Zinnia

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article June 2024 United States presidential debate 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/June 2024 United States presidential debate 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.

David O. Johnson (talk) 19:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@ElijahPepe, this GA review is only my second ever. During the course of the review, if we come to a disagreement, I would not be offended if you want to loop in a second look. If that time comes, just say the word and I'll make a post asking for a tiebreak. Mokadoshi (talk) 03:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ElijahPepe are you still interested in this GA nomination? I may fail it in the next approx. 35 hrs if issues are not addressed. Thanks, Mokadoshi (talk) 13:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

In the last ten minutes you've made two edits to The New York Times, the first removing 48k from the page and the second removing 33k from the page, neither of which were with edit summaries. You have been warned repeatedly for this before. If you make any more edits to The New York Times or its child articles without using an edit summary, I will be bringing you to a behavioural noticeboard. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sideswipe9th--you just beat me to it. I was also wondering whether to just hit rollback on those huge changes. 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. (FWIW I think the article is inflated and needs pruning, but that's another matter.) Drmies (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: it's really hard to tell. From a skim Elijah has removed at least 80k of sources from the article in the last ten minutes. Now it's possible these sources were unused in the article body, in which case these edits would be an improvement, but without a substantial time investment to verify each one by hand due to the lack of justification in an edit summary it's nigh-on impossible to tell. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That said, given Elijah's laundry list of issues with this article and its sub-articles, including recently changing the scope of one of the history of articles, and then creating another one, against the pre-existing consensus that Elijah contributed to, it's really hard to consider Elijah's edits in good faith here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removing unused references is not in good faith, apparently. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I'm currently quite burnt out on this article, but it's impossible to make any progress with things when this keeps happening. Last time landed us in ANI with no actual changes. So we had a full consensus of "These are options for how to split article, please discuss" to not repeat that. A few weeks later, Elijah again ignores the decision to do his own thing (for presumably GA credits).

At this point, does good faith matter if they're very clearly making things worse for every other editor? I genuinely do not know. I do know that I'm all out of patience for Elijah's antics. Soni (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rest assured that I won't edit the Times article if making beneficial changes warrants a noticeboard. I planned on expanding a few sections today; that clearly won't be happening.elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah, without an edit summary we don't know this edit is beneficial. How do we distinguish this from someone blanking an article or article sections? Do you know how long it takes to read through multiple diffs of this length? You have been warned on this multiple times, by multiple editors. Why are you not using edit summaries? Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Never had to use them before. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been warned before. I don't know why you would think you can make truly massive edits without explaining; surely you've noticed that this is a collaborative project. And you are still not explaining what you are doing--Sideswipe9th, if you want to roll these back, go for it. I have no clue why they removed those sources. Drmies (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't even make edits that have nothing to do with content to remove references that weren't used and added size to the article, the exact issue everyone is attempting to resolve. Stopping others from doing their work is not beneficial. I'm disappointed that I couldn't expand the article and that it will likely remain in its state for months, if not years. If everyone is pressuring me to quit editing altogether—attempting to get me blocked—maybe I should consider that option. I've already stated that the work there is no longer mine. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following this on-and-off since I saw you were working on improving the article for The New York Times, and I hope you understand that no one here wants to chase you away from editing about The Times, or from the project entirely. The issue is your attitude towards collaboration in general, and it's manifested here because this is an article many people care about. If you use edit summaries and engage substantively in discussion when challenged, there won't be any sort of problem. Please, please, just listen to other people when they give you feedback about your edits. The community is not out to get you; we just want to collaborate. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: I honestly dunno. If they are actually unused references, then removing them is fine. But the underlying behavioural problems here, ignoring consensus, ignoring the reasons why he was repeatedly warned and blocked previously, those need some sort of admin response I feel. All of this, my warning, your talk page discussion, could have been entirely avoided if Elijah had done what he was supposed to do, and used an edit summary with each of those edits. Something that he knows or should know he should be doing, because he's been blocked before for not using them. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you well know, you were warned for this exact behaviour at the start of February, the article was then fully protected for a week because you continued to do this and edit war, and you were then blocked at the end of February for the same behaviour. Saying you've never had to use them before is frankly insulting to all of us here, given your recent behavioural history on this article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you're still not using edit summaries in most of your edits. Is there a reason for that? -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Samuel Alito flag display controversy 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/Samuel Alito flag display controversy 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) 20:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ElijahPepe came from WP:3O. Would request / advice to provide a neutral short summary (synopsis) @ the article talk page. Some quick tips may help you and others too, to help you. And also inform the other user on their talk page that you have requested a WP:3O. Happy editing. Thanks Bookku (talk) 07:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Soni, Thanks for your response and summary at HTNYT 1851-1896.

I am responding at Elijah's user talk page since part of it concerns area of user skill improvement relating to skill of 'summary writing' which is essential in encyclopedic writing and also in dispute resolution mechanism. This is friendly peer mentorship guidance so I do not expect any one to use/ mention this at any personal disputes against the user.

Frankly after coming across @ElijahPepe 3O request I did primary study related to the article under discussion, also incl. Elijah's editing couple of other articles with help of Xtool. Elijah seem to be doing good work primary stage article writing and other editors taking over for further improvements leading some articles at B to GA.

But as a peer, my impression from this discussion and ElijahPepe's some other editing is honing / practicing skill of 'summary writing' a little further would be helpful to Elijah. Hence I continue to expect a summary at HTNYT 1851-1896 in their own words.

Also I suggest Elijah to note down 5 specific points which they wish to retain in the article. Happy editing. Bookku (talk) 02:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 4 June 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Barron Trump, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Barron Trump signed for D.C. United Academy as a midfielder? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Barron Trump. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Barron Trump), 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.

Z1720 (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Barron Trump you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Barron Trump 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) 19:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Attack on Mette Frederiksen 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/Attack on Mette Frederiksen 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.

CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the "Conan O'Brien Needs a Doctor While Eating Spicy Wings" article you created, but the fair-use image you provided was deleted in the interim. If you care, you can reupload it and add it to the article. Thanks. —  AjaxSmack  15:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to this when I can. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I went to create the page in question and you beat me to it.

It was just announced and the page was created within 30 seconds of the announcement.

How did you pull it off?

Urbanracer34 (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Elon Musk vs. Mark Zuckerberg 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/Elon Musk vs. Mark Zuckerberg 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.

Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 26 June 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Julian Assange, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Schwede66 22:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 27 June 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2024 Parliament of Kenya attack, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Schwede66 02:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Proposed merger of Paramount Global and Skydance Media has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable, especially without having actually happened.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Moriwen (talk) 23:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I undid the speedy deletion solely because I believe it to be too controversial considering the opposition to blanking/redirecting it. Noah, BSBA^Talk 12:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Rather than resolving this in a few hours, this will now take a week. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 12:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw your piece on Christian theology in the US, tying together the Louisiana and Oklahoma situations. I think you are on the right track with this, please do flesh it out and keep building. Best regards, —tim //// Carrite (talk) 03:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Merger of Paramount Global and Skydance Media. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because Premature. Content should be added to main articles and split when appropriate.. 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. Reywas92^Talk 15:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence "the former United States president Donald Trump" is grammatically correct. If it were not the sentence "the American television show The Walking Dead" would also be grammatically incorrect. Clearly it is not; it is a perfectly ordinary sentence.

I encourage you to read about false titles and journalese. Wikipedia is not an American news website; we do not use false titles and shorthands to sensationalise the content of an article. It is also not a newspaper; we do not use them to save space, either.

All the best. Keeper of Albion (talk) 11:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 15 July 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Ruth Westheimer, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. —Bagumba (talk) 15:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Biden crisis 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/Biden crisis 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.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 13:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election 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/Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election 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.

Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 01:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election 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/Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election (2nd 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.

Qwirkle (talk) 04:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Biden crisis 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 July 29 § Biden crisis until a consensus is reached. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Response to the 2024 Venezuelan presidential election. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. 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. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Just telling you here that Death of Ismail Haniyeh, a page you made, has been merged with Assassination of Ismail Haniyeh as both articles were created at the same time, simply because the later was bigger. Have a good day! win8x (talking | spying) 03:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article was not larger and the title is not what it should be at the moment without any other reporting. This was very improper. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:23, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please note that Killing of Ismail Haniyeh is subject to 1RR, as it is within the scope of WP:PIA.

You are currently at 2 reverts within the past 24 hours:

1. 03:33, 31 July 2024 (reverts this edit)

1. 03:46, 31 July 2024 (reverts this edit)

I understand that articles on rapidly developing events can be chaotic and can lead to back-and-forth reverting at rates that are higher than typical for stable articles. However, please keep in mind that this sort of thing is a bit more strictly handled in the Arab-Israeli conflict area than it is in other areas.

Cheers,

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I explained both edits. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That being said, they are still reverts even if they are explained. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 31 July 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Killing of Ismail Haniyeh, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 12:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ElijahPepe. Thank you for your work on Petteway v. Galveston County. Another editor, Voorts, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Generally speaking, summarizing court opinions is OR because it involves interpreting the meaning of particular holdings. You should find reliable sources that summarize the holding of the case, of which there are many.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Voorts}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

voorts (talk/contributions) 21:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on 2024 stock market decline 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. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Sign up for the 2024 DCWC! — Non nobis solum ♠ 14:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 2024 Al-Asad Airbase attack, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL and missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2024 stock market decline 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/2024 stock market decline 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.

-- zzuuzz ^(talk) 06:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ElijahPepe,

Please do not create all of these articles that are just a blip on the nightly news. They seem to get tagged for an AFD discussion within a day and many of them are deleted. It's a waste of editors' time debating them. Have a better filter and only create articles on events that have lasting significance. That typically takes more than a few hours or a day to determine this. You aren't getting bonus points from creating these articles so quickly, in fact, it is damaging your reputation if the current AFD is any indication. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article History of The New York Times (1945–1998) 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 Lisha2037 -- Lisha2037 (talk) 21:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article History of The New York Times (1945–1998) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:History of The New York Times (1945–1998) for comments about the article, and Talk:History of The New York Times (1945–1998)/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 Lisha2037 -- Lisha2037 (talk) 21:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]