) 11:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
September 2018 edit
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:C.Fred. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Your recent comment of "Fred, I expect you to support me against the ignorance of Aussie ans Velella. These people are not in the States and they DO NOT think properly as us"[1] drifts from the realm of commenting on a behaviour into commenting on a person. —C.Fred (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I never ever attacked and/ or offended anyone. Anyone who implies different is wrong !!! I didn't not approach these people and I didn't say any bad word into their face. Me saying someone is ignorant means that someone should stop being ignorant. Ignorant is not an offense. The fact must be stated in order to be corrected.
Please preview your edits edit
Please preview your edits, especially at user talk pages. While it's okay to make one or two corrections, a string of dozens of corrections in a row is not helpful. I point out this most recent edit you made at User talk:Thegoodguy3221, which is one in a strong of over 50 edits in a row; each edit changes of only one or two characters. —C.Fred (talk) 17:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
September 2018 edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. —C.Fred (talk) 17:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
1. I never offended anyone. I didn't saying anything to their face. I mentioned them to you, huge difference.
2. Them being ignorant is a fact and not an offense. You should focus on them not being ignorant, not on me pointing it out. Unless you are bias.
3. Its a sign of weakness to block and censor anyone. You are not showing a lead how to be an admin.
Shame on you, after all these years.
4. I'm not harrassing one by trying to erase the message completely. You are WRONG, AGAIN if you are telling me that I can't do it one symbol at a time. If you didn't interrupted me, I was going to erase it by now.
By some reason it's not letting me copy what you want ( maybe because everything I do on Wikipedia is because the mobile phone).
You are picking on me for no reason, I did make useful contributions until I was rudely interrupted for no reason by nonsense.
I hope you comprehend that you don't have a monopoly.
Noramiao (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I never harrassed anyone. I'm erasing a message. Nothing was offensive.Noramiao (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Your edits to the user talk page were disruptive. As you don't concede you did anything wrong, I don't believe you should be unblocked early. I am declining this request. 331dot (talk) 19:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Noramiao (talk) 18:07, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- Deleting a message one character at a time is intentional disruption. You can delete the entire message at one go. What you were told before is that you may delete another user's message on your talk page by deleting the entire message, but not by deleting a portion. —C.Fred (talk) 18:29, 3 September 2018)
Fred,
You are WRONG, AGAIN, because you said that I can do that with other people's messages. I solely am the owner of my own messages, the 5th pillar says there are no firm rules, yet you keep braking your own word.
There is absolutely nothing wrong and / or harrassing to erase the massage one symbol at a time.
Also as it's stated in the paragraph as I showed you the prices are in US Dollars and I made them in Dollars in the table as well. Your comment on your talk page shows you didn't comprehend what I said. You basically blamed me for what I blamed others about the dollars and the cents.
Fred,
If you unblock me, I plan to erase my messages and never to deal with the stupidity shown by many here, so unblock me, so I can keep erasing.
Noramiao (talk) 18:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- Every time you make an edit on a user's talk page they receive a notifcation that somebody has posted to their talk page. When I opened Wikipedia yesterday I received 31 notifications. Thegoodguy3221 would have received 66 notifications. That's now up to 78. We are not stupid. It is clear that when you delete messages one character at a time, which nobody else does because it is simply not necessary, you are being deliberately disruptive and yes, it is a form of harassment. Nothing will convince anyone that you are not harassing other editors and that is why you have been blocked. I would point you to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines but I doubt you would bother reading it. Regarding your messages, no you do not own them. When you post to Wikipedia everything becomes public domain. You do have some leeway with what you can do with your messages but note that WP:TPG says "So long as no one has yet responded to your comment, it's accepted and common practice that you may continue to edit your remarks for a short while to correct mistakes, add links or otherwise improve them. ... But if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided. Once others have replied, or even if no one's replied but it's been more than a short while, if you wish to change or delete your comment, it is commonly best practice to indicate your changes." Deleting your comments as you have done is not indicating your changes. If you wish to delete posts that have been replied to you should do that by striking them out, per WP:REDACT. Deleting them one character at a time is not appropriate. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I have now extended your block and removed your talk page access due to your continued disruption. If this behavior continues after the block expires, I think I can safely say that the blocks will get longer. 331dot (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Question edit
@331dot: Hi, I get why this user is blocked. I see they where they were removing content piece by piece, and that is NOTHERE behaviour. But why restore that content? After all, users are allowed to remove almost anything (except active block notices) from their talk pages, so why not leave the page as is, block and move on? (I'm just asking out of curiosity). Thanks - wolf 16:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thewolfchild I simply reverted the disruption. If they want to remove it in one fell swoop, they can. 331dot (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Like I said... just curious. Thanks - wolf 17:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Unblock request edit
Noramiao (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #22583 was submitted on Sep 07, 2018 16:51:03. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Noramiao (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #22588 was submitted on Sep 07, 2018 20:16:04. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Noramiao (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #23891 was submitted on Feb 05, 2019 16:04:36. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Noramiao (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #23926 was submitted on Feb 12, 2019 03:02:05. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 03:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Noramiao (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #23929 was submitted on Feb 12, 2019 08:37:30. This review is now closed.