Jump to content

User talk:WikiIndustrialComplex

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Welcome!

Hello, WikiIndustrialComplex, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Mahershala Ali. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! JesseRafe (talk) 13:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Alea Bell (Earth-TRN767) from Venom 2099 Vol 1 1 001.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Alea Bell (Earth-TRN767) from Venom 2099 Vol 1 1 001.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 00:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Prequel, Remake, Rip-off or Sequel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Lawrence Gordon
Independent Spirit Award for Best Film (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Lulu Wang

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:35, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Commonwealth realm, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. How about actually reading the Manual of Style link provided in my edit summary for "said citation" (MOS:OVERLINK, which states:"Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, the following are usually not linked... The names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar. This generally includes major examples of: countries (e.g., Japan/Japanese, Brazil/Brazilian))" Leventio (talk) 21:29, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Commonwealth realms. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.

Okay first off, address the Wikipedia policy the other editor has brought forward (MOS:OVERLINK), as opposed to making assertions that it "always exists," (which can easily be refuted through the edit history. I mean... the initial edit I reverted was the edit that added those wlinks... so... by virtue of that.. it clearly hasn't always been there). Dispute resolutions on Wikipedia is resolved through consultation of Wikipedia's policies, and Manual of Style, so I suggest you address that if you want to move forward on this discussion. And in saying that, regardless if whether or not that "was always there" (which it is not), it still does not provide grounds for that particular article to deviate from Wikipedia's Manual of Style. In any case, if you disagree with the Manual of Style, I suggest you bring that up with the article's talk page, as opposed to trying to stir up an edit war. Leventio (talk) 00:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're clearly in the minority, the links were gone for a week before being put up again only to be deleted by you. Get a consensus going on the article's talk page, then it can change. Until then, the status quo should remain as such. If you were to act again, you would be acting unilaterally, which, ya know, is generally frowned upon. WikiIndustrialComplex (talk) 00:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've been giving proper explanation throughout. Bring it on! WikiIndustrialComplex (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 00:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can do without the condescending tone, asshole. You're easily the worst Wiki admin I've ever come across. How can you possibly believe the article is BETTER the way it is now??? It literally defies all possible logic. And I'm sure you'll cite more bullshit for this response (you'll say "Have you read WP:LOOK AT ME, LOOK AT ME, I'M THE CAPTAIN NOW, there's a detailed rationale for why I'm brilliant and you suck"), but this absolutely infuriating, I have never seen a minority so drastically change an intro paragraph for an article in a week. It's truly reprehensible. WikiIndustrialComplex (talk) 01:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also think editors like you, to a certain extent, get off on harassing edits made in good faith from editors like me. You wanna cite rules? Whatever happened to WP:Assume good faith? WikiIndustrialComplex (talk) 01:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

National Recording Registry + Punctuation.

I notice you amended/reverted a couple of my edits on the basis that it's usual to employ a particular form of words when discussing additions to the NRR. You are not incorrect in saying this. Unfortunately, however, in none of the documents I've read does NRR itself use the phrase in question, which appears almost exclusively to be preserve of lazy journalists (and to quote an academic I consulted, is a "clumsy" use of English). My language was, in fact, much closer to that of both the NRR and BBC (i.e. the two references I cited). Essentially, therefore, your argument boils down to the maxim "repeat what you encounter most often even if it's wrong".

On a related point, whatever your personal opinion, there is no consensus regarding the serial comma and whether its omission constitutes bad punctuation!! I was quoting the BBC article rather than the NRR, and the BBC writer left the comma out. However, the BBC did not misquote the NRR, which doesn't seem able to quite make up its mind on the issue – the 2020 press release includes the phrases "cultural, historical and aesthetic importance", "culturally, historically or aesthetically significant" (both without the final comma) and “culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant” (with the comma). That's a 2:1 majority against the serial comma, which given that its noninclusion here introduces no ambiguity, is good enough for me!!

To use a comma after "In 2020" is perhaps less problematic, although I would argue against its use here since when reading the sentence aloud a pause would not generally be inserted after the date. If one was referring to 2020 in opposition to another year, I would agree that the comma would certainly be desirable:

(e.g.) In 2019 the weather was unusually sunny. In 2020, the reserve was true.

{Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 01:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)}[reply]

March 2020

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

Information icon Hello, I'm YoungForever. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Supergirl (season 5), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — YoungForever(talk) 02:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Explain

Delius: you seem to be still rather "new", or yould know that per WP:BRD, YOU should seek consensus for your addition on the talk when you are reverted, instead of reverting back and beginning an edit war. The question "significance?" wasn't even answered in your revert back. How are these plaques significant for his biography? For the place, may be. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

American politics DS alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

― Tartan357 Talk 02:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

Information icon Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Template:Kamala Harris series. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. This edit summary, in which you falsely accuse GoodDay of vandalism, is not acceptable. Please review WP:VANDALISM and refrain from making similar false accusations in the future, as they are kind of personal attack. I see you have previously been blocked for making personal attacks, so greater care is already expected on your part. ― Tartan357 Talk 02:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I was merely conveying a concern to other users who might have encountered the edits. I did have reason to believe it was vandalism, I would not have said so otherwise. It felt like removing the updated Harris portrait without reason could be potential vandalism, I even looked it up. WikiIndustrialComplex (talk) 08:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the apology. These edits were not vandalism, which has a very narrow definition; please read WP:VANDALISM carefully. Vandalism is only editing specifically intended to harm Wikipedia, and should not be confused with other forms of disruptive editing. ― Tartan357 Talk 08:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Upon rereading what I said, I take some issue because I used a lot of ambiguous language, words like "appears" and "might" because I wasn't sure. Am I being punished for having uncertainty...? Additionally, the user was not saying why the portraits were taken down, which I view as a far more egregious issue and one of the main reasons I suspected vandalism. But I bet you didn't leave any message on his talk page about it... WikiIndustrialComplex (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WikiIndustrialComplex, again, this doesn't even approach vandalism. At most, it would be disruptive editing. Stop with these ridiculous false accusations. Using "ambiguous" language does not excuse making unsubstantiated accusations of misconduct. You should not suggest other editors have behaved inappropriately without solid evidence. Without evidence, such insinuations are a form of personal attack; see WP:ASPERSIONS. Also, I don't think you've been "punished" at all. A warning message is hardly a punishment. ― Tartan357 Talk 20:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please STOP re-inserting that new Harris image, in articles? It's currently under copyright discussion. Now smarten up. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We both know it's in the public domain as a government photo, it's just users like you who want to put up roadblocks....WikiIndustrialComplex (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Direct, reliable sources needed for Days of the Year pages

You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages now require direct reliable sources for additions. For details see the content guideline, the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide or the edit notice on any DOY page. Almost all new additions without a reliable source as a reference are now being reverted on-sight.

Please do not add new additions to these pages without direct sources as the burden to provide them is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages.

Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 14:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at User talk:WikiIndustrialComplex [1]. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Toddst1 (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The other user is allowed to say "smarten up," but I'm not allowed to say they're putting up "roadblocks"...? Last time I checked, that is not a personal attack.WikiIndustrialComplex (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not appear to do at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Antigua and Barbuda, Washington, D.C.. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Thank you very much! CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Antigua and Barbuda, Washington, D.C.. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Your level 1 warning about your behaviour was given to you by 331dot. Please moderate your behaviour towards other editors. You are at serious risk of losing your editing privileges. You are entitled to be assertive.You are not entitled to be aggressive. Fiddle Faddle 17:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ARBMAC

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Balkans or Eastern Europe. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Toddst1 (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Antigua and Barbuda, Washington, D.C. moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Embassy of Antigua and Barbuda, Washington, D.C., is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Embassy of Antigua and Barbuda, Washington, D.C. (March 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dan arndt was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Fails WP:NBUILDING, requires significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Dan arndt (talk) 05:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, WikiIndustrialComplex! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Dan arndt (talk) 05:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Embassy of Antigua and Barbuda, Washington, D.C. (March 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dan arndt was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Still fails WP:NBUILDING, requires significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. Embassies are not inherently notable - see WP:OTHER.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Dan arndt (talk) 06:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Antigua and Barbuda, Washington, D.C.

I strongly suggest that you read the requirements of WP:NBUILDING, and the argument that Other stuff exists is not a valid argument. Just because I currently reside in Australia doesn't mean that I am not qualified to make comments on buildings in Washington D. C. If you wish for the article to be moved from the draftspace then you need to provide significant in-depth coverage in reliable, third-party sources to establish it's notability. Dan arndt (talk) 06:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand there is no question that the embassy exists, so taking a photo of it doesn't prove anything. The fundamental issue is whether the embassy is notable for this to be established you need to provide significant coverage of the embassy (not mentions in passing or inclusion on lists) in reliable secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 07:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Embassy of Antigua and Barbuda, Washington, D.C. has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Embassy of Antigua and Barbuda, Washington, D.C.. Thanks! Dan arndt (talk) 06:58, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Embassy of Antigua and Barbuda, Washington, D.C. (March 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dan arndt was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Still fails WP:NBUILDING for the reasons previously listed.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Dan arndt (talk) 06:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Embassy of Antigua and Barbuda, Washington, D.C. (March 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dan arndt was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
The Allgov reference provided is about Sir Ronald Sanders not the embassy.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Dan arndt (talk) 07:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Embassy of Antigua and Barbuda, Washington, D.C. (March 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dan arndt was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
As clearly stated previously there needs to be significant in-depth coverage (about the embassy not the ambassador) in reliable, third-party sources in order to establish it's notability.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Dan arndt (talk) 07:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Embassy of Antigua and Barbuda, Washington, D.C. (March 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dan arndt was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Do not take this personally. Wikipedia has certain standards that apply to whether a building is notable, the most fundamental of which is that there needs to be significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. Just because other stuff exists does not mean that this article is notable. Please refer to WP:NBUILDING.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Dan arndt (talk) 07:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Embassy of Antigua and Barbuda, Washington, D.C. (March 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dan arndt was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
As previously stated the whether the other embassies in Washington satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements is irrelevant when assessing this AfC. The standards for notability are clearly set out in WP:NBUILDING.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Dan arndt (talk) 07:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Embassy of Antigua and Barbuda, Washington, D.C. for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Embassy of Antigua and Barbuda, Washington, D.C. 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/Embassy of Antigua and Barbuda, Washington, D.C. 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.

Dan arndt (talk) 08:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're the worst, dude. WikiIndustrialComplex (talk) 08:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) You shouldn't blame Dan arndt for your decision to go around the AFC process and create the article anyway. 331dot (talk) 08:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think he's just mad I outsmarted him, almost as mad as he's going to be when everyone takes my side in nomination for deletion and realizes what a fool he's been acting like... WikiIndustrialComplex (talk) 08:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If this harassment continues, you will be blocked and unable to comment on the deletion discussion further. Stop commenting about Dan arndt personally and focus on the content, please. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021 (2)

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Acroterion (talk) 18:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, go take a picture of the embassy, but you can certainly do so without vilifying other users. This is your second block (I'm lumping in your initial block with the extension), so it's longer. "Making a stink" isn't an acceptable way to interact with other editors. Acroterion (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another sycophantic bureaucrat doing Uncle Jimbo's bidding. Yet you won't look into how I was treated, because that's not how you operate. You operate from a place of experienced users are angels who never do anything wrong, and where less experienced users are constantly and frequently shat upon. The person who is most deserving of consequences is User: Dan ardnt who has been an absolute obstructionist throughout this entire process. The fact that the article was even nominated for deletion was about personal revenge against me specifically, and if you can't see that, you don't deserve the power over other users you currently wield. I make a reference to "making a stink," I didn't curse or lose my temper despite how frustrating the experience was (and the fact that Wikipedia demand all super-editors and admins purge all human emotion and compassion and essentially become Vulcans) and suddenly that's a crime against humanity...? Literally, people like you find reasons to mess and block with other users. In the real world, this would be called bullying. This is a clear issue of bias, if I had all those crappy awards and little templates on my user page, this literally would not be happening right now. Yet another example of the inherent hypocrisy and bias against less experienced user that plague the vast majority of experienced editors... WikiIndustrialComplex (talk) 18:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And this after I just defended you a couple of minutes ago as somebody who would be productive if they can keep their temper in check, who might have their block length reduced if they show some willingness to get along with people. Oh well. Acroterion (talk) 18:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where exactly did you defend me...? I see nothing of the sort on your contributions. This strikes me as more handwaving... WikiIndustrialComplex (talk) 18:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look at my talkpage?Acroterion (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, brilliant, two Wikipedia super-editors patting each other on the back for repressing a voice of someone who isn't them on an unrelated talk page, EXACTLY what the world needs more of right now. WikiIndustrialComplex (talk) 18:45, 23 March 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).

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

Request reason:

User cited personal attacks yet only used my using the phrase "making a stink" as the bannable offense WikiIndustrialComplex (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Good to know you had a previously-banned account. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 23:02, 23 March 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.

Since I've interacted with you on this matter, I won't review your requests on this. However, on this very page you say "Another sycophantic bureaucrat doing Uncle Jimbo's bidding"; I can find diffs of other personal attacks you have made if you wish. There are no "super editors" here other than in the minds of those who aren't getting their way. That you aren't getting your way does not mean that you were treated badly. Please offer diffs of poor treatment, personal attacks, or others being out for revenge if you have them.
Many experienced users do things wrong. I have. It happens. This is not about inexperienced users vs. experienced users. It's not about power. It's not about bias. There is no obstruction. No, we don't demand that you turn into a Vulcan, but we do request that you refrain from personal attacks and focus on logical arguments, preferably(but not necessarily) based in Wikipedia guidelines. You don't need to be an experienced editor, but you need to be willing to learn and hear out the advice of others. I don't see any evidence here of that; you seem to want everyone else to accede to your demands, instead of engaging in a civil discussion. If you are unable to collaborate with others, this isn't the place for you. 331dot (talk) 19:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've been an editor for most of my life, and I can tell you, this ain't my first time at the rodeo. If anything, I think things getting worse. As I see it, basically, an editor, particularly one like me who has more of a passing interest than actual commitment, is free to make little insignificant aesthetic changes or update articles or fix grammar, punctuation, or formatting issues (which constitutes I'd say maybe 80% of the edits I make). However, that is until it gets the attention of someone, usually an accomplished editor, who has devoted themselves so entirely and completely to this topic, and specifically, a specific idea about how this topic should be presented that they have deemed themselves the official gatekeeper of said topic. Literally, I don't think any of this would be an issue if I had just published the article as it looked when it was complete. It was only because I was put on someone's radar did the process become much more difficult. This has happened more times than I can count, and it happens with increasing frequency. The fact of the matter is, casual users don't have as much of a voice, and are dominated by others who know how to play the system. You're right, cooperation is key on a project like this, but cooperation is a two way street. I think a lot of my frustration emanates from the fact that the burden was placed completely on me to do all the work on the article, as someone pointed out in the AfD discussion. As for dismissing my concerns, I think that you believe that and that's fine. More power to ya. But it's a narrative that users like you tell users like me because the system has to run a certain way. Anything that questions that inherently doesn't fit the constructed narrative. I have been the victim of plenty of abuses from more experienced editors, and they always find a way to be both a stick in the mud and to game the system against you. Wanna talk precedent? You can't, WP:Other stuff exists. You're told to WP:Assume good faith, but why is it so many editors, particularly experienced ones, flat out don't? Sometimes when I act uniformly, my edit will get undone and a talk page discussion will occur, but for some editors, it seems like they can act uniformly without consensus and will always be backed up by, again, the system. As a more-casual user, I constantly feel marginalized. I like Wikipedia, I believe in its mission. I even went to WikiConference a few years back. But I'm one who believes the site needs to be less, not more, bureaucratic. It's also incredibly disheartening to continue to encounter obstacles like this, and I think it's evidence of Wikipedia further being catered to a certain kind of user that I clearly am not. Sorry if this is a lot, I've just had a lot of concerns about the site for a long time (my username is an allusion to the very idea that things aren't working well right now), and needed to process and vent, because it felt like I was forced into a position where I had to defend a casual idea I had to create an article about an embassy. Throughout all of this, I've never had the space to do that until now, and people need that, whether online or off, which further adds to my point that editing only exists for a certain type of personality. WikiIndustrialComplex (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where someone says you are not acting in good faith(could be wrong). That you are acting in good faith does not mean you can have free reign to do as you wish. Eventually, be it by a Recent Changes/new article patroller, or later down the road, your article would have been flagged for the legitimate issues that were brought up. Would you rather deal with those issues now, or later? Re "a lot of my frustration emanates from the fact that the burden was placed completely on me to do all the work on the article"; so you think it's wrong that you are asked to do the work for an article that you want to see on Wikipedia? I personally have no constructed narrative to advocate for; if there is something about the system you want to change, then advocate for that and work to see it occur. Too often here I see the word "abuse" used to mean "they're not doing what I want". 331dot (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So that's a no on the diffs? 331dot (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The diffs...? WikiIndustrialComplex (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I asked above "Please offer diffs of poor treatment, personal attacks, or others being out for revenge if you have them." 331dot (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Am I allowed to pull up my previously-banned account...? I'm happy to provide examples, but it would take a while because I like to be comprehensive. WikiIndustrialComplex (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not interested in a complete history of your years on Wikipedia, I was referring to leading up to this incident since that's what is under discussion here. I was only asking you to support your claims. Is the ban/block on your previous account still in effect? 331dot (talk) 21:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You observed the recent situation, and have come to your own conclusions. I doubt that any evidence/diffs I would provide or anything I would say would change that. I think at the very least, the constant rejection of the draft by User: Dan arndt with a lack of constructive advice, even as I made recommended changes, constituted obstructionism. At that point, a third-party admin should have gotten involved to mediate. In fact, I specifically resubmitted it asking that a different user examine the situation. But of course, that didn't happen because that's not how the system works, particularly as it pertains to casual editors such as myself. WikiIndustrialComplex (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
if you wish to provide diffs from prior incarnation please do so Fiddle Faddle 22:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you declining to answer my question? I won't ask you to identify that account(although you were willing to provide edits from it). 331dot (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and bureaucracy

I see you've fallen foul of the enforcement part of the local bureaucracy. I'm sorry: you raised some good content points in the AfD and I have the sense that you value Wikipedia's informational mission.

It's true that editors and admins sometimes play games with the rules and the result is a community that is frequently obnoxious in the way it goes about things. The pillar about civility is important though: without it, Wikipedia would be a much nastier place. You're not wrong to fight, but arguments are a whole lot more productive if you focus on content and custom and avoid namecalling and speculating about motives.

If you want, I'll try to argue down the length of the ban, which I think is on the long side. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The admission of a ban is here [2], and it's pretty clear that they're a specific WMF-banned editor from what they've said and done here. Acroterion (talk) 11:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support, User: Chalst, I very much appreciate it. As you can see, it feels like I have a target on my back for some reason (how ya doin' there, User:Acroterion, want my first-grade report card as further evidence that I'm apparently the worst human who ever existed...?). Any efforts on my behalf will also be greatly appreciated.WikiIndustrialComplex (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abuse redactied, talkpage access revoked. Acroterion (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WikiIndustrialComplex&oldid=1048395918"