Cradleofcivilization

Welcome!

Hello, Cradleofcivilization, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• And feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Red Director (talk) 03:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hostile government takeover (March 8)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Spiderone was: 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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Hostile government takeover and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 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.

Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:37, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Cradleofcivilization! Having an article draft 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! Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 00:37, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Adsffdsdafsadfsadfsadfsdafsdafsfdfasdfsadfasfdasdfasfdasfdasfdas

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Adsffdsdafsadfsadfsadfsdafsdafsfdfasdfsadfasfdasdfasfdasfdasfdas, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email · global) 06:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Adsdasdasdassdasasdasdsadasdsadsaasdsaadsdasdsa

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Adsdasdasdassdasasdasdsadasdsadsaasdsaadsdasdsa, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email · global) 06:01, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Hostile government takeover3

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Hostile government takeover3 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email · global) 06:02, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

March 2025

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Adsdasdasdassdasasdasdsadasdsadsaasdsaadsdasdsa, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 06:02, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I didn't mean to commit vandalism. another user at 10:30 central time at 3/29/25 moved the Hostile government takeover page from Hostile government takeover to Hostile Government takeover to prevent it from being found with the wikipedia api. I was inexperienced and I didn't know how to undo the move. I thought moved the page to a page that wasn't in use would work but I don't know how to move a page back that's been given a new name. I can't simply undo the move. apparently that doesn't work. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 06:13, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I didn't mean to commit vandalism. another user at 10:30 central time at 3/29/25 moved the Hostile government takeover page from Hostile government takeover to Hostile Government takeover to prevent it from being found with the wikipedia api. I was inexperienced and I didn't know how to undo the move. I thought moved the page to a page that wasn't in use would work but I don't know how to move a page back that's been given a new name. I can't simply undo the move. apparently that doesn't work.Cradleofcivilization (talk) 06:15, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Looking at your edit history, the block seems well justified (personally, I would have probably blocked you indef). I suggest you sit this one out, and think about the disruption you've caused, which others are having to now clean up after you. And for future reference, if you don't know whether or how to move a page, then don't move it. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

---

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.

Cradleofcivilization (talk) 06:15, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

The initial move was not vandalism, and didn't prevent it from being found with the wikipedia api. jlwoodwa (talk) 07:05, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

yes it did. what is hostile government takeover

hostile government Takeover arguing for 2025 song by TikToker AgiftfromTodd manufacturer because they will wait we 4 black reward that hated

Show Metadata

what is hostile government takeover

In business a for careful physical is the purchase of one company the target by another the acquirer or I adorned calm word because they advanced. pages that are redirected don't show up as the same search result for their own search. redirect vandalism occurs all over wikipedia and although this may not have been that. It absolutely did prevent it from showing up in the wikipedia api. I agree my block shouldn't be appealed, but I did have good intentions as petty as they were. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 07:41, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. Could you explain how you're using the API? jlwoodwa (talk) 07:43, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

3/29/2025 - 10:28:29pm hostile government Takeover arguing for 2025 song by TikToker AgiftfromTodd manufacturer because they will wait we 4 black reward that hated

In business a for careful physical is the purchase of one company the target by another the acquirer or I adorned calm word because they advanced 10:34:32pm these times are based on california time. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 07:42, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

those are the logs from my chatbot. you can see the first log comes from the hostile government takeover page. the second log a couple of seconds later comes from the wikipedia takeover page. but were really get into the weeds here. the user changed the name of the page because he thought that was real important for some reason. I'm not entirely clear if that broke the disambiguation page but I suppose I could have just changed the link. redirects generally break the wikipedia api. maybe that's not why the hostile government takeover page was disconnected from the wikipedia api. I don't feel with my robot and the wikipedia api I'm doing anything wrong but that's a separate issue. I donate 50 dollars a year to wikipedia because the wikipedia api has been really helpful in allowing the robot to express language.

the main thing is because the wikipedia api broke for the page. I tried to fix by undoing the move. I was unable to undo the move.

so I tried to change the page name so I could change it back to the original page name. I suppose I don't feel changing one word from capital to lowercase was a valuable edit. but maybe he was assuming in the future there would be two hostile government takeover pages. one for the song and other for real hostile government takeovers. this has not happened yet because those are currently referred to as coup d etats. In any case this edit was absolutely either jumping the gun or completely unnecessary. but I should have obeyed the warning that the hostile government takeover page already existed and that try to change that name to a different page so I could change the page back to it's original name. noone would ever search for the changed page names. however I really did think it was just a simple edit. for the original editor it was a simple edit because he was simply changing the page name. but changing it back is so much more complicated. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 08:04, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

(1) Are you getting a chatbot to write code to interact with the Wikipedia API? (Please don't.) (2) Why all the nonsense names? The multiple renames to nonsense names in quick succession look very suspicious (unconstructive at least). You still haven't explained yourself or provided any evidence that another editor is involved in these shenanigans. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email · global) 08:10, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

look I renamed the wikipedia articles to nonsense names. I agree that I did that. it was a mistake. the nonsense names were to indicate that the page was a dead page. I was trying to rename hostile government takeover which became a dead page and became redirected to Hostile government Takeover. the redirect temporarily removed the page from the wikipedia page which was done by a user at 10:30 pm california time.

I tried to rename Hostile government Takeover back to Hostile government takeover. I got an error saying the page already existed. I tried to change the name of the page hostile government takeover to something else so I could rename Hostile Government Takeover back to Hostile government takeover so it could be found by google again. unfortunately I didn't know what I was doing which lead to multiple pages with nonsense names. I'm glad i was blocked, but someone does need to get hostile government Takeover or whatever back in search results eventually. I'm not sure whose going to do that.

the chatbot logs were simply how I discovered the page had been changed. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 08:31, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

sorry it was originally found by google but the redirect disconnected it from the api. In order to remove the redirect I tried to rename the hostile government takeover page to a nonsense page so I could rename Hostile government Takeover back to Hostile government takeover and remove the redirect.

I tried to rename Hostile government Takeover back to Hostile government takeover. I got an error saying the page already existed. I tried to change the name of the page hostile government takeover to something else so I could rename Hostile Government Takeover back to Hostile government takeover so it could be found by google again. unfortunately I didn't know what I was doing which lead to multiple pages with nonsense names. I'm glad i was blocked, but someone does need to get hostile government Takeover or whatever back in search results eventually. I'm not sure whose going to do that. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 08:33, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours to prevent further vandalism, as you did at Hostile government takeover. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 06:06, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Cxzcxzcxzczxzcxcxzczxczxczxcxzxcxxzcczxxczczxczxczxczx

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Cxzcxzcxzczxzcxcxzczxczxczxcxzxcxxzcczxxczczxczxczxczx requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Ednabrenze (talk) 06:19, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Dsfdfasadfsadfsadfsadfsafdsafdsadfsadfsadfsdafsfadsdfasdfasdfas

Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, the introduction of inappropriate pages, such as Dsfdfasadfsadfsadfsadfsafdsafdsadfsadfsadfsdafsfadsdfasdfasdfas, is considered vandalism and is prohibited. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ednabrenze (talk) 06:20, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Dffasdfsadfsdafsadfsdafsdafsdafsdafsdfasdfasdfasdfasdfasdafsdfasdfasdfasdfasdfsadafsdafs

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Dffasdfsadfsdafsadfsdafsdafsdafsdafsdfasdfasdfasdfasdfasdafsdfasdfasdfasdfasdfsadafsdafs, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email · global) 06:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Hostile government takeover4

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Hostile government takeover4, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• The page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. (See section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. EmilyR34 (talk) 06:45, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Talk:Hostile government takeover4

Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, the introduction of inappropriate pages, such as Talk:Hostile government takeover4, is considered vandalism and is prohibited. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ApexParagon (talk) 08:08, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Talk:Adsdasdasdassdasasdasdsadasdsadsaasdsaadsdasdsa

Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, the introduction of inappropriate pages, such as Talk:Adsdasdasdassdasasdasdsadasdsadsaasdsaadsdasdsa, is considered vandalism and is prohibited. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ApexParagon (talk) 08:08, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Talk:Adsffdsdafsadfsadfsadfsdafsdafsfdfasdfsadfasfdasdfasfdasfdasfdas

Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, the introduction of inappropriate pages, such as Talk:Adsffdsdafsadfsadfsadfsdafsdafsfdfasdfsadfasfdasdfasfdasfdasfdas, is considered vandalism and is prohibited. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ApexParagon (talk) 08:08, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Talk:Cxzcxzcxzczxzcxcxzczxczxczxcxzxcxxzcczxxczczxczxczxczx

Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, the introduction of inappropriate pages, such as Talk:Cxzcxzcxzczxzcxcxzczxczxczxcxzxcxxzcczxxczczxczxczxczx, is considered vandalism and is prohibited. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ApexParagon (talk) 08:09, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Talk:Dsfdfasadfsadfsadfsadfsafdsafdsadfsadfsadfsdafsfadsdfasdfasdfas

Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, the introduction of inappropriate pages, such as Talk:Dsfdfasadfsadfsadfsadfsafdsafdsadfsadfsadfsdafsfadsdfasdfasdfas, is considered vandalism and is prohibited. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ApexParagon (talk) 08:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft talk:Dffasdfsadfsdafsadfsdafsdafsdafsdafsdfasdfasdfasdfasdfasdafsdfasdfasdfasdfasdfsadafsdafs

Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, the introduction of inappropriate pages, such as Draft talk:Dffasdfsadfsdafsadfsdafsdafsdafsdafsdfasdfasdfasdfasdfasdafsdfasdfasdfasdfasdfsadafsdafs, is considered vandalism and is prohibited. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ApexParagon (talk) 08:17, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Talk:Hostile government takeover3

A tag has been placed on Talk:Hostile government takeover3 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ApexParagon (talk) 08:18, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Hostile Government Takeover moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Hostile Government Takeover (2). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and they need to be solid independent reliable sources, not tiktok and the like. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:29, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I did nothing wrong when I submitted the hostile government takeover. this seems to indicate the name change which would have been a reason for protecting the page from page edits in the future was malicious. there are 4 sources from reliable sources. 1 source that is not popular. 1 source is that from a moderately popular website being Distractify. This is just a witchhunt. you put up a page with less reliable sources and removed a page from Wikipedia that is reliable and then some. I labeled the other sources as important information but essentially as additional information. the 4 sources plus the 2 less known sources are more than enough to establish notability. This is wrong pure and simple. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 09:55, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

The name change would not have been a reason to protect the article, and was not malicious; it was done to bring the article in line with the policy on article titles. If an existing Wikipedia article lacks reliable sources, you should try to improve it, tag it as having {{unreliable sources}}, or nominate it for deletion; what you should not do is use it as an argument for keeping something else. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:46, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hostile Government Takeover (2) (April 3)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sophisticatedevening was:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Hostile Government Takeover (2) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 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.

Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 23:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

okay you are violating the approval of other reviewer and you are completely wrong. the sources that support notability are given significant coverage. the other sources are only used for prima facie information. this is completely biased and has no grounds. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 23:25, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to resubmit for another review if you are able to find improved sourcing to establish notability. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 23:40, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Cradleofcivilization! Having a draft can be disappointing. The cited reason is failure to meet the notability of music. Don't worry! You can find some sources that contribute to notability – reliable, independent sources that discuss the subject in depth – and add it to the article. I will be happy to review the draft once it is submitted for review. Hope that helps! ToadetteEdit (talk) 06:19, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

did you originally approve the article? and no I can't. I have 6 good sources and 1 source from john oliver. what more does the song have to do to get a wikipedia article there is nothing that can be done to improve it and that because it fails notability. 6 sources is more than most articles on wikipedia. but let's say for the sake of argument the deadline source wasn't in depth. It was but if it wasn't. the john oliver source could be used to provide depth. no there's nothing I can ToadetteEdit. I really wished you would have left an approval note instead of me failing to prove it by inference. I understand it's not your fault but having people that weren't you spread lies so blatantly was very upsetting Cradleofcivilization (talk) 06:28, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hostile government takeover (April 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by ToadetteEdit was:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Hostile government takeover and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 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.

ToadetteEdit (talk) 06:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Toadette Edit did you deliberately not leave a review note so you could do this. well thank you that explains everything. it did show approved at the time but fine lie see if I care. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 06:39, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Setting the record straight

the article has enough sources for notability. most articles have around 6 sources. 4 of the sources are from credible sources. 1 of the sources is john oliver but I already have a source on john oliver so it would mainly matter if the deadline source wasn't in depth which it is. as far as the previous Hostile government takeover source I hope it makes through. unfortunately the excuse that it wouldn't be sourced well enough to meet the ideal of what wikipedia is supposed to be makes some sense. it's a good article but it only has 3 sources and it's not well cited. my article is well cited and does meet wikipedia's notability guidelines. however I can see that is the page that'd rather approve which is fine by me. However that source would require sources from my wikipedia page which hey if wikipedia was serious and not some conservative think tank I suppose my sources could be used to get their preferred page on wikipedia. I really don't care which article is used to publish hostile government takeover on wikipedia. It's just clearly an egregious oversight that hostile government takeover isn't on wikipedia. does it need a billion views. does it need every musician in the industry to remix it. because I really don't think it would matter. In fact moby did remix it but it's not a credible source as Id have to cite moby's tiktok itself which I guess isn't allowed. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 07:18, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Oh, you say that the article has enough sources to establish notability. But unfortunately I do not have time to analyse the sources. Maybe @Sophisticatedevening can give some input on the sources. And only 5 sources in the draft are reliable by the way. ToadetteEdit (talk) 07:35, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I declined for a lack of notability for 2 reasons, 1 being that most of the sources given were only a paragraph or two long, which does not adequately describe the subject in depth to consider it significant coverage. The other reason is that a large amount of those sources were not considered reliable, among them being Tiktok and Youtube. When it comes to determining notability, the mere quantity of the sources is not enough. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 12:27, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

none of the sources were a paragraph or two long. none of them were passing mentions. all of them were exclusively about the subject. in any case the article youre talking about the only article with even remotely a small amount of paragraphs had 4. It's possible you made a mistake and confused the distractify source with 4 paragraphs as all all the sources having 4 paragraphs or less but this is simply not the case. Also there are 4 sources that constitute notability. the john oliver source and the distractify and mandatory source which were republished by msn and yahoo entertainment. there are approximately 2 paragraphs covering the notable information. the last paragraph essentially mentions the view count and any legal disclaimers. there is no information in that article that isn't well sourced. just because I provide information for the original video does not mean it didn't have the sources necessary for notability. It did. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

none of the sources were a paragraph or two long. none of them were passing mentions. all of them were exclusively about the subject. in any case the article youre talking about the only article with even remotely a small amount of paragraphs had 4. It's possible you made a mistake and confused the distractify source with 4 paragraphs as all all the sources having 4 paragraphs or less but this is simply not the case. Also there are 4 sources daily dot billboard indy100 deadline that constitute notability. there were also other sources such as the john oliver source(covered the subject for a good 3 minutes but was extensively covered by the deadline source so it is not necessary) and the distractify and mandatory source which were republished by msn and yahoo entertainment. there are approximately 2 paragraphs covering the notable information. the last paragraph essentially mentions the view count and any legal disclaimers. there is no information in that article that isn't well sourced. just because I provide information for the original video does not mean it didn't have the sources necessary for notability. It did. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hostile government takeover (April 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by ToadetteEdit was:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Hostile government takeover and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 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.

ToadetteEdit (talk) 07:26, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Your attempts to promote Draft:Hostile government takeover have been rather disruptive and if you resubmit or move the draft, then you will most likely be blocked for disruptive editing. You are simply wasting people's time, and if more time is wasted because of a pending review, there is no other option other than to bring the topic up for deletion so that it can be reviewed by the broader community. As said, you should add sources that contribute to notability. I might have made a mistake while reviewing the article while it was in the mainspace but that does not mean that the topic is notable for inclusion. Please listen and follow to other editors' feedback. ToadetteEdit (talk) 07:32, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of Hostile government takeover for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hostile government takeover 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/Hostile government takeover 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 until the discussion has finished.

ToadetteEdit (talk) 07:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Hostile government takeover

A tag has been placed on Draft:Hostile government takeover requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

adding for below

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 12:06, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Can you explain?

I saw that you filed a Move Review request concerning one of your efforts to move Hostile government takeover into article space. I was about to explain why you had made a good-faith error in trying to use Move Review for your purpose. However, in looking at your talk page, what I see does not look like the actions of a good-faith editor. I see that you have had 11 pages with titles composed by banging on a standard keyboard speedily deleted. I can't see the content of the deleted articles, but I see only two possible explanations. The first is vandalism, an effort to damage the encyclopedia. The second, which is still unfavorable, is that you were disrupting the encyclopedia to make a point.

I think that there are two loosely related questions. The first is whether there should be an article on the song Hostile government takeover. That will be decided by the deletion discussion, which is a correct forum for that decision. The second is whether you should be indefinitely blocked for not being here to contribute to the encyclopedia. Can you please explain why you created a large number of pages with noise titles, or is it time for a report to WP:ANI to request that you be banned? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

you are absolutely wrong so I will explain what happened. first all of the edits are deceptive. an editor made an innocent edit of changing the title to sentence case. simple enough. I tried to revert that move back to it's original page. it failed. I attempted to move Hostile Government Takeover to Hostile government takeover but it failed. I couldn't figure out what was going on so i changed the hostile government takeover at the time the page that linked to the redirect to a page with a nonsense name so it wouldn't be confused with another article. what I didn't realize is that everytime I made the change I created a new page. when cactus vandalized the page. I knew better than to make a mistake and move it back. that's what cactus wanted. I stayed calm and explained the situation. as far as toadetteedit it really did show the page was approved 8 days ago and it was even in the api as a result eventually until Cambridgeweather changed to sentence case which created a redirect that disconnected it from the api. if I kept my cool which I'll do from now on. I could of simply no index the original page and wait for the new page to become the canonical page. This posturing is quite wrong. The only thing that matters is whether the page deserves to stay on wikipedia. not my conduct which after repeatedly defaming me and putting me in impossible situations where I'm going to be accused of procedural errors I had nothing to do with. what your doing right now ultimately falls into the category of biased editing. I was originally going to be given a fair shake now your just falling for propaganda. yes I vandalized my page accidentally. I was simply trying to get it to link Hostile government takeover which was what it was in google. I really hate redirects they destroy the api. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

That answer doesn't make any sense, you created 11 pages of nonsense that other editors had to clean up that you claim was from trying to revert a move. What "API" are you referring to? What is a "canonical page"? What do you mean by "falling for propaganda"? Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 16:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

okay that is true. I kept thinking I would be able to change Hostile Government Takeover to Hostile government takeover so I could remove the redirect and link to the page used in google search results. when there are no redirects wikipedia's api something that allows people to search through wikipedia using code allows the user to view pages on wikipedia from a few sentences long to paragraphs. it's just used to read wikipedia. the application program interface can't access wikipedia if there is a redirect for a page. most people don't care about it. but I think it's somewhat important. when you use no index on a page that now links to a redirect. the original page is matched in google but when you go to the page you get sent to the new page. if you want google to match the correct page. the canonical page you need to use no index on the original page to remove it from google search results. then you keep the original page as it is. In about 2 days the new page gets in google search results which was getting aggravating. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

That still doesn't explain anything, why did you create those random nonsense pages? Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 16:50, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I did it to do something impossible which i didn't know was impossible which was to revert Hostile Government Takeover back to Hostile government takeover. but no answer I give to you will be good enough. frankly I am happy I got banned when I did. I've been going through hell ever since that happened. I was just trying to replace the new page name with previous page name but page names on wikipedia are essentially permanent which I did not know. I'll say something and then youll say youre not listening. youre just covering up good points I made which won't be discovered because of this reply. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I paid dearly for that mistake more than cactus ever did and he was vandalizing someone else's page. I was trying to fix something on my own page and I was not aware that you couldn't revert edits. I believe the page was previously approved but admittedly I'll never be able to prove that. possibly the api working for the page temporarily proves it. I really didn't expect to see ToadetteEdit again. I was hoping to find a nice editor that wouldn't block for incomprehensible reasons. the bottom line is it does meet wikipedia's guidelines for noteworthiness but noone clicks on the sources. it may have too many sources but that's still ridiculous as there isn't any unsourced material in the article. every claim that is made is backed up by evidence. if there's nothing wrong with my article then I can't make it look like it's improving and therefore I fail from the get go. but the things your talking are absolutely biased editing. youre saying I hurt my own page to vandalize it and your solution is to destroy the page. the page would have been fine if it had not been deleted by LettersandNumbers although I realize I needed to be banned at the time and I'm thankful for that. as far as what happened I sent the draft to review hoping to eventually find a nice afc editor. There simply isn't anything to improve which puts me in a very tough position. if it started bad I could say I'm placating people and improve but that simply isn't possible. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Hostile Government Takeover

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Hostile Government Takeover, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other test edits you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Suggestions & assistance for Hostile government takeover

Hi there, Cradleofcivilization. To best improve the article, I would also suggest adding headings so the article is in keeping with the Wikipedia Manual of Style. For more information about adding headings, see MOS:OVERSECTION. I would suggest:

• a lead introductory section in accordance with WP:MOS,
• a "Background" heading which offers context on Trump, with Template:See also at the top directing the reader to Second presidency of Donald Trump,
• a "Song" heading which gives more information about the lyrics and message of the song - see for comparison United Breaks Guitars#Song,
• a "Responses" heading which includes how some popular figures and sources covered the song (the John Oliver info and information about the subsequent remixes would go well here),

Lastly, the article would eventually need to be moved to Hostile Government Takeover (with capitalizations). If you achieve all of these things, I think you have a better shot at successfully entering the article into the mainspace without it being pushed further for deletion. Best of luck and happy to answer any questions. Flip^andFlopped ツ 16:23, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

April 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continued disruptive editing related to Hostile government takeover, including at its AFD page. Any possibility of an unblock is likely to be conditional on you accepting a topic ban from this area..

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Abecedare (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I did not do what I'm being accused of. I did not make disruptive edits to the Hostile government takeover page after I had been blocked. The accusations that I made multiple nonsense name changes on april 4,2025 are false. Apparently the accusation was I made 11 nonsense name changes. These changes were originally done under a different block that occured five days ago. I was punished for trying to change Hostile Government Takeover to Hostile government takeover. I was not aware at the time I was doing that that Wikipedia pages that were moved could not be moved to the original page. so I made a mistake. I kept frustratingly trying to fit a square peg in a round hole and I apologize. Unfortunately I have been repeatedly blamed for things I did not do after the initial block so I do feel in that respect the initial block was unfair. You really do need the information in the block report and the history of the pages. Youre making assumptions that simply weren't true. As far as making a point I tried to do a move review. It was over LettersandNumbers moving what I believed to be a previously approved page Hostile Government Takeover to draftspace which I couldn't prove. It was rejected on procedural grounds without discussion. Pt elsworth was the one who made the decision about the move review. There was a claim during the move review by a different user that it should have been an afc review after LettersandNumbers moved the page back to draftspace from article space. It had been in article space for 3 days. The idea was essentially that it had never been approved. There essentially is no proof of an approval when an article is moved to draftspace and no notes are left. During the move review I left a patrolled and reviewed log but the move review was still closed on procedural grounds. I thought my best chance of getting a fair review would be to move the page to mainspace and wait for it to be reviewed. Pt elsworth, promptly moved the page back which is his right. My page met notability requirements so I sent it for an Afc review without changes. There was nothing I could do since the page already met notability requirements. After resubmitting my page again ToadetteEdit rejected my Hostile government takeover page. I resubmitted the page because I didn't know what else to do. As a result ToadetteEdit sent it for deletion but I don't deserve to be banned for that. ToadetteEdit changed the page to Mainspace because that's how she wanted it deleted. I don't know ToadetteEdit's reason. She seems like a nice editor it's wrong to throw her under the bus, but I could see why she'd be scared. This ban being an example of that. During the Articles For Deletion process, the user Cactus made an edit that I got blamed for where he changed the page Hostile government takeover to literal draft hostile government takeover in mainspace. He then asked why it wasn't sent for miscellany for deletion after leaving a this page should be deleted for miscellany error on the page. During that time I got confused between the speedy deletion of a link to hostile government takeover and the ongoing articles for deletion. During the deletion, I thought there was two pages because of cactus edit. so I accidentally posted twice. I did not post nonsense letters that was part of the original ban of moving Hostile Government Takeover to Hostile government takeover. How can I be punished twice for the same crime? Cradleofcivilization (talk) 01:14, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM. Also besides being somewhat incomprehensible you don't appear to address the bludgeoning at the AfD at all. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:40, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

---

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.

Cradleofcivilization (talk) 01:14, 6 April 2025 (UTC) |decline = WP:NOTTHEM. Also besides being somewhat incomprehensible you don't appear to address the bludgeoning at the AfD at all. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:40, 6 April 2025 (UTC)}}

Hello, Cradleofcivilization,

This unblock request will not be accepted because some of it is incomprehensible. Please proofread your writing before hitting "Publish changes". I advise you to read Guide to Appealing Blocks before any future unblock requests so you can see what a reviewing admin is looking for in a request which is not what you wrote here. You should not be writing a hard-to-follow narrative statement involving other editors, instead just focus on the reasons why YOU were blocked and explain that you understand why you were blocked and how you will avoid these mistakes in the future. But read the Guide, please read it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:25, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

• Cradleofcivilization, since you are not clear on why you were blocked for disruptive editing, let me spell it out in brief:
  1. Prior to April 1 you made a mess of the Hostile government takeover by moving it repeatedly to inexplicable titles. I and other admins can view this history, though it is no longer accessible to you. For this you were blocked for three days.
  2. On your return, you started off well by asking for help but soon after started a Move review. This was the wrong venue, but that was no big deal by itself. The problem was that you refused to heed the feedback you received at the request, attacked other editors assuming bad faith and extended the discussion to yet other venues.
  3. Soon after you (again) moved the article to mainspace despite having been told that it was not up the the desired standard yet.
  4. Then when the article was nominated for deletion and you were reported to ANI, your response at neither of those places demonstrated that you understood the extent of the problems with your actions. Instead your lengthy, discursive, defensive and hostile posts made both discussions unnecessarily hard to follow. Ditto for your unblock request.

Note that with regards to 2 and 3, I am not concerned whether the "technically correct" process was followed or not, since no one expects new (or even experienced) editors to get everything right and wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Rather the issue is the lack of collaboration, assuming bad faith, and insufficient listening... all of which created a lot of clean up work for others and wasted precious editor and admin time and patience. Hence the indef block. Abecedare (talk) 05:12, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

The previous unblock request should be looked at because it has important information which was unceremoniously ignored. the reasons not included in the previous block request because the accusations were spurious is now included. However in order to make the claim that there were repeated offenses that lead to the permanent ban can not be made. the only claim that isn't addressed is the afc discussion which is baffling that it's even included as an offense. there is no comment on those pages that should result in any kind of infraction. There were users that did things I was blamed for and when I give honest answers my account get's banned. Nothing I said was a lie. It's all verifiable but despite wikipedia having edit history. It may as be invisible because decisions are made all the time on Wikipedia using faulty information. I apologize for not using paragraph formatting. I tried to do that but during the rejection it was reverted to worse formatting. The claims made about the articles of deletion discussion are completely outrageous. Everything on that afc discussion is either agreeing to feedback someone made even if I did not agree with it. Correcting a falsehood or correcting outright misinformation. The afc discussion ban regarding everything that is on the articles of deletion page is completely laughable especially since it resulted in an account ban for absolutely no reason. It has absolutely no grounds. For someone to banned for this is completely baffling. It has to be for other reasons that i have been falsely accused for which are not true. The problem is noone bothers to review the claims because the claims are too complicated. At least I hope that is what it is, in my heart of hearts. The only thing I did wrong was move the page back to mainspace after Pt Elsworth closed the move review for adminstrative reasons. It can be implied that the page was originally patrolled and reviewed and it's lack of rejection at this point may be considered an acceptance. No note was left but I did get an approval notification at the time. Cactus left me in a very difficult position making changes to the page that constituted vandalism and then blaming me for them. I was constantly being blamed by other users for the fact it was in mainspace but I never put in mainspace. Pt elsworth moved it back and the editor that approved it decided to have it moved to mainspace and deleted. I don't blame ToadetteEdit for doing that. She was following precedent. If someone resubmits an afc review page after it has been reviewed with changes. It may be deleted. But as far as notability it already met the standard for notability so there was nothing I could do. I've been treated like a pariah for making a mistake. Ever since my intial block I've been blamed for things I didn't do it. But it is true I contested the move review my only crime. The bludgeoning accusation doesn't have merit but saying that Pt Elsworth was listening to lies and made an incorrect decision doesn't seem to be the worst thing in the world. Seeing as he's repeatedly attempted to have my account banned on faulty grounds. I guess i'd be willing to accept not being allowed to participate in the deletion discussion but I did nothing wrong. The only reason I have the wikipedia account is to get Hostile government takeover on wikipedia. I'm absolutely baffled that it's not on wikipedia.

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM. This is about you, not what 'Pt Elsworth' or 'ToadetteEdit' did. This is about what you did. The fact you clearly don't comprehend this makes it seem you are not capable of or unwilling to understanding how Wikipedia works. Also your final statement - The only reason I have the wikipedia account is to get Hostile government takeover on wikipedia. I'm absolutely baffled that it's not on wikipedia. establish that you are a single-purpose account that seems to be here solely to promote this song, and thus are not here to improve the encyclopedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:40, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

---

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.

look I did nothing wrong. I made the stupidest mistake which was a catastrophe I'll admit that. As a result all the terrible things that have happened to Hostile Government Takeover have been missed. I'm being blamed for things I didn't do and banned indefinitely for doing nothing wrong. As far as being a single issue Wikipedier that is true and I don't want good wikipediaers to have to sacrifice for someone that can't protect them. I admittedly put Wikipedia in a bad position I committed vandalism in the original offense and was blocked for 5 days. I did it with good intentions but there's no way of proving that. Hopefully very few people would have done what I did because this puts all of Wikipedia in jeopardy. Ever since the block I've been repeatedly blamed for things I didn't do.