Archives ( Index) |
This page is archived by
ClueBot III.
|
The redirect Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 23 § Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip until a consensus is reached. Elli ( talk | contribs) 15:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Nytimes.com, January 2, 2024.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) 03:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Soni. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to The New York Times have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Soni ( talk) 02:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Hey.
I saw that you've just created Critical reception of The New York Times and Online platforms of The New York Times. I'm glad that you think these are good suggestion, but right now what would be most helpful is if you express that support on the article talk page. The scope and a rough outline of each of those articles needs to be planned out, especially for the critical reception article as that will require careful integration of both the positive and negative reception to the paper. There are multiple editors there who want to help, and we all have our own strengths to bring in this regard. The best way this can be done is if we all work together on this, and that we're all working from the same plan.
You cannot be the sole arbiter of article content or scope in this regard, per policy no one editor has ownership of an article and its content. Continuing along this path of asserting how things will be done, and not engaging with the concerns or proposals made by others on the article talk page has pretty much only one outcome. That is something I'd really like to avoid as you are a good and productive editor, you're just not engaging in any form of collaboration with others.
Please start engaging with us on the talk page. Help us plan out all of the articles involved, and identify areas where each of us can play to our strengths as editors. You don't have to do this alone. If we do this right, there are multiple GAs and FAs we can create from this content. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 20:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Snokalok ( talk) 15:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Beechcraft Bonanza V35 crash 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.Aviationwikiflight ( talk) 13:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Was reading talk...I all read over Help:Transclusion#Drawbacks if GA is the goal. Especially point 3 and 4. Moxy- 16:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive | |
March 2024 Backlog Drive:
| |
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. |
( t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 02:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
I am trying to bat for you but I suspect it's impossible at this point. The disdain you have for your fellow editors, while also not actually learning from them, is too high.
My intentions to take this article to good article status are marred, not by technical inability, but by stylistic disdain.
I just want you to know that the biggest obstacle in taking the article to GA has been you yourself. Other editors have taken articles to FA, you have not. And yet each time once you make a massive change (good thing!) you decide to stop discussing it (bad thing!) and start warring with everyone instead of listening to feedback (very bad thing!). All of that has resulted in an unreadable mess you made that others are fixing weeks later.
In the here and now, what should have taken three weeks is now projected to take three months.
I too dislike the slow pace like any man, but you have contributed to that more than others. Others have pointed out suggestions like Draft space and talk page discussions and other ways to accommodate your editing style while letting you keep making massive changes. But instead you ignore all of them to talk down your fellow editors and decide to bicker about every change people dicuss.
I do not know if being this direct is the only way for you to learn, but here we go. I'll rather you learn and improve instead of another set of blocks or worse. Both are, however, preferable to you dissing completely reasonable blocks that give you too much rope. Soni ( talk) 04:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2028 Democratic Party presidential primaries 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.Esolo5002 ( talk) 23:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2028 Republican Party presidential primaries 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.Esolo5002 ( talk) 23:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trump v. United States (2024) 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.Reywas92 Talk 03:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Initial public offering of Arm Holdings 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.EditorInTheRye ( talk) 07:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Disney–Charter Communications dispute you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of MovieTalk101178 -- MovieTalk101178 ( talk) 22:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Akira Toriyama in 1982.jpg. 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. LilianaUwU ( talk / contributions) 23:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
The article Disney–Charter Communications dispute you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Disney–Charter Communications dispute for comments about the article, and Talk:Disney–Charter Communications dispute/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of MovieTalk101178 -- MovieTalk101178 ( talk) 17:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
The article History of The New York Times (1851–1896) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:History of The New York Times (1851–1896) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of 750h+ -- 750h+ ( talk) 04:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article History of The New York Times (1896–1945) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of 750h+ -- 750h+ ( talk) 04:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
The article History of The New York Times (1896–1945) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:History of The New York Times (1896–1945) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of 750h+ -- 750h+ ( talk) 05:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Elijah, addressing this here because it's not something to discuss on an article talk page. You have been asked repeatedly to provide
edit summaries for the changes you make to articles. You were temporarily page blocked on
24 February for making substantive edits to the NYT article without discussion or provided explanation, despite requests from multiple editors including admins to do so. You are not being held to a standard that other editors aren't, because
according to policy all edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious)—either by clear edit summaries, or by discussion on the associated talk page
.
Respectfully, you are treating the NYT series of articles as though they are your own personal solo project. However Wikipedia, as I and others have explained to you multiple times now, is not a personal solo project. It is a group project. That means you need to discuss changes with other editors, seek consensus for those changes, allow others to critique and adjust those plans if consensus determines they need adjusting, and respect whatever consensus forms even if you fundamentally disagree with it. Discussion on article content is how Wikipedia works and it is mandatory in some form or another.
Please stop making these insinuations about other editors, because the issue here I'm sad to say is solely a result of your conduct. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 03:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Removal of Sam Altman from OpenAI you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mokadoshi -- Mokadoshi ( talk) 03:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your work on the article so far on the article. I have also begun putting some work into it and think that I had potential for a DYK and when the senate gets around to it a In the News item. Would you be interested in colaborating on the article to get it a DYK nom, I ask this as I am participating in the Wikicup and both of those could score me some good points. Feel free to decline, Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
The article Removal of Sam Altman from OpenAI you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Removal of Sam Altman from OpenAI and Talk:Removal of Sam Altman from OpenAI/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mokadoshi -- Mokadoshi ( talk) 01:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Nytimes.com, February 2, 2024.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) 17:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
The article Removal of Sam Altman from OpenAI you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Removal of Sam Altman from OpenAI for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mokadoshi -- Mokadoshi ( talk) 15:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Do you plan on adding information to Boeing manufacturing issues about aircraft other than the 737 MAX? If not, then it might be a good idea to merge the article with Boeing 737 MAX at this time. - ZLEA T\ C 05:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) 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.IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 11:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Please do not create one sentence articles like you did with Assassination of Mohammad Reza Zahedi. Wikipedia needs to strive to reach a quality and this seriously falls short of that. If you intended to expand on it, please do so first before linking your page to heavily edited articles. Ecrusized ( talk) 18:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for catching my mistake on 2024 in California - I didn't realize that was a link. TypoEater ( talk) 13:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article History of The New York Times (1998–2016) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AirshipJungleman29 -- AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 19:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
On 13 April 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that TikTok rallied its users to protest a bill that would potentially ban the app? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Schwede 66 12:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The article History of The New York Times (1998–2016) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:History of The New York Times (1998–2016) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AirshipJungleman29 -- AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 19:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Sideswipe9th ( talk) 17:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Is this editor of good faith? Are they improving the article? I remember having looked at this before, and I think you've pinged me from the talk page at some point--but what I also see is significant pushback against their comments and edits.I think I may have pinged you before, @ Drmies. But we've repeatedly circled around the same thing for the last couple months. Elijah makes edits without consensus or summaries, people discuss, elijah ignores it/promises to fix things. Repeat the cycle N days later.
never had to use them beforeis frankly insulting to all of us here, given your recent behavioural history on this article. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 17:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is ElijahPepe New York Times issues. Thank you. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 20:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 New Jersey earthquake 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.LilianaUwU ( talk / contributions) 21:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
The article Conan O'Brien Needs a Doctor While Eating Spicy Wings you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Conan O'Brien Needs a Doctor While Eating Spicy Wings for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Generalissima -- Generalissima ( talk) 19:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Nevada air ambulance crash 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.Aviationwikiflight ( talk) 13:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Conan O'Brien Needs a Doctor While Eating Spicy Wings.jpg. 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) 02:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
How come you don't start those one-sentence articles in draftspace? LilianaUwU ( talk / contributions) 00:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 01:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions to Starbucks v. McKinney. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and lack of contents. 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. Cavarrone 15:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
I will say that even if the AN/I topic seems to have been obviously created out of spite, I do have a bit of (incredibly petty) spite myself, so I may as well tell you it. Several times I have heard about some breaking-news event, checked to see if there was an article on it, and been beaten to the punch by you -- which is perfectly fair, but I will see that you haven't written an actual article, it's just a plopped-out single sentence for the sake of bragging rights as the page creator. Now, I think most of us have done something like this at least once (and it's not like we have some sort of entitlement to a fair share of bragging rights) but you've done it like a hundred times. This certainly isn't grounds for actually having any sort of administrative action taken against you, but man, as an editor, I wish you'd save some for the rest of us! jp× g 🗯️ 01:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Great job with Template:April 2024 Israel–Hamas war protests on university campuses map. Can we have a different color for protests and one for encampments, besides the red one at Columbia. Purple maybe? I hope that makes sense. Thanks. Kire1975 ( talk) 00:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Archives ( Index) |
This page is archived by
ClueBot III.
|
The redirect Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 23 § Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip until a consensus is reached. Elli ( talk | contribs) 15:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Nytimes.com, January 2, 2024.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) 03:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Soni. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to The New York Times have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Soni ( talk) 02:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Hey.
I saw that you've just created Critical reception of The New York Times and Online platforms of The New York Times. I'm glad that you think these are good suggestion, but right now what would be most helpful is if you express that support on the article talk page. The scope and a rough outline of each of those articles needs to be planned out, especially for the critical reception article as that will require careful integration of both the positive and negative reception to the paper. There are multiple editors there who want to help, and we all have our own strengths to bring in this regard. The best way this can be done is if we all work together on this, and that we're all working from the same plan.
You cannot be the sole arbiter of article content or scope in this regard, per policy no one editor has ownership of an article and its content. Continuing along this path of asserting how things will be done, and not engaging with the concerns or proposals made by others on the article talk page has pretty much only one outcome. That is something I'd really like to avoid as you are a good and productive editor, you're just not engaging in any form of collaboration with others.
Please start engaging with us on the talk page. Help us plan out all of the articles involved, and identify areas where each of us can play to our strengths as editors. You don't have to do this alone. If we do this right, there are multiple GAs and FAs we can create from this content. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 20:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Snokalok ( talk) 15:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Beechcraft Bonanza V35 crash 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.Aviationwikiflight ( talk) 13:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Was reading talk...I all read over Help:Transclusion#Drawbacks if GA is the goal. Especially point 3 and 4. Moxy- 16:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive | |
March 2024 Backlog Drive:
| |
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. |
( t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 02:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
I am trying to bat for you but I suspect it's impossible at this point. The disdain you have for your fellow editors, while also not actually learning from them, is too high.
My intentions to take this article to good article status are marred, not by technical inability, but by stylistic disdain.
I just want you to know that the biggest obstacle in taking the article to GA has been you yourself. Other editors have taken articles to FA, you have not. And yet each time once you make a massive change (good thing!) you decide to stop discussing it (bad thing!) and start warring with everyone instead of listening to feedback (very bad thing!). All of that has resulted in an unreadable mess you made that others are fixing weeks later.
In the here and now, what should have taken three weeks is now projected to take three months.
I too dislike the slow pace like any man, but you have contributed to that more than others. Others have pointed out suggestions like Draft space and talk page discussions and other ways to accommodate your editing style while letting you keep making massive changes. But instead you ignore all of them to talk down your fellow editors and decide to bicker about every change people dicuss.
I do not know if being this direct is the only way for you to learn, but here we go. I'll rather you learn and improve instead of another set of blocks or worse. Both are, however, preferable to you dissing completely reasonable blocks that give you too much rope. Soni ( talk) 04:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2028 Democratic Party presidential primaries 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.Esolo5002 ( talk) 23:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2028 Republican Party presidential primaries 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.Esolo5002 ( talk) 23:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trump v. United States (2024) 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.Reywas92 Talk 03:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Initial public offering of Arm Holdings 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.EditorInTheRye ( talk) 07:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Disney–Charter Communications dispute you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of MovieTalk101178 -- MovieTalk101178 ( talk) 22:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Akira Toriyama in 1982.jpg. 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. LilianaUwU ( talk / contributions) 23:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
The article Disney–Charter Communications dispute you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Disney–Charter Communications dispute for comments about the article, and Talk:Disney–Charter Communications dispute/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of MovieTalk101178 -- MovieTalk101178 ( talk) 17:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
The article History of The New York Times (1851–1896) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:History of The New York Times (1851–1896) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of 750h+ -- 750h+ ( talk) 04:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article History of The New York Times (1896–1945) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of 750h+ -- 750h+ ( talk) 04:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
The article History of The New York Times (1896–1945) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:History of The New York Times (1896–1945) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of 750h+ -- 750h+ ( talk) 05:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Elijah, addressing this here because it's not something to discuss on an article talk page. You have been asked repeatedly to provide
edit summaries for the changes you make to articles. You were temporarily page blocked on
24 February for making substantive edits to the NYT article without discussion or provided explanation, despite requests from multiple editors including admins to do so. You are not being held to a standard that other editors aren't, because
according to policy all edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious)—either by clear edit summaries, or by discussion on the associated talk page
.
Respectfully, you are treating the NYT series of articles as though they are your own personal solo project. However Wikipedia, as I and others have explained to you multiple times now, is not a personal solo project. It is a group project. That means you need to discuss changes with other editors, seek consensus for those changes, allow others to critique and adjust those plans if consensus determines they need adjusting, and respect whatever consensus forms even if you fundamentally disagree with it. Discussion on article content is how Wikipedia works and it is mandatory in some form or another.
Please stop making these insinuations about other editors, because the issue here I'm sad to say is solely a result of your conduct. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 03:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Removal of Sam Altman from OpenAI you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mokadoshi -- Mokadoshi ( talk) 03:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your work on the article so far on the article. I have also begun putting some work into it and think that I had potential for a DYK and when the senate gets around to it a In the News item. Would you be interested in colaborating on the article to get it a DYK nom, I ask this as I am participating in the Wikicup and both of those could score me some good points. Feel free to decline, Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
The article Removal of Sam Altman from OpenAI you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Removal of Sam Altman from OpenAI and Talk:Removal of Sam Altman from OpenAI/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mokadoshi -- Mokadoshi ( talk) 01:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Nytimes.com, February 2, 2024.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) 17:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
The article Removal of Sam Altman from OpenAI you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Removal of Sam Altman from OpenAI for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mokadoshi -- Mokadoshi ( talk) 15:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Do you plan on adding information to Boeing manufacturing issues about aircraft other than the 737 MAX? If not, then it might be a good idea to merge the article with Boeing 737 MAX at this time. - ZLEA T\ C 05:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) 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.IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 11:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Please do not create one sentence articles like you did with Assassination of Mohammad Reza Zahedi. Wikipedia needs to strive to reach a quality and this seriously falls short of that. If you intended to expand on it, please do so first before linking your page to heavily edited articles. Ecrusized ( talk) 18:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for catching my mistake on 2024 in California - I didn't realize that was a link. TypoEater ( talk) 13:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article History of The New York Times (1998–2016) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AirshipJungleman29 -- AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 19:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
On 13 April 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that TikTok rallied its users to protest a bill that would potentially ban the app? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Schwede 66 12:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The article History of The New York Times (1998–2016) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:History of The New York Times (1998–2016) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AirshipJungleman29 -- AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 19:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Sideswipe9th ( talk) 17:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Is this editor of good faith? Are they improving the article? I remember having looked at this before, and I think you've pinged me from the talk page at some point--but what I also see is significant pushback against their comments and edits.I think I may have pinged you before, @ Drmies. But we've repeatedly circled around the same thing for the last couple months. Elijah makes edits without consensus or summaries, people discuss, elijah ignores it/promises to fix things. Repeat the cycle N days later.
never had to use them beforeis frankly insulting to all of us here, given your recent behavioural history on this article. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 17:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is ElijahPepe New York Times issues. Thank you. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 20:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 New Jersey earthquake 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.LilianaUwU ( talk / contributions) 21:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
The article Conan O'Brien Needs a Doctor While Eating Spicy Wings you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Conan O'Brien Needs a Doctor While Eating Spicy Wings for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Generalissima -- Generalissima ( talk) 19:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Nevada air ambulance crash 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.Aviationwikiflight ( talk) 13:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Conan O'Brien Needs a Doctor While Eating Spicy Wings.jpg. 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) 02:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
How come you don't start those one-sentence articles in draftspace? LilianaUwU ( talk / contributions) 00:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 01:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions to Starbucks v. McKinney. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and lack of contents. 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. Cavarrone 15:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
I will say that even if the AN/I topic seems to have been obviously created out of spite, I do have a bit of (incredibly petty) spite myself, so I may as well tell you it. Several times I have heard about some breaking-news event, checked to see if there was an article on it, and been beaten to the punch by you -- which is perfectly fair, but I will see that you haven't written an actual article, it's just a plopped-out single sentence for the sake of bragging rights as the page creator. Now, I think most of us have done something like this at least once (and it's not like we have some sort of entitlement to a fair share of bragging rights) but you've done it like a hundred times. This certainly isn't grounds for actually having any sort of administrative action taken against you, but man, as an editor, I wish you'd save some for the rest of us! jp× g 🗯️ 01:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Great job with Template:April 2024 Israel–Hamas war protests on university campuses map. Can we have a different color for protests and one for encampments, besides the red one at Columbia. Purple maybe? I hope that makes sense. Thanks. Kire1975 ( talk) 00:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)