User talk:Fukualofa

MethaneSAT update

Hi! I did fill in an edit summary where I clarified that I replaced the broken URL with one that did work: https://www.methanesat.org/satellite

Not sure what I should have mentioned, but I appreciate your vigilance! 95.63.215.235 (talk) 09:53, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is the information you included in this article correct? Thanks! (Fukualofa (talk) 11:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC))[reply]

I didn't change the article, I only updated the URL in the Sources, to point from an outdated /about URL to the current one, /satellite. 95.63.215.235 (talk) 11:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand, this is officially confirmed, that is, not false information? If you have added official information to this article, I will cancel the edit! Thanks! (Fukualofa (talk) 11:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Format removal

Hello, I noticed that you recently removed content from The Zacharovanyi Krai National Nature Park (Ukrainian: Національний парк «Зачарований край», lit. 'Enchanted Land') without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. 78.81.123.235 (talk) 10:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is the information you entered in this article correct? Avoid unreliable information! (Fukualofa (talk) 13:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC))[reply]

@Fukualofa What makes you doubt reliability of my information? The definite article rule in English is clearly right here. And formatting of translation is recommended by the templates. I would suggest you not lecturing nobody with exclamation marks within Wikipedia: it's not tolerated here. I'm re-reverting to my edit. Thank you 78.81.123.235 (talk) 14:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Explanations

Why did you make this reversal? [1]

Sources prove that the name of the part of the day that runs between 00:00 and 05:59 is postmidnight or wee hours.

The sources used were: Cambridge Dictionary, Collins Dictionary and Merriam-Webster Dictionary.

168.232.221.145 (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Thanks! (Fukualofa (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Shavertown, NY article edit

You reverted an edit at the above page, maintaining that it was unexplained. I suggest you familiarize yourself both with the abbreviation "NPOV" and the relevant section of the WP:MOS it pertains to here: NPOV. Regards, 2601:196:180:DC0:5C9B:1A3A:9F8D:5CFE (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this reliable information? (Fukualofa (talk) 17:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Is what reliable information? The hamlet was submerged when the reservoir was built. The link that you need to become familiar with is in the WIKIPEDIA MANUAL OF STYLE. Surely you have familiarized yourself with it before commencing new pages patrol. 2601:196:180:DC0:5C9B:1A3A:9F8D:5CFE (talk) 18:02, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source information! (Fukualofa (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2025 (UTC))[reply]

What "source information" are you talking about? You are being difficult here. The edit and its summary were explicit: the building of the reservoir "submerged" the town, not "sacrificed" it, which is a value-laden term. How much clearer can I be here? 2601:196:180:DC0:5C9B:1A3A:9F8D:5CFE (talk) 18:35, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any questions, please contact: Wikipedia:Teahouse. Our highly experienced volunteers will help you!(Fukualofa (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2025 (UTC))[reply]

What are you talking about? There is no "inexperienced user" involved here: I have pointed you to the correct section of the Wikipedia Manual of Style to familiarize you with the difficulties you are having here. Do not patronize other users. 2601:196:180:DC0:5C9B:1A3A:9F8D:5CFE (talk) 18:35, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know the rules well, I'm just preventing vandalism. (Fukualofa (talk) 18:37, 15 June 2025 (UTC))[reply]

June 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  — Newslinger talk 19:05, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you block me? I didn't break any rules! (Fukualofa (talk) 19:08, 15 June 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Fukualofa, you were reported on the vandalism noticeboard by two IP editors. Could you please explain why you have been mass-reverting edits by IP editors, almost always without explanation? — Newslinger talk 19:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I thought they had added unsourced information to Wikipedia, please forgive me, I was wrong, the vandalism will not happen again! Can you unblock it?(Fukualofa (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Here are a few edits where you reverted one of the IP editors that later reported you: Special:Diff/1295761076, Special:Diff/1295761120, and Special:Diff/1295761166. In these edits, you reverted the IP editor's citations of product manuals (which are allowed in that context as primary sources). Can you please explain the decision process that led to the reversions? — Newslinger talk 19:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I understand now, I thought they were posting unsourced information, please make sure this doesn't happen again! Can you unblock them, please! (Fukualofa (talk) 19:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC))[reply]

I don't understand your explanation, since the IP editor was adding citations to the article. Those specific edits that you reverted couldn't possibly have been unsourced information, because the edits added nothing but citations. Would you please also explain how you are locating the edits that you have been reverting? — Newslinger talk 19:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, these are source quotes! I'll keep an eye on the recent changes page! (Fukualofa (talk) 19:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Before I comment any further, what does your username mean? — Newslinger talk 19:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I'm really interested in geography, my username is Fukualofa, it's the capital of the Kingdom of Tonga, I'm editing under that name because this country interests me! 😊(Fukualofa (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2025 (UTC))[reply]

The capital of Tonga is Nukuʻalofa, not Fukualofa, so I am not convinced that your username satisfies the username policy. Based on your editing history and the prior discussions on this page, the accuracy rate of your reversions is too low and you'll need to agree to stop patrolling recent changes if you want to be considered for an unblock. If you are interested in writing articles on Wikipedia instead of patrolling recent changes, you can submit an unblock request by following the directions on the block notice for another administrator to review. — Newslinger talk 20:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I monitor the latest changes, I also write articles for Wikipedia, can I write articles on any topic? Please unblock me, thank you! (Fukualofa (talk) 20:04, 15 June 2025 (UTC))[reply]

The instructions to appeal your block are in the first comment of this section. You'll need to show that you understand the situation, and please keep in mind that your responses so far don't clearly demonstrate this. — Newslinger talk 20:08, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did as you said! Please unblock me, I won't tolerate vandalism again! (Fukualofa (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC))[reply]

You'll need to replace "Your reason here" with the reason that you should be unblocked. The page Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks describes what an unblock request should look like. Another administrator will be reviewing your unblock request, not me. — Newslinger talk 20:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What should I exchange this for? Explain, please. Explain, please.(Fukualofa (talk) 20:45, 15 June 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks explains what you need to know. You'll need to write your unblock request by yourself. If you aren't able to do this by yourself, then I'm afraid that editing Wikipedia isn't for you at this time. There's no deadline and you're welcome to write your appeal when you're ready. — Newslinger talk 20:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the unblock request! (Fukualofa (talk) 21:12, 15 June 2025 (UTC))[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Fukualofa (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please unblock! Other cases of vandalism will not be repeated!Fukualofa (talk) 20:16, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No one has said you engaged in vandalism. This indicates to me that you don't understand the reasons for the block. If English is not the main language you use to communicate, I might suggest that you would be more comfortable editing the Wikipedia of your primary language. 331dot (talk) 22:34, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

Fukualofa, I just noticed that you originally created your account on the Uzbek Wikipedia. I agree with 331dot that editing the Uzbek Wikipedia would be your best path forward for now. If you improve your English proficiency to a point where you can edit the English Wikipedia with no issues, you would be welcome to request another unblock at that time. — Newslinger talk 23:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Newslinger! Thank you for your understanding, proper English is not my main language of communication, but I know English at a near-intermediate level!

Fukualofa (talk) 00:39, 16 June 2025 (UTC)}}[reply]

I am very gratified to see first that others took the steps of requesting a block of this user, and second to see that their request has been turned down. As they made it clear in their various responses to this thread that they do not get it, whether due to a language barrier or mindset. Which exchange went exactly as the one I had with them above (pointing them to the WP Manual of Style to familiarize themselves with its section on NPOV, with no luck at all). Instead, I found someone who was arbitrary, arrogant, opaque, intransigent, and patronizing, yet somehow still managing to convey the overt image of a new editor seeking to diligently do their job - still not a very good combination if they're good at the latter, but they're not. Which I ran into in another series of reverts at a different page that displayed the very same pattern yet again.

Avidness and dogmatism are not the same thing. I much appreciate a passion for reliable citations here, but the editor has been going way beyond that, reverting all manner of edits without either cause or explanation. And proving doctrinaire and prickly to deal with (at the user-to-user level). I see superficial contrition, but still no depth of understanding or genuine commitment to change. Just pleas. Thank you. 2601:196:180:DC0:683C:69AB:A326:EFBB (talk) 00:50, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, can you tell me which one of us here is that editor? Thank you for appreciating Wikipedia, I'm not mad at you, this block will be removed in due time, don't worry about it! Thanks! Happy editing! 😊👍 (Fukualofa (talk) 00:58, 16 June 2025 (UTC))[reply]

NB: I was unaware of the immediately previous exchange when I posted the above after it. I'd composed it earlier, been drawn away editing other articles, returned to this page, saw that it had not been sent, proofed it, and hit return without checking to see whether the page had been updated in the interim. Regardless, it seems new changes patrol is too challenging for a user with their level of language skills and familiarity with common conventions. That proof is in the pudding. 2601:196:180:DC0:683C:69AB:A326:EFBB (talk) 00:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you're saying, can you please explain? (Fukualofa (talk) 01:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Some baklava for you!

Hi ExplorerofSpace (talk) 23:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for welcoming me to the table with baklava and tea and a sweet smile! Happy editing! (Fukualofa (talk) 00:42, 16 June 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Evident sockpuppetry involving User:Majurorial and User:Abduvaitov Sherzod 2 accounts

From this edit it appears exceedingly likely that recently blocked User:Majurorial (by administrator User:Izno, as a sockpuppet of blocked User:Abduvaitov Sherzod 2) is also User:Majurorial/User:Adbuviatov Sherzod. In which edit brand new User:Majurorial found and pasted (by name) User:Fukualofa's {{Special:Impact/Fukualofa}} template to their Talk page with this edit (complete with User:Fukualofa's statistics) in order to create their own identical page from it.

A highly unlikely datamine (to find such a page with just that handy template on it) by an abject novice (who like User:Fukualofa also used the Special:Recentchanges template as their first Talk page edit immediately prior, who was also preternaturally immediately familiar with that template upon registering) to create a new page/identity the day after User:Fukualofa had been blocked. Then immediately engaged in the same (contentious) recent change patrol).

I will ping administrators @Newslinger: and @331dot:, who were involved in blocking User:Fukalofa, so they are aware of the potential commonality of these three blocked accounts.

Can someone who knows the right way to go about things please place an appropriate (suspected) sockpuppet template on this (User:Fukualofa's) user page to clue others in. Thank you.2601:196:180:DC0:51FA:1445:E045:7363 (talk) 16:22, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see from following links at the other two pages that @ClumsyOwlet: has already linked User:Fukualofa to both User:Abduvaitov Sherzod and User:Majurorial at the User:Abduvaitov sockpuppet investigation here. Great. Learning curve at work to chase it down. The request for a sockpuppet template at this page still stands. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:196:180:dc0:51fa:1445:e045:7363 (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. I've tagged the page User:Fukualofa to reflect the account's blocked and globally locked status due to suspected sockpuppetry. Thank you for this information. — Newslinger talk 19:13, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome. The area is one I have little intercourse with, but am always blown away at the efforts that "vandals" will go to to disrupt the encyclopedia. Not the "fleas", the "tse-tse fly" biters, that insert a vulgarity into an Infobox (making their days) and move on. The dedicated trolls. Who can invest enormous effort into impersonating a legitimately flummoxed new or overwhelmed (but utterly good-faithed) user. Causing chaos and eating up good peoples' time and energy.

Thank goodness there are users who are adept at dousing it out and dealing with them, and tools to help them do so. 2601:196:180:DC0:51FA:1445:E045:7363 (talk) 19:59, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I had no idea when the above post was made that user Abduvaitov Sherzod is indeed a notorious sockpuppeteer, with a score or more confirmed puppet accounts (original investigation here). That's either a fantastic amount of personal effort or a boileroom in Uzbekistan set up just to mess with English Wikipedia and waste its human and computer resources. Either way, it is accomplishing it. 2601:196:180:DC0:7874:9F1D:CB87:AF14 (talk) 11:20, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]