Hello! Brascoian, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. The Teahouse is an awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us!

Hello! I noticed you put AFD template on Y.3800 but you didn't complete the process. Would you like me to help you to begin process of deletion for the article? Thanks. SunDawn (talk) 16:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah That would be so helpful Brascoian (talk) 16:05, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article Created: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Y.3800 You can also join the discussion Brascoian (talk) 16:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is practice and i trying to see if my signature works. Brascoian ^{(talk to me)} 06:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Hello, I Noticed your recent contribution on Charles B. Fairbanks and i would like to thank you for you help and improving Wikipedia. Have a great day and keep these amazing contribution going. WizardingMZ (talk) 07:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Its my Honor. Brascoian ^{(talk to me)} 07:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me redirect Ghulam Mohammad A. Fecto to Fecto Group. Thanks Ntrr123 (talk) 07:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Brascoian ^{(talk to me)} 07:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great to see a new editor get involved, but perhaps you might do better to refrain from speedy deletions until you have a bit more experience? Leutha (talk) 12:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah you are right but the article have only one citation. and its from a un reliable source. Brascoian ^{(talk to me)} 12:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Palauni Tapusoa is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palauni Tapusoa until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 13:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC) [reply]

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank you for helping me Redirect the article "Ghulam Mohammad A. Fecto" to Fecto Group. Ntrr123 (talk) 10:57, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are not a new user. What other accounts have you used?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, do not Welcome users with no contributions.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nah i am new. Yeah I get it you probably thinking how he just made a New Signature, how he knew how to code and using other advance wikipedia stuff. I was a Game Developer at Gameloft but recently i left my job to work on a inde project with my friends and Back i was working in gameloft didn't have time to edit wikipedia and now i thought give it a try. and okk I won't welcome new users. Brascoian ^{(talk to me)} 04:36, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick DiGiovanni, you may be blocked from editing. Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the tag would be one thing, but the fake speedy keep close is disruptive at a different level.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Brascoian ^{(talk to me)} 08:13, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nick DiGiovanni is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick DiGiovanni until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

SanAnMan (talk) 00:13, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Thanks for your major contribution on Dominion (1995 film).Mooonswimmer (talk) 12:59, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its My Pleasure. Brascoian ^{(talk to me)} 13:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brascoian,

Welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for doing a lot, but only a part of that is currently helpful.

For the requested rollback permission, you currently lack the required "measurable track-record of counter-vandalism", so I had to decline the request. You're here for a week and are already asking for additional permissions.

Your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominion (1995 film) indicates that you are not aware of Wikipedia's notability guidelines, yet attempted to influence a deletion discussion. Fortunately, your comment displays the misunderstanding so openly that it can be safely ignored and won't affect the result.

Please slow down and edit articles instead.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:26, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Thanks :)) Brascoian ^{(talk to me)} 16:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, if you are think he would probably don't recognize this stuff don't worry i am game dev and a professional coder so it means i understand things really quickly and hope to get rollback rights soon. Brascoian ^{(talk to me)} 16:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. And I'm not questioning your technical competence, at all. I'm just concerned about the focus on speed and the "I'm a coder, so I need less time to understand this place than others" approach, as – expectably – you have proven otherwise in a deletion discussion. It is perfectly fine to be new and to learn; the only possible problem is overestimating one's learning progress. Take your time and have a look at rollback and deletion discussions again in a month or two. A possible future goal could be joining WP:AFC/P in about 6 months. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:35, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And my comment on article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominion (1995 film) i was just saying its also available on Ukrainian wiki. Brascoian ^{(talk to me)} 16:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but not a reason for "keep". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should i remove it? Brascoian ^{(talk to me)} — Preceding undated comment added 16:36, 27 June 2021

It has already been replied to; removing should be avoided in such a case. You may like to strikethrough and un-bold the "keep" if there is no reason for keeping, and a possible answer could be something like "I misunderstood the reason for the deletion proposal" or "I just wanted to make a comment, writing 'keep' was an accident". That you have continued to nominate two pages for speedy deletion right after this message concerns me, as that's relatively clearly what I had advised against doing. The A7 nomination is probably fine, but I'm not knowledgeable about the A7 criterion. What I can say is that "G1" does not apply to poor writing, and the page content is not "patent nonsense". The page also seems to contain at least one revision that could be restored instead of deleting the page. I'm surprisedly looking at the now-deleted page and have asked the deleting administrator for comment. If the deletion was inappropriate, you have caused quite a chaos there. In the meantime, could you please stop doing maintenance work and improve actual articles instead? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Sorry sorry let me like take a break for day i will get back in it tomorrow hopefully. i am just spending to much time editing wikipedia. have a great day. Brascoian ^{(talk to me)} 16:56, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Back in article editing, you mean? Thanks. Back in maintenance? Please don't, for now. If there are more similar speedy deletion nominations, a block from editing may be necessary to prevent further disruption. The page Saddam Hussain has been restored. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:01, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But can i simply edit article? I won't do speedy deletion. for now. Brascoian ^{(talk to me)} 17:03, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editing articles is perfectly fine and recommendable. A few weeks or months of article improvements would be a good start; you could then continue to slowly (!), slowly revert obvious vandalism found on the Recent Changes list, and send an appropriate warning message to the user. When reverting good-faith changes that lack neutrality or verifiability, please exercise additional care: In such cases, please provide a good explanation in the edit summary of your revert, and use something more specific than the usual "vandalism" template when talking to them. {{uw-npov1}} (2, 3, 4) and {{uw-unsourced1}} (2, 3, 4) could be helpful.

Recent changes patrolling is far less complex than Wikipedia's deletion processes. I think I spent over 5 years patrolling recent changes and fixing article errors before dealing with my first deletion discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Whats I am not a Sockpuppet of Zayd. This is what i get for editing wikipedia to much and making constructive edits. Brascoian ^{(talk to me)} 07:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is a checkuser block, meaning that there is technical evidence to support it, so sockpuppetry is not in doubt. The behavioral evidence is also pretty clear. 331dot (talk) 07:52, 1 July 2021 (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.

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

---

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

 HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 13:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you really think that would work? [1] HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 13:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #44944 is closed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]