User talk:Cantthinkausernamenow

July 2022

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Haya Maraachli. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Bbb23 (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was not my intention and I don't accept this vandalism accusation. I was trying to follow the Afd guide and I didn't know it was not allowed to make a second nomination and I still don't know it, I didn't see that in the guide and in fact there was an explanation for how to create a second nomination so I followed that. I nominated it again to try to explain myself better because the first nomination did not really get a good discussion or arguments and I don't think keep close was appropriate, as I explained in the new nomination, arguments were mostly centered around "you didn't state a valid reason" although I think I did but it could of course be my fault for not being so clear initially. That's why I created it again to amend that fault of mine to write a better and clearer reason to get better arguments and examination. And last time I checked it certainly had a better discussion, examination and arguments this time. I don't think it's appropriate to erase that discussion like this, it's disrespectful and unfair to users who spent their time on it. One user particularly had very good arguments and investigation centered around policies which was lacking in the first nomination. I think another admin should be involved here and that discussion should be restored, I don't feel this is right. I don't know what more I can do here, I see a "Deletion review" link in the first nomination but I don't know if using that option would make you block me. Cantthinkausernamenow (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SMSJofficial57

I happened to see your recent attempt to get Haya Maraachli deleted. I'm not going to get into the notability of the topic (consensus seems to be that Maraachli is notable), but your CSD nomination of the article claims that the article was created by a banned user, which is not true as it was created several months before Tommyjacklovesport's sockpuppetry ban.

If you think SMSJofficial57 is a sockpuppet, please feel free to present any evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tommyjacklovesport. - ZLEA _T\^C 21:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice with the process. I could make mistake with details of course, I saw it was created by someone who was banned for sockpuppetry, that's why I said that. Cantthinkausernamenow (talk) 01:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Cantthinkausernamenow, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Beccaynr (talk) 00:16, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being kind to me. Cantthinkausernamenow (talk) 01:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haya Maraachli (2nd nomination)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haya Maraachli (2nd nomination). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Beccaynr (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Dive Right In Award

I award this Dive Right In Award to you as a newcomer who has shown real enthusiasm in helping with administrative tasks at Wikipedia. It's sometimes hard to get your balance, and there's a lot to learn, but keep on trying. Many, many thanks, Beccaynr (talk) 16:11, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Beccaynr but do you see the harassment I'm experiencing right now? I'm trying to improve and tidy up an article, I'm trying to keep only things I can verify and I clearly try to state that in my edit reasons. And I get this harassment reverts while I was still working on it. I ask the person to provide a verifiable source for things he reinstates and he warns me. How nice right? Cantthinkausernamenow (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The editor "harassing" you is Drmies, an administrator, with tons more experience than you. You seem to have problems with administrators here. Can't think of why.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bbb23--I think the edits speak for themselves but I appreciate your comment (and I think the article looks a little better now). TonyBallioni, what do you think of all this? Drmies (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I was the one who harassed him out of nowhere, you could have a reason to say "You seem to have problems with administrators here". But I did not harass anyone, I was only trying to improve an article (and I was still working on it) and I was harassed by someone (whoever they are, I didn't know). If I'm harassed by an admin then that means admin has a problem with me, it doesn't mean I have problems with admins I don't even know. Cantthinkausernamenow (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cantthinkausernamenow, you do not appear to be harassed by Drmies. Your previous experience with Bbb23 is currently being addressed in the developing DRV consensus. We are all trying to work together to improve the encyclopedia. Beccaynr (talk) 16:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have a specific definition of harassment here, and it is important to be cautious about using this term in reference to other editors. I was also going to encourage you to review who you are interacting with and may be issuing warnings, and to consider how a warning can help with what can be a steep learning curve when you are new to editing Wikipedia. Beccaynr (talk) 16:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for advice as always. Looking at that page I feel being stopped "from enjoying Wikipedia by intimidation" here but OK if it's not OK to use that term I will not. I didn't know who are they but I still don't accept their warning. I just don't see any reason for their behaviour other than intimination, sorry but I just can't see it. There was nothing controversial about these edits and there was no reason for multiple reverts and warning. He was the one who's being disruptive. If it was someone else making these edits nobody would do something like this. So I was the target here, not the article or the content of the edits. Cantthinkausernamenow (talk) 16:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a general matter, we are encouraged to follow the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, which is summarized as "Making bold edits is encouraged, as it will result in either improving an article or stimulating discussion. If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, begin a discussion with the person who reverted your change." Getting reverted happens, and adding the standard warning templates to editor Talk pages is also a common practice. If your conduct appears disruptive, you may be notified so you have an opportunity to reflect on the feedback and make adjustments to your contributions. I encourage you to view this as part of your learning experience, to be open to the guidance from other editors, and to ask questions when clarification is needed. Beccaynr (talk) 17:05, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Beccaynr He does everything he wants with the article freely (including re-adding a hoax name that even had his article deleted recently) and he prohibits me from making any edit there. Where is the good faith in any of this?

I tried to improve the article, he re-instated hoax and he's free to do everything and I'm not allowed to touch it. Which part of this is appropriate? Cantthinkausernamenow (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage you to review the dispute resolution policy. I am not aware of the details of this particular dispute, but a content-focused discussion on the article Talk page is likely the next step towards a productive resolution of this issue. Beccaynr (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He added a non-working link and a hoax fake name without a reference. And if I revert this I will be "disruptive". OK I will use talk page but it's so frustrating to be targeted like this. Cantthinkausernamenow (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're not "targeted". You gave NO evidence of ANY community deciding that some name is a "hoax name". Drmies (talk) 01:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why Ali Adel was deleted was due to notability. Claims of the actor being a "hoax" are much stronger and should not be thrown around without strong evidence. Absence of good evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, but is usually evidence of absence of notability. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:7CAD:5E38:47C0:2AF0 (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]