User talk:Dalamani

November 2015
Hello, I'm Musa Raza. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Ezekiel Ox without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I have restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. If the article is nominated for deletion that doesn't mean you should remove everything from it. Musa  Talk  19:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, this was not a good idea. Drmies (talk) 21:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually I removed the content that was not sourced (all of the article) and then nominated it for deletion and all this was explained in the talk section of the article. This article lacks not only sources, but also notability and appears to be written biographically by the articles subject. I am a new Wikipedia editor and if I didnt follow protocol EXACTLY then maybe you should assist in that and not reverse my deletions without discussing it or even reading the talk page of the article. Dalamani (talk) 02:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Throwing around baseless accusations of sockpuppetry is not acceptable. Please assume good faith and edit more constructively. --Michig (talk) 09:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Please dont attempt to harass and intimidate new Wikipedia editors

If this continues I will report your account. You expect others to act in good faith, then demonstrate it yourself.Dalamani (talk) 11:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Michig (talk) 11:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

When you say "discussion" you mean a further attempt to bully me dont you? Nice try, my response is there already. Dalamani (talk) 12:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules
Wikipedia rules are seriously weird. Yes, WP:V says you can remove unsourced material, so blanking an unsourced article is nominally correct, and WP:POINT essentially prohibits doing that. Continuing the contradiction, WP:N doesn't require the article be sourced, only that sources exist somewhere. Furthermore, when one of the big five rules is a self-contradictory ignore all rules, it's all rather convoluted. Thus far, your actions have induced folks to convert Ezekiel Ox from an unsourced to sourced, and with any luck, as discussed at afd, an experienced editor will fix it up to something decent, so thanks for that. But you're not going to be with us long if you talk smack about long term editors until you become more knowledgeable about how Wikipedia works, which requires not only reading all the WP:THIS and WP:THAT stuff, but experience. For now, what you'll what to do is from WP:TPYES: "Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page." Also, the wiki-version of the US Miranda Warning goes whatever you say will be used against you, sooner or later, so again, counter intuitively, at this point your best bet via the WP:ANI thread is to stop talking and let it die down due to lack of interest. NE Ent 18:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Yes Wikipedia seriously does have some contradictory rules and as a new editor I am picking those rules up as I can, however I have been the target of bullying by more experienced editors who, from the outset, have questioned my motivations for editing and nominating for AFD that article. I dont think this complies with any Wikipedia policies. There seems to be a clique or a boys club operating, and if you dont play by THEIR rules you will be ganged up on. Frankly I dont care if they block me from ever accessing Wikipedia again, its just a power play by power players, but if they continue to talk smack about me then they will get it in return. Thanks. Dalamani (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I just replied at ANI. The fact that I wiki-linked there three essays that I wrote long before you started editing here is an indication this is hardly a new issue, or particularly personal; unfortunately, many editors, especially administrators, have spent so much time dealing with actual trolls and the like they're not quite as good at the WP:AGF thing as perhaps they should be. If I could fix all that I would, but I can't, so all I can do is tell you that I, at least, appreciate your efforts, and continued engagement with critics won't turn out well: all Wikipedia does well is "encyclopedia," as I explained in WP:NOJUSTICE a while back, we're not so good at "fair." NE Ent 02:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Dalamani, please cool down and take it a bit slower. Most of us have hit these issues in the past. Endurance is the key to success here. Deb (talk) 09:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Yep, both of you are right. This is a non issue and has probably become a bit too personal on all sides. Thanks for your balanced comments. Dalamani (talk) 10:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)