User talk:Isenta

Suitable sources[edit]

Regarding your removal of the sources from Salesforce Tower. I agree with the removal of SF Weekly, I misunderstood how the author represented Salesforce Tower my first read through, and you're right. Regarding Twitter, that source actually is allowed on Wikipedia (with some caveats that I will get to later). To round out the sources in order to cover the information in that sentence, I would like to introduce a Facebook source (which, again, actually is allowed on Wikipedia.)

WP:ABOUTSELF allows self-published sources (including on social media) if the relevant material is about themselves, or their activities. The twitter source is about themselves, and the Facebook source is about "their activities". There are five caveats to this, and I believe both sources satisfy them all. That Salesforce Tower had a cameo in the film is not (a) an exceptional claim, (b) involve claims about third parties (Salesforce Tower is the first party, Big Hero 6 is the second party), (c) the relevant material is directly related to the source, (d) there is no reasonable doubt to its authenticity, (e) this is the only piece of information in the article that relies on social media.

The two sources are: twitter source direct from Salesforce Tower's twitter account, and Facebook source from one of the owners, Hines Interests.

Please let me know if you have any concerns about interpretation of WP:ABOUTSELF is accurate in this instance. If not, I will add the two sources back. --haha169 (talk) 06:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Haha169: Ok, sounds good. My mistake on Twitter, I didn't know there were exceptions. It does seem like a good addition to the article if it can be sourced properly. Isenta (talk) 07:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Splits[edit]

Re List of Advance Publications subsidiaries, please note the procedures outlined in Wikipedia:Splitting.

In particular:

To conform with Wikipedia's licensing requirements, which require that content contributors receive attribution, the page receiving the split material must have an edit summary noting "split content from article name". (Do not omit this step or omit the page name.) A note should also be made in the edit summary of the source article, "split content to article name". It is a requirement of Wikipedia's licensing that attribution be given to the main content author(s). The {{Copied}} template can be placed on the talk page of both articles for this purpose. For further information, refer to the main Copying within Wikipedia guideline.

Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891: Thanks. I didn't know about that. I'll do it now, hopefully correctly. Isenta (talk) 19:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. I had this same problem a while ago, and am actually just copying me what an editor told me then. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NAC of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cardano (cryptocurrency)[edit]

I have reverted your NAC on this AfD. Please do not re-instate it. It is fairly clear that the "keep" votes are SPAs or inexperienced editors whose comments are not particularly policy-based. NACs should be made by experienced non-admin editors on clear, non-contentious AfDs. This does not qualify at all. If you wish the article to be kept, I recommend you comment in the AfD with strong policy-based arguments instead. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To your attacks on those editors: WP:AGF. To your request for policy based arguments: see the numerous arguments already made. Isenta (talk) 11:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"NACs should be made by experienced non-admin editors on clear, non-contentious AfDs. This does not qualify at all" nobody is arguing the article should be deleted, so it's clear and not contentious. i suppose that means you're calling me an inexperienced editor. you seem to have a habit of making it about the person, not the content. Isenta (talk) 11:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The presence of many keep comments does not mean that a speedy close is appropriate. None of the speedy keep criteria apply, so a non-admin close as speedy keep is invalid. Please do not revert me again or you risk being blocked for disruptive editing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"None of the speedy keep criteria apply" Actually, they do. Claiming otherwise, doesn't make it so. Not one person has said delete. It's clear and uncontentious. Isenta (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you to quote me which of the speedy keep criteria apply here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions Isenta (talk) 11:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware you were an admin. If that's the case, obviously you have the authority to overrule me closing the discussion. My mistake. Isenta (talk) 12:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that being an admin makes it okay. I could have reverted you. Your NAC was on a contentious AfD. Only an admin can close that. Even more than that, the discussion wasn't close to over, and it still isn't. _{Adotchar| reply here} 14:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Someone nominating and everybody saying 'Keep' is the opposite of contentious. And that was the status when I closed it. Even now there is only one weak, qualified, non policy based delete. I am baffled how anyone would call that contentious. Isenta (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Isenta. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

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) 00:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020[edit]

Your recent editing history at Case Construction Equipment shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for concerns over promotional editing and compatability to interact with others.

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 ~~~~}}. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:22, 15 June 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

Now that the ANI is closed, there will not be any problems from me. I edited for over three years without any issues, I'll go on doing that. I felt ganged up on there and responded. I doubt anything like this will ever happen again. Isenta (talk) 03:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Although the discussion on WP:ANI is not yet closed, despite your misleading claim that it is, there's a clear consensus that your behaviour is incompatible with Wikipedia. Yamla (talk) 10:58, 15 June 2020 (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.

The accusation that I am a spammer is false. I don't know how I'm supposed to explain or apologize for something which is untrue but they are incorrect. My interest in improving the project is focusing on things others tend to neglect. Hence the obscure things I tend to focus on. Isenta (talk) 03:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How one acts in the middle of a conflict is not representative of who they are as an editor. Please review my three years of history, not one day of arguing at ANI. If my edits are contested in the future, I will not so vigorously defend them. Problem solved. Isenta (talk) 11:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- From WP:Not_compatible_with_a_collaborative_project: "Wikipedia believes in giving people chances." I have never had any problems on Wikipedia prior to this. I think I deserve an opportunity to show this wont happen again. Isenta (talk) 11:49, 15 June 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I believe that three years of productive editing with no issues shows I am very compatible with Wikipedia and I ask that I be given a second chance to demonstrate that. All of this can be traced to me vigorously defending challenges to my edits. In the future, I will not do that. Please allow me a second chance to show that. Isenta (talk) 12:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Also, from the conversation below, you seem to be saying that you're going to contribute poorly sourced content and original research if unblocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:40, 6 July 2020 (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.

Comment by non-administrator Understandable. Though, here is the thing: you had one request declined in the past 90 days. If you really mean it, then I say support. {{31}}{{25A (talk)}} 17:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I do mean it. I'm not good with conflict but I think three years of none of it shows I don't go seeking it out. If I simply don't engage in edit wars as I did here, I don't see this happening again. Isenta (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, if I were a admin; I would support unblocking you since you followed Wikipedia rules for the last 3 years, it is very obvious you already know the rules and want a second chance. {{31}}{{25A (talk)}} 22:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC) ~~2600:1700:2761:4E0:8036:C2E1:DD0A:4776 (talk)~~First time accidentally editing as a IP![reply]

So, when you blanked Praxidicae's question with the edit summary "rvv" what exactly did you find demonstrated vandalism? And, would you be comfortable answering the question? Tiderolls 18:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I was frustrated. That was not vandalism. I was retaliating him reverting me or whatever he'd just done. As I said, if I just don't engage in edit wars in the future, none of that stuff will happen. That's how it all began. Isenta (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Sorry I misunderstood what you were asking with part of that. That diff there is just one of the things I blanked of his in that edit war. I had not seen that question until just now. In 2017 I emailed the company and asked for permission and forwarded them the information for how to submit their release and they did. I would prefer not to reveal information about myself but I'll say that given my career I have an interest in that industry and company. I had no prior contact with them and there is no COI. Isenta (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do you understand the concerns that people such as @Praxidicae, GSS, and MER-C: and others have raised over the linkspam? TonyBallioni (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I can see how it might look that way if they suspected me of acting in bad faith. But the actual reason is very simple: it's the construction industry. Some of those having to do with history 50+ years ago. There just are not a lot of good sources. Some of that I was working from books or personal knowledge and finding sources to back things up. So I used what I could find. Isenta (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:AXLOIE Logo.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:AXLOIE Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]