Thread:Aleccat/@comment-25050130-20160505235029/@comment-25050130-20160508183052

And yet you still didnt answer my question on why you deleted your account (which brought this trouble in the first place) and why you didnt take 2 minutes of your time to see if your edit was done properly from your end.

Specially because you made a new account and with no indication of your previous editing contributions put forth, you saying that "because his definition of vandalism might be different than mine" needs explanation and elaboration since you only now have 14 edits on your new account. By just looking at your page there is no reason to put your word as valid argument opposing his nomination without proper context, you need to explain why you think your definition of vandalism is different from his and why you think he should not be given the rights, giving examples for it or stories from your own personal experience.

You waving "toxic" around in a conversation without explanation gives little weight to your argument without proper explanation, which you didnt give there nor specially here.

So please, tell me why your definition of vandalism should be put into consideration cause I dont know what you contributed in the past to even research your method of editing?