Cantthinkofanyusername

March 2026

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I'm sorry for engaging in an edit war, I will learn from my mistake, thanks for telling me Cantthinkofanyusername (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. Nick Levine (talk) 20:57, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to vandalize Wikipedia, I just feel like "Cladistically included but traditionally excluded taxa" goes to paraphyletic groups Cantthinkofanyusername (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

"Cladistically included but traditionally excluded taxa"?

To the closed section Why are metazoans, funguses, and embryophytes listed under "Cladistically included but traditionally excluded taxa"? in the Talk:Protist: The problematic/incorrect use of the subscription "Cladistically included but traditionally excluded taxa" is spread into several articles (I commented it e.g. for Opisthosporidia) and should be solved systematically in the taxobox template and its documentation (if it is possible, sorry, but I am not familiar with the technicalities). You may find a solution. --Petr Karel (talk) 06:39, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Actually, I can fix it myself, but I just don't want to be accused of vandalism again when I wasn't actually trying to vandalize Wikipedia Cantthinkofanyusername (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

May 2026

Hello, I'm Jako96. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that in one of your recent contributions to Witchy Pretty Cure!! Mirai Days, you cited a link to a source that may not be reliable. Sources considered unreliable should generally not be used to support statements. Information from an unreliable source can be challenged by other editors and removed. Reliable sources are generally those with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight. Self-published material, user-generated content, and certain other outlets such as blogs, wikis, personal websites, and websites or publications with a poor reputation for fact-checking may not meet these standards. If you are unsure about which sources are appropriate, there is a list of sources that are considered generally reliable. Additionally, some WikiProjects have their own lists of sources that are considered reliable for that particular subtopic. If you are still unsure about a source's reliability, you can ask at the reliable sources noticeboard. Thank you.

Jako96 (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I mean, okay, but criticism doesn't have to be reliable, and the Fandom user who made that criticism was actually me, I just wanted to spread my criticism on that TV show because I hate that TV show containing misogyny, just so you know Cantthinkofanyusername (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but no, all sources should be reliable, including criticisms, according to Wikipedia's rules. See WP:UGC. Jako96 (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Can I at least post my criticism at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life because I want to spread my criticism on that TV show for containing misogyny and I remember @Hemiauchenia telling me to go and make a post at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life if I want to gain attention? Cantthinkofanyusername (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. Except user talk pages, talk pages should almost only be used for the impovement of the wiki, not for anything else. Hemiauchenia meant that you should get consensus for an edit proposal, not for chatting. Jako96 (talk) 20:03, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I understand Cantthinkofanyusername (talk) 21:01, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, is there any other way to spread my criticism on this TV show? Cantthinkofanyusername (talk) 11:11, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

No, this is Wikipedia. Jako96 (talk) 13:05, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Can I at least post my criticism at my user talk page? Cantthinkofanyusername (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

As I said, you can't. When I meant except user pages, I meant that you can customize your talk page, also you can send awards or appreciate other users' edits by using their talk pages. Wikipedia talk pages should aim to improve Wikipedia, not for personal hosting or anything. You should probably be productive and try to improve the wiki by editing and getting consensus when necessary, instead of trying to do unrelated things here. If you don't aim to improve the wiki — not to be rude but to be clear — then you have limited things to do in this site. Jako96 (talk) 20:09, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay, fine, I understand Cantthinkofanyusername (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2026 (UTC)