User talk:Renamed user f73EZFoGLNfsepbYlj

November 2021

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to 2021 Nicaraguan general election, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. NoonIcarus (talk) 13:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please do not leave messages on my talk page about edits on articles. Instead, try reading the talk page on the article itself, where you would have found an in-depth discussion on the edits which you reverted without participating in the discussion. Asaturn (talk) 15:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is demonstrably not true that I have not participated or engaged in the talk page, and you have actually responded to my comments before. I'm bringing these messages as they are concerned not merely with editorial content (whose discussion I totally agree should be limited to the talk page), but rather editorial behavior. This appears to be more important now that it has apparently continued and you have had conflicts with other editors as well. Please mind the policy that has been cited in this cases, namely regarding original research and reliable sources. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You only participated in the talk page AFTER reverting edits that you found disagreeable with your own political bias. Please continue to participate in the talk page on the article instead of leaving passive aggressive notes on my talk page. Long before you were reverting my edits, I tagged the article with NPOV which requires consensus before "deciding" what is or isn't "acceptable" or reverting edits. The article continues to have a one-sided point of view that implies one individual is responsible for dozens of arrests in a country with free and fair elections, which is nothing more than US State Department propaganda. The facts presented in the cited news articles that are even critical of the government admit the individuals were arrested for actual crimes and therefore not qualified to run. The article needs to be cleaned up. I was and continue to be operating in good faith in an attempt to do so. I never "BLANKED" anything—I moved content and removed redundant statements. Get a life. Asaturn (talk) 23:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at 2021 Nicaraguan general election, you may be blocked from editing. Placing higher level warning, as blanking as continued in the article. NoonIcarus (talk) 10:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You're the one blanking entire edits. Myself and Innisfree987 came to consensus on wording that made the article both more informative and easier to read. Gaslighting users based on your own political bias is why Wikipedia is a joke to normal people and no longer considered a reliable source for information. The article in question is supposed to be about an election and yet 90% of it is dedicated to speculation and rumors about people who weren't even qualified to run for office. Embarrassing and insulting. If you don't stop with the implications and the bad faith "warnings" I will be reaching out to admin about this blatant propaganda attempt on an important current event. Asaturn (talk) 23:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me diffs where I have done this? Gaslighting is a big accusation, and so far it appears you're the one engaging in it. --NoonIcarus (talk) 04:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will gladly do this tomorrow. The one instance where I didn't include a note in an edit was a mistake which I explained on the talk page. But basically you're claiming I'm doing something that I am not. This is childish and I'm starting to wonder why people are so obsessed with editing out all context on that article! Asaturn (talk) 04:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from claiming "consensus was reached" when it was not, here are a couple of instances where you reverted my good faith edits and then said you didn't in subsequent discussions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2021_Nicaraguan_general_election&oldid=1054360314

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2021_Nicaraguan_general_election&oldid=1054341545

I don't want to re-litigate anything. I am beyond the point of not caring. I just want more information and more reliable sources added. Urnas Abiertas website being quoted by CNN doesn't make it a reliable source, as the UA website doesn't even explain anything. I have already added context to the UA claim of 18.5% voter turnout (their association with Wilson Center and IDEA.int establishes that they are in fact an international elections observation organization). As I said to Bill_Wilson, if you want to remove one of the ONLY sources of verifiable 3rd party information establishing Urnas Abiertas as a legitimate org, be my guest. Asaturn (talk) 07:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bill Williams 02:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI there was an earlier discussion regarding your NPOV violations and personal attacks on the COI notice board but I was awaiting admin review. I'm not sure how to tag you. Asaturn (talk) 04:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bill Williams 11:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop harassing me!!!!1 Asaturn (talk) 12:24, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

You have posted repeatedly on Bill Williams' talkpage after being asked not to. That's harassment. Stop posting there immediately, or you will be blocked. Bishonen | tålk 12:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Bill has continued to stalk and harass me across this site after being asked not to, and after being warned by an admin. Bill doxxed me and insulted me personally and falsely accused me of violating rules. Bill keeps sending me messages and posting on noticeboards because he doesn't like that the facts don't agree with whatever his personal POV happens to be. Look at his history. I have tried to engage in good faith but he seems bent on trying to play games (for example, replying to me and then saying "stop posting on my page!" and then replying to me again and then crying to the admins). I am done responding to him but I will defend myself if he continues to make false accusations on noticeboards. I have reported him to Wikipedia directly. Asaturn (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I've just said in the AN thread, I haven't had a chance to research the situation in any depth, but you harassing him on his page is an issue I will deal with. Don't defend yourself on his page, that's all. I won't hesitate to block if you continue to post there. Bishonen | tålk 12:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I'm happy to never post on his page again. He can keep replying and trying to get me to respond. I have figured out his game. Asaturn (talk) 12:15, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Block notice

Sorry, man... but enough is enough. Due to the repeated issues I observed over at the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, the accusations that were not followed up with evidence despite numerous and repeated requests from other users that you provide it, as well as repeated instances of other issues that were pointed out to you in the discussion, I am blocking your account for seven days. You're of course welcome to appeal this block if you wish to do so. To do this, simply reply here with the following text: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Any administrator is welcome to unblock you, and they do not have to consult me for approval before doing so. All I ask for the potentially-unblocking administrator is that you let me know that you did so and why. If you don't appeal your block, it will automatically expire in seven days, in which afterwards you will be able to continue editing Wikipedia as before. I really hope that you take this opportunity to calm down, get your bases back in a row, and work on how you can help resolve disputes and issues like this in the future. I'm of course available if you have questions or would like to talk. I'll be happy to help you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Before you banned me for being doxxed by a person [REDACTED - Oshwah] I had asked that my account be "vanished." You keep erasing my responses here so it's clear you aren't interested in reality. But if anyone else sees this, please go ahead and db-u1 my page. Asaturn (talk) 22:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Db-u1 clearly states "Personal user pages and subpages (but not user talk pages) upon request by their user". You can quote it but don't know what it says? And again, you were not doxxed. Doug Weller talk 12:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do not use your userpage as an attack page

The statements you made there were the sort of thing that got you blocked. I've deleted it as an attack page. Accounts cannot be deleted. Doug Weller talk 14:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia's own policies say you're wrong. "Vanishing" is the terminology used. Additionally, Wikimedia would be in violation of law by retaining data that a user demanded be removed. So while you may think you're king, the real world says you need to erase my info, which you yourself already began to do. This is quite embarrassing for Wikipedia. Asaturn (talk) 22:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IOnce again you are wrong. It's nothing to do with policy. It is not technically possible to actually delete an account. So far as your contributions go, you've got no right - by law - over them. Whenever you edit any page, it says this at the bottom: "By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license".WP:Courtesy vanishing is the relevant guideline (not a policy - read the link) and is rarely done for blocked editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 09:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Urnas Abiertas (November 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bilorv was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Their analysis is already mentioned at 2021 Nicaraguan general election, but the coverage is not really of the organisation itself: when was it founded? How is it funded? Who are the main people? What are their fact-checking processes? Who are its supporters and opponents? Without answers to questions like these, the topic is not standalone notable.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Urnas Abiertas and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Urnas Abiertas, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

— Bilorv (talk) 15:39, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Asaturn! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! — Bilorv (talk) 15:39, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Urnas Abiertas

Hello, Renamed user f73EZFoGLNfsepbYlj. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Urnas Abiertas".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Ji11720 (talk) 15:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]