User talk:Uenixlo

Welcome

Wataweih! Welcome to the Norfuk/Pitkern Language edition of Wikipedia. We are glad to have you here. The edits you made at Chillán, were reverted. This means that I removed it. Those edits are known are vandalism or spams, and are violation of the Wikimedia Foundation (a.k.a the mother of all wikis, e.g.: Wikipedia, Wikicommons, Meta...ect.) policies.

If you are able to speak the language, don't hesitate to help build the wiki, not tear it down with vandalism. I hope you take my words in consideration, and make valuable contributions in the future. Happy stay! ✨Jay Jay Marcus Keize13✨ (talk) 12:53, 20 Mieh 2018 (UTC)

I did not spam!!!! Why are you saying I am a vandal?? And I spammed!!!?????? I wasn't tearing down the wiki, I was just making an edit, as what wikipedia is all about. "The free encyclopedia...that anyone can edit"!! You motherfucker!! Uenixlo (talk) 13:00, 20 Mieh 2018 (UTC)

See here: Spam, Vandalism, and Talk page violation. You can also get involved as a new user, and ask questions like, how to edit a page, what to add and what not at The Teahouse. If you also want to make test edits, you could create a Sandbox, or use Test Wikipedia. I understand that you were trying to make an edit, but there are some things you must learn about editing at Wikipedia. Even though the slogan of wikipedia, and tagline says that anyone can edit, it doesn't mean that you can edit every and anything. There are certain policies that users have adhere to, when editing. Vandalism is deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge. The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies ofneutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is adeliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. There, of course, exist more juvenile forms of vandalism, such as adding irrelevant obscenities or crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page. Abusive creation or usage of user accounts and IP addresses may also constitute vandalism. Vandalism is prohibited. While editors are encouraged to warn and educate vandals, warnings are by no means necessary for an administrator to block (although administrators usually only block when multiple warnings have been issued). Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. For example, edit warring over how exactly to present encyclopedic content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, edits that are detrimental but well-intentioned, and edits that are vandalism. If it is clear that the person in question is (in their minds) intending to improve Wikipedia, their edits should not be labelled vandalism, even if they violate some other core policy of Wikipedia. Mislabeling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful; instead of calling such problems vandalism, use the appropriate terminology to make it easier to correct. When editors are editing in good faith, mislabeling their edits as vandalism makes them less likely to respond to corrective advice or to engage collaboratively during a disagreement, for that reason you should avoid using the term "vandalism" unless it is clear the user in question means to harm Wikipedia; this is even true when warning a user witha standard warning template. Choose the correct template that most closely matches the behavior you are trying to correct. I hope you get what I'm trying to say. It's nice to have you here, but making such edits is not good for the community. ✨Jay Jay Marcus Keize13✨ (talk)