User talk:IHitmanI

Fixed archiving

Hello IHitmanI, you have accidentally set up archiving incorrectly by creating it in the Talk namespace, which is only for article talk pages. I have moved your archive to User talk:IHitmanI/Archive 1. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:04, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was new at this. Thanks again. Have a nice day! IHitmanI (talk) 05:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse (discussion)

I am sorry, but you lack both the editing experience and the English language fluency to answer questions at the Teahouse. Please spend a few months developing your skills first. Cullen328 (talk) 07:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe i do none. Its you who think, while i am helping people with their problem. If you think I did wrong somewhere please point out the mistakes and i will comply with it. And where will i spend those months developing my skills? In Wikipedia training camp? Stop your bureaucracy. I am helping Wikipedia in every way possible just like you. IHitmanI (talk) 08:02, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You and I are in same page, except i need some more time to get used to Wikipedia guidelines and only way to do that is to use Teahouse to upgrade my views. Again, Point out my mistakes not your personal opinions. IHitmanI (talk) 08:03, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IHitmanI: I'm afraid I have to agree with Cullen – I actually came to your talk page to make a similar comment. Here are the issues that struck me at first glance:

First of all, your account is only a week old and you are not even extended confirmed, which means there are various things that you cannot or should not do here. Answering questions is not prohibited, but you are giving advice to editors who are more experienced than you, when you haven’t been around long enough to become familiar with all of our rules and norms.
I'm not sure what you mean by I believe i do none. but this phrasing does not indicate what I would call en-5 English proficiency,
In this Teahouse thread, the OP asked a couple of related questions about working with multiple languages, and Cullen addressed the nuances and risks involved when using machine translation. Your responses to the OP and to Cullen suggest that you may not appreciate these risks. Telling other editors that they can just go ahead and use translation software without any caution may lead to low-quality writing or serious factual errors being introduced into the encyclopaedia. In fact, your contributions to the Teahouse along with your responses to Cullen here are making me worry that you might be making uncritical use of translation software yourself.

I appreciate your eagerness to help, but it's important to be aware of your limitations, some of which are simply due to your lack of experience. There is no need to rush into activities that you are not yet qualified for. You will not learn by providing unhelpful advice to more experienced editors. Instead, try out The Wikipedia Adventure, which is a structured "training camp" for new Wikipedians. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 09:04, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the phrasing in my previous message, "I believe I do none." I was trying to directly address the feedback from Cullen348. My intention was never to sound dismissive. I also want to clarify that I’m not a new user, just a new account due to a previous one being lost. And there is no new user who can just come and help at teahouse and get thanks.

Furthermore you didn't told me where I made mistakes at teahouse. I’m likely came to helping people on Wikipedia, and I genuinely want to improve it. I only asked for specific feedback on my actions in the Teahouse, not personal opinions. If I made any mistakes, I’m more than happy to correct them. My aim is always to contribute positively, and the thanks I’ve received from others show that my help has been appreciated.

I would also like to point out that gaining experience on Wikipedia is not necessarily difficult — it’s more about understanding the system and the guidelines. If there are specific areas where I can improve, please let me know, and I’ll make sure to adjust accordingly.

P.S. - Just curious — what exactly defines “experience” in this context? I’m keen to understand the standards better so I can grow, and maybe even earn the “experienced editor” title myself one day. IHitmanI (talk) 09:28, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

worry that you might be making uncritical use of translation software yourself.

I can not and would not try to guess what made you think that but i am worried that It is once again an 'opinion'. Do you think 'opinion' matters in Wikipedia or any encyclopedia.

Speculation about my translation methods without evidence may be disruptive. Please focus on content and policy-based critique per WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL.

I had to read Wikipedia GL related to Teahouse again and here,

What Wikipedia Guidelines Say:

The Wikipedia Teahouse is primarily designed as a friendly space for new editors to ask questions.

While it’s encouraged that experienced editors participate to answer questions, there is no hard policy or requirement that you must have a certain edit count, account age, or user rights to help.

The Teahouse guidelines emphasize civility, friendliness, and accuracy in responses—not seniority. IHitmanI (talk) 09:49, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore you didn't told me where I made mistakes at teahouse [sic] In #3 in my previous reply, I pointed out a Teahouse thread where your understanding of the translation issue was incomplete and could lead to other editors making unwise or careless edits.

While there are various user access levels (that link tells you about their technical limitations), "experienced editor" is not a formal title. An editor demonstrates their experience through their writing and editing of Wikipedia articles (demonstrating understanding and experience with content policies and the manual of style) and in their conduct on talk pages (demonstrating their experience with the content and behavioural policies and with the culture and history of Wikipedia). One of the lessons we learn from spending years (even decades) on Wikipedia is how to gauge how well another editor understands the guidelines. Years of experience (putting in the hours) gives us intuitive understanding – this is not an exact science. I'm sorry if that sounds like mere "opinion" to you, but sometimes we have to make judgments based on intuition and trust.

It's these years that I've spent reading and editing other people's writing that make me notice anomalies like the clear differences in English-language fluency between your responses in this thread and your responses to Teahouse questions. Now, I am not asking you to explain this incongruity; it's just my gut feeling and I could be completely wrong to feel suspicious. I would welcome input from any other editors who are watching this thread and think I'm being unfair to you.

I suggest that you take to heart what you quote, The Teahouse guidelines emphasize civility, friendliness, and accuracy in responses. In this conversation the only hint of incivility has been in your words to Cullen, Stop your bureaucracy. Furthermore, civility and friendliness do not make up for inaccurate or misleading advice. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 10:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure.

I respect your way of talking, furthermore I use different english grammatical method depending on the context on which i am writing on, that is why sometime I myself find it very queer to read my own words (right now i am talking in less professional way). You are right in your terms that "An experienced user" is not a title but a practicality that proves that experience. That said I do not remember or to say may be short-blind to note where I was not a civil, which is my key motto here at Wikipedia, as you may see. I told cullen328 that "His answers for OP questions were not what the OP asked" which is correct given i had a discussion with OP. I did not lose my civility. I merely told him the fact, it was done to ensure that he do not be misled by question because the OP was inexplicit with his question beforehand. I did because i understood OP question but Cullen328 came from nowhere and told him what i have already told him in great detail (because i was also misled by his question. Losing civility would have been telling him "You are wrong", "You know nothing and i know much better than you". Also civility does not being pragmatic.

The mistake at teahouse i made was to tag Cullen directly at Teahouse but not through his talk page.

IHitmanI (talk) 11:07, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At Teahouse page I wrote that using Translation machine is more of assist than page creation tool. I stated this even before cullen did with proper WK guidelines citing. I have to lose civility here. Are you blind or one side? I used every possible way to explain him that a Wiki editor can. And you are telling me i was unhelpful. I strongly suggest you to explain explicitly what i told the OP that was factually wrong. IHitmanI (talk) 11:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IHitmanI I also came here to suggest that you refrain from answering Teahouse questions, as many of your answers have been either partially incorrect or misleading. For specific examples, ClaudineChionh has already mentioned above how your answer to the question about translation is incomplete and misleading. I'll also mention:

In this thread you said "Wikipedia demands a primary (second party) sources." This is incorrect; normally Wikipedia prefers secondary, not primary, sources; see WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY. Also, I'm not sure what "second party" means; it is not an accurate description of either primary or secondary sources.
In this thread you gave a long answer which was not very helpful. The answer I gave was much shorter and more relevant to what the user asked.
Most of your answers contain grammatical or usage errors. Some of them are minor and inconsequential but others make your answers hard to understand, which may be confusing for a new user. For example, here you said "you have way too many options than the non-desktop versions". It's not clear if you mean "you have way more options than..." or "you have too many options compared to...". The sentence structure sounds more like the latter, but the meaning is more sensible if you meant the former. Here you said "You can use any language as source, as i previously said, any cite it with english pages." This does not make sense. Perhaps it was just a typo and you meant to type "and" instead of "any". Here you said "For reliable sources, use Journalists sites or Any Media sources that is reputable." You seem to be using "Journalist[']s site" to mean "something published by a reliable news organization" but that is an unidiomatic way of expressing it, and could be interpreted to mean "anything published by a journalist". This is not correct; see the example mentioned at WP:SECONDARY. Here you said "Its not a rigid rule but a way to keep ingenuity out from article pages." I honestly don't know what you meant by that. "Ingenuity" is not an appropriate word here but I don't know what you meant to say.

CodeTalker (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the bottom line and please take my words seriously. You lack the necessary level of English language fluency and the necessary level of productive Wikipedia editing experience to be giving advice to other editors at the Teahouse or anywhere else. Stop giving advice for several months so that sanctions do not become necessary. Your enthusiasm is commendable but you are not ready now. Cullen328 (talk) 21:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but somehow all the user whom i helped understood my words and you can check that none of them said 'you are confusing or unhelpful'. Regarding of your two issues that you pointed out-

1. WP:Primary and other things are irrelevant if the user understood what i am talking about and that is verifiability of the phrases and sentences, although the whole discussion was about the similar point. I do not understand what would be a reason to give such irrelevant (mistake?) here.

2. Even a basic English reader can understand that "you have way too many" means "there are many options for you", then either you are following my irrelevant mistakes to point me out or you just want to tell me "get out of Teahouse".

Please, your reason for my case are not that strong as you may beleive. NONE of the user I helped said I was confusing nor did they claim my English is unhelpful. Either way most of them thanked me, did you not see that part? Thank you.

P.S. Sometime I am enthusiast with my English and so in that cases i am bit ambiguous. Second party in my case> A source which is neither written by individual nor a promotional third party but a party that is reputable and trust-able so to speak. And for @Cullen328, I am not a new user, just a new account for previously being lost due to my leave here for long time. IHitmanI (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is your previous username? Cullen328 (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is the problem I could not remember or I would have been there, getting my password through email. But its interesting why you asked that, just to know? IHitmanI (talk) 00:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 2025

You have been blocked for three months from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. Competence is required. Please edit Simple English Wikipedia and the Wikipedia version in the language you speak best instead. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.

Cullen328 (talk) 00:46, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I know why i am blocked?

Cullen328 whoever you are, I do not care about your potential inclusions over Wikipedia but you have no stronger reason, right to block me just for editing things. Despruptive edits? What kind of disruptions? IHitmanI (talk) 04:16, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see IHitmanI unblocked.

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).

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

Request reason:

I hope this message reaches you in good spirits. I am writing to formally request a reconsideration of the decision regarding the status of my account. I fully acknowledge that my actions, as perceived by the administration, were deemed to have violated certain platform rules. However, I would like to provide a comprehensive perspective on the matter, not only to explain my side of the situation but also to seek a path toward resolution based on fairness, understanding, and respect for the community's values. First and foremost, I want to clarify that it was never my intention to disrupt the harmony of the platform or to engage in actions that would negatively affect other members. I have always valued the platform and its community, and I am deeply regretful that my actions may have been interpreted in a way that undermines the environment you work hard to uphold. That said, I believe that any situation involving conflict or misunderstanding requires a nuanced approach, with attention to context and intent. While I acknowledge that mistakes were made, I feel that the initial response and the subsequent action taken were somewhat disproportionate, especially considering the circumstances that led to this outcome. In my view, the situation might have been resolved more effectively through direct communication and clarification of the actions in question. Rather than receiving immediate sanction, I believe a dialogue or a warning could have better addressed the issue while fostering a sense of mutual respect between the administration and myself.

I also want to address a more personal matter that I feel is critical to understanding the entire situation. As a member of this community, I have always tried to adhere to the guidelines set forth. However, I was taken aback by how my actions were interpreted and how quickly the situation escalated. I have always believed in the value of transparency, communication, and fairness. It was my hope that any misunderstanding could have been resolved through these means, rather than through punitive measures alone. In the interest of justice, I feel it is important to point out that a sense of fairness is integral to any community's ability to thrive. The principles of justice, which include a proper review of the facts, consideration of intent, and an opportunity for those involved to explain their actions, should not be overlooked. To me, this is not just about my own reinstatement but about ensuring that the platform’s rules are enforced in a way that is consistent, just, and fair to all members. If I have erred, I am willing to accept responsibility for my actions, but I also ask that the entire context be considered when making decisions about how to proceed. With that being said, I want to reiterate my full commitment to following the platform’s rules and contributing positively to the community. I have taken time to reflect on the situation and understand the importance of maintaining respect, communication, and cooperation. I recognize that any future behavior that might be perceived as disruptive or outside the community’s guidelines will not be tolerated, and I am prepared to act with heightened awareness moving forward.

I also ask that this appeal be considered as a call for fairness, a principle that underpins the very foundation of any community that values growth, transparency, and mutual respect. If my actions have unintentionally violated the rules, I am more than willing to engage in a constructive conversation to fully understand where I went wrong and what steps I can take to rectify the situation. I firmly believe that everyone deserves the opportunity for growth, correction, and fair treatment and it would be a good decision to not lose such willing member of community.

Ultimately, I hope this appeal serves as a testament to my willingness to improve, my respect for the community, and my commitment to making things right. I truly believe that with mutual understanding and cooperation, we can resolve this matter in a way that reflects the best qualities of this platform: fairness, respect, and open dialogue. Thank you for taking the time to review my appeal. I am looking forward to hearing from you and hope that a solution can be found that allows me to continue contributing to the community in a positive manner. Please feel free to reach out to me if any further clarification is required.

Sincerely, IHitmanI

Decline reason:

We do not consider chatbot-generated requests. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 01:04, 27 April 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Here is my, that is to say, Hitman, non-chatbot request, please make sure you align it with chatbot (above paragraphs).

Hello, I think I should be unblocked for the following reason: I am an old Wiki user (Encyclopedia reader) and a part-time Wikipedia not-too-new editor. I recently got interested in Teahouse because of its massive help requests. I am naturally a human being who try to help other people, not too much but enough. I helped, that is to say presented my solutions after making familiar myself with the Wikipedia rules, but of course i failed to notice its too strict protocols, which was due to my lack of visions and obsession with Teahouse. It is easy to think that I was vandalizing, putting my ego much above than the Wiki admins but with all honesty that i can present, it was not so. You can check my talk page to see that after the admin had messaged me about that "You are inexperienced in this field", I normally thought myself "Not so", It was not because I was filled with ego but momentarily psychological collapse due to positive feedback on my helps (at the Teahouse).

After that I tried my best to be Civilized, most of the time. I said "Are you blind?", yes. Because at that time I was heavily frustrated, having typed more than 20 times (words including, as a whole) and an admin said I was unhelpful, which was contradicting given the positive feedback i received.

But Is it right to ban me (or block as Wikipedia says) to teach me 'manners'? Is it right for a senior student to ban other merely because he thought he can handle senior classes? This seems both unjust and oversimplification of the matter, such as "Silencing me". Banning may seem easier to stop a new user but this is not a welcoming approach for the same new users. I am not going to speak much about the admin who blocked me but can you at least make it clear before taking such decisions? "You will be blocked or even removed from Wikipedia for editing at Teahouse!" and a final warning or such similar system to warn me because I think much about my account than helping people.

You can trust me that I will take more time before going back to Teahouse, I also have a good less-reverted edit history. Could you please consider to not to lose such a precious, commited user?

Thank you.

P.S. Please, Writing a draft using a chat-bot can be more complex than simply lazy requests. Maybe I want more than just simple a draft about my appeal? If you think this is also a chat bot comment maybe i can do something more to prove it?

Decline reason:

Considering your edit history, I find this block to be justified. This isn't indefinite, it is only for three months, and my advice would be to sit it out, and take this time to think about your approach to Wikipedia editing and working with others, including the limits of your own knowledge and experience, and where you can best contribute to this project (which may not be in advising others, at least not yet).

I also must say that your English language skills, which have already been brought up as problematic, make me wonder if you wouldn't find it easier to edit on one of the other language versions of Wikipedia instead. In almost every sentence you write there are grammar and syntax problems, odd expressions, etc. which make it quite difficult to understand your meaning.

Speaking of languages, just to point out that your block only applies to the English-language Wikipedia. You are still able to edit eg. Simple English and Hindi, as well as Commons (as you have already discovered).

I'm declining your appeal. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:51, 27 April 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.

Also i would like to point out some irony.

{{unblock|reason=[[1]] IHitmanI (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not turn this into some vendetta against Cullen328. He didn't block you as a personal punishment to you, he blocked you to protect the project from further disruption, especially in a highly visible area such as the Teahouse. If he hadn't done that, another admin would have likely done the same.

You said in your appeal that it wasn't made clear to you that you might be blocked. So let me make this clear now: if you pursue a campaign (of accusations, slurs, whatever) against Cullen328 – or anyone else, for that matter – your block may be extended, possibly indefinitely. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:06, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My friend once told me: Fuck it if it does not respect your contributions. And this admin BS on Wikipedia is kind of famous on the internet. I thought, combining some wasted hours on no work, I could use it on Wikipedia. But it is literally garbage, filled with admins who are trying to label you as a terrorist. Seems like the block button feels smooth for you people. Your guidelines say consensus over disputes, but your admins throw a few words and then block me, even though I genuinely helped with a smile.

You think you are the next Einstein, the way you messaged me, but it does not make any point.

1. Haha! The image is not any vendetta; it is basically an irony — it means that even though the image says something about helping editors, it literally blocks them.

2. I never really understood why I was blocked, seriously.

3. You do not need to "make it clear" because I understand the wiki admin system very clearly now. It is very depressing, filled with BS, bureaucracy admired, unnecessarily strict, pack-rat for their useless articles.

4. It would be a strict "no" for me to the person who thinks Wikipedia is best for editing, or is willing to sacrifice both his life and mental health.

I thought to help Wikipedia, but it is really frustrating and filled with a stupid environment. Really not for educational edits.

Here I am giving my account, do what you can with it, I do not care.

Username = IHitmanI

Password = (Redacted)

I am not kidding; this account belongs to Wikipedia now, it is not mine.

Thank you.

Since you thought it wise to post your login details here, I must assume that someone will have seen them before I redacted the password, and therefore I had no choice but to block you indefinitely as a compromised account (which is where you were headed anyway, based on your behaviour, but now you got there that much faster).

Courtesy ping: Cullen328 as the original blocking admin. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:56, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 2025

Your account has been blocked indefinitely because it is suspected that it has been compromised. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If your account is globally locked, contact ca

wikimedia.org for assistance. Otherwise, if you are able to confirm that you are the user who created this account, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section), then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Archives

Fixed archiving

Teahouse (discussion)

April 2025

I would like to see IHitmanI unblocked.

Also i would like to point out some irony.

April 2025