User talk:Hamimh2

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with... How can I use Ultraviolet and Twinkle reasonably and carefully? And Recent changes patrol carefully too because I've been doing a few bad things with them recently. I know how to use them and Wikipedia polices very well, but how do I stop making mistakes? I want to be a trusted editor! And I am, mostly. Hamimh2 (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for a start, you keep saying "I get it" and "I'm sorry" in your edit summaries here, but are you really (and will you take that feedback into consideration)? You really did answer your own question, though; use of semi-automated tools like UV and TW need to be done "reasonably and carefully". If anything, I would suggest not using these tools until you have a bit more experience. I would also suggest archiving your user talk page instead of blanking it, so that others may more easily find past discussions. If you want more help, change the {{help me-helped}} back into a {{help me}}, stop by the Teahouse, or Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I did revert some unconstructive edits and warned people well. And I also welcomed users with Twinkle as well. And my mistakes? Well, these mistakes were not most of my Twinkle and Ultraviolet doings. And as in my edit history, after my mistakes, I reverted actually unconstructive edits. And everyone makes mistakes at first, but that doesn't mean I'll be bad at Twinkle and Ultraviolet forever. I just need to keep trying and trying. And I did, after I asked the question like multiple times! And I have the experience. As in my edit history, I correctly reverted most of what I reverted. And when I didn't, I accounted for my mistakes. And remember, everybody once was a beginner. You were too. And I know Wikipedia polices very well, almost my heart. So, I do have experience, policy-wise and revert-wise. And your archiving idea? I will follow that soon, when I actually made the archiving work well enough! Hamimh2 (talk) 03:20, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, it sounds like you know where you're going and how to get there. Happy editing! Primefac (talk) 09:04, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your support in me fighting unconstructive edits and welcoming users with Twinkle and Ultraviolet! It feels so good to have someone supporting me! Now I need to go to use Twinkle and Ultraviolet to help keep Wikipedia safe from vandalism and welcome new people. Bye, and I wish myself good luck! Bye! Hamimh2 (talk) 18:16, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hamimh2! The thread you created at the Teahouse, How can I help make Wikipedia better?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:05, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hamimh2! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Difference between disruptive editing and vandalism, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:09, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

0 evidence or citations provided for the 5'11 listing, this was a random listing added. Further evidence shows him being under 5'11.

What more adequate explanation do I need, how come I need to provide when the user who added the 5'11 listing provided nothing. Why does my edit get removed but not the 5'11 listing in which no citations, sources or anything else were provided. It was simply randomly added. Why is that allowed but me removing that, not? ~2026-23301-40 (talk) 02:23, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

James Victor was simply not 5'11 and there's no listing of his that have him at 5'11 regardless. ~2026-23301-40 (talk) 02:24, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well @~2026-23301-40, why didn't you add the correct height of James Victor in the first place? Just add the correct one then I'm stop reverting! Hamimh2 (talk) 02:26, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I did but it was removed because there was "no sources" but there's no sources for him being 5'11 when you look at him. Why can't you just let the height section be blank if theres no publicly official height listing for him? Not every actor needs a height listing on WIkipedia especially if there is no sources for anything regarding it?? ~2026-23301-40 (talk) 02:28, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok because there is no official source for his height, I will again remove his height listing. Don't revert it back to 5'11 unless you have a source because that is violating Wikipedia's law on misinformation ~2026-23301-40 (talk) 02:32, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I did that already, just now, @~2026-23301-40! Hamimh2 (talk) 02:33, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ok thank you, looks like we did it at the same time but as long as the listing is gone, its fine ~2026-23301-40 (talk) 02:34, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but I don't want to be blocked because of you, @~2026-23301-40! I am a very trusted editor though! Hamimh2 (talk) 02:37, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

its alright. a lot of fake listings just get added to Wikipedia, I just like to correct it when im bored sometimes. ~2026-23301-40 (talk) 02:42, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-23301-40, you will make a great vandal fighter! If you make an account, of course. Hamimh2 (talk) 02:44, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, thank you I appreciate it and glad you help fight against it. I'm mostly a wikia using guy though but I procrastinate a bit in college on my pc which gets me to browse Wikipedia and so I went back to editing a bit of outdated articles lol. I do always make sure to provide sources when I do! ~2026-23301-40 (talk) 04:57, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am in need of your mentorship. I would like help adding a music artist named "Elucidate" who is referenced as the producer of a song in the wikipedia page of musician "Kirsty Hawkshaw". The song referenced in her bio and song collaborations, in the 2000's section, is called "Face to Face"

references are:

Dicogs: https://www.discogs.com/artist/822965-Elucidate

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/artist/2zHuT751Auu2SNuGtSnNMK?si=s-2nEuM5Sg-Ikq65r_VUBg

Prime Music: https://www.amazon.com/music/player/artists/B08GQB9BM6/elucidate

Apple Music: https://music.apple.com/us/artist/elucidate/1461828900

Beatport: https://www.beatport.com/artist/elucidate/66180

*(if you are not familiar with Beatport they are the number 1 site for DJs around the world for purchasing EDM. It is also the site connected to all mixing platforms for DJs, such as: Pioneer, Serato, Rekordbox, Traktor, Djay Pro, VirtualDJ, Engine DJ)

Soundcloud (includes the song referenced on Kirsty Hawkshaw's wikipedia page) https://soundcloud.com/elucidate-music

I hope you can help me, thank you in advance! --Seanelu23 (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, @Seanelu23, where do you want to add this information? Then I will help you! Hamimh2 (talk) 21:41, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes#Requirements to accept an edit, when to accept an edit
  

Katie^talk 18:03, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

hi Hamimh2! I am interested in editing and helping the wikipedia community, what is the process if I would like to make an edit to an article? --Angus Gall (talk) 07:07, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In almost any article, press the edit or edit source button to edit! Next, edit! Then press the save changes button to save your changes! If the page has a lock in it, you can't edit it directly. But don't worry! Just make an edit request! If the page has a gray lock with a check mark in it, temporary accounts and new users edits have to be reviewed by an pending changes reviewer (like me) or an admin! Have fun editing! Hamimh2 (talk) 20:07, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Hamimh2! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

If you have questions, just use this link to ask for help; a volunteer will visit you here shortly!

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! User97104 (t•c•r•l) 15:56, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am beyond a newcomer but thank you for noticing my vandal fighting and my very constructive edits! You're talking to an extended confirmed user with pending changes reviewer rights applying for rollback by the way, @User97104! Hamimh2 (talk) 20:16, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hamimh2, You reverted my edit to a page earlier. This is understandable, I am new to Wikipedia and do not know the best practices. What should I do in situations where a page repeats an oft-claimed but poorly evidenced statement? Sources are provided, but they are low quality and far from authoritative. ~2026-31894-61 (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on how reliable they are. What are the sources? Hamimh2 (talk) 20:17, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The current source 25 is an article from a toxicology journal. While I would trust it on matters of toxicology, I am doubtful on matters of history.

Further, source 26 is a Greek source written closer to the time which contradicts source 25. I think source 26 is more reliable source in this instance.

The last sentence contradicts source 26, which it cites!

Sources 27 and 28 are also cited in this section: both publications primary focused on beekeeping culture, not history. ~2026-31894-61 (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources seem reliable to me; it doesn't matter what they focus on, if they are trusted, it's okay. Hamimh2 (talk) 20:36, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The sources contradict themselves. Clearly there is something wrong.

How does Wikipedia prevent apocrypha from being present in it's articles? ~2026-31809-20 (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

By editors checking sources to make sure that sources don't contradict each other. Hamimh2 (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Then what should I do having noticed such a contradiction? ~2026-31894-61 (talk) 20:51, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Find another source that doesn't contradict it, or better yet, remove it. With an explanation of course! Hamimh2 (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]