User talk:The.Barbaryan

Don't bother to write here, I don't have time for gossip.

Ominous (album) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Ominous (album), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs 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. John B123 (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ominous (album) (August 16)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by HitroMilanese 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 (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics). 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:

Please see WP:NALBUM and demonstrate notability accordingly. Has this album received reviews in independent and reliable 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.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ominous (album) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Ominous (album), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Hitro talk 09:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The.Barbaryan! 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! Hitro talk 09:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Ominous (album)

Hello, The.Barbaryan. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ominous (album), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 10:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022

Hi The.Barbaryan! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Robert W. Malone that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Fiwec81618 (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

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 . 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.

– Muboshgu (talk) 01:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The.Barbaryan! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Try to fight your emotional impulses and check the facts first. We can talk until the cows come home, it won't change the fact that said laptop has been proven to belong to Hunter Biden. The.Barbaryan (talk) 18:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even read the NYT article? If so, you'd realize that your edit is not accurate. You don't seem to be so up on "discussion", which is required here for Wikipedia editors. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:09, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe English is not your strong suit:

People familiar with the investigation said prosecutors had examined emails between Mr. Biden, Mr. Archer and others about Burisma and other foreign business activity. Those emails were obtained by The New York Times from a cache of files that appears to have come from a laptop abandoned by Mr. Biden in a Delaware repair shop. The email and others in the cache were authenticated by people familiar with them and with the investigation.

In some of the emails, Mr. Biden displayed a familiarity with FARA, and a desire to avoid triggering it.

In one email to Mr. Archer in April 2014, Mr. Biden outlined his vision for working with Burisma. In the email, Hunter Biden indicated that the forthcoming announcement of a trip to Ukraine by Vice President Biden — who is referred to in the email as “my guy,” but not by name — should “be characterized as part of our advice and thinking — but what he will say and do is out of our hands.” (From said article) The.Barbaryan (talk) 19:15, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Authenticated emails" are not what we're on about here. You don't get it, you don't want to, you're continuing to edit war, you're getting blocked. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:The.Barbaryan reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: ). Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I notified you about this article's discretionary sanctions on March 22, and you've violated WP:1RR. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:09, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022 (2)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 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 ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a siteblock, not a partial block, because you've been making personal attacks as well as edit-warring. Acroterion (talk) 19:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good idea to make this edit right after your related block expires. Engage in talk page discussion. Do not edit war. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Get a life, dude. You take this wiki crap way too seriously. I hope DNC pays you well, if not I feel sorry for you bro. The.Barbaryan (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muboshgu, it appears that a topic ban is warranted for the edit warring and a BATTLE/NOTHERE block is also warranted. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Valjean, I agree! In fact I'd go further and just fully indef them for NOTHERE/BATTLEGROUND. I would do it myself but for WP:INVOLVED. I've pinged Acroterion (who appears to be offline) and reported the user to ANEW. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:The.Barbaryan reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: ). Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ZZZzzz You nerds are so f*ing boring. Get a life The.Barbaryan (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]