User talk:ElijahPepe

Comment on my talk page

Comment something on my talk page. Don't forget to sign it!

Add a new comment

If you're logged out of Wikipedia, this will display your IP address.

Archives (Index)

1 2

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

"Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)

Your GA nomination of Substitute Teacher (Key & Peele)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Substitute Teacher (Key & Peele) 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 PCN02WPS -- PCN02WPS (talk) 05:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Substitute Teacher (Key & Peele)

The article Substitute Teacher (Key & Peele) 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:Substitute Teacher (Key & Peele) and Talk:Substitute Teacher (Key & Peele)/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of PCN02WPS -- PCN02WPS (talk) 05:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Substitute Teacher (Key & Peele)

The article Substitute Teacher (Key & Peele) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Substitute Teacher (Key & Peele) for comments about the article, and Talk:Substitute Teacher (Key & Peele)/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 PCN02WPS -- PCN02WPS (talk) 07:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Nytimes.com, January 2, 2024.png

⚠

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)

February 2024

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)

• Blanking out entire sections just because you don't agree with others is vandalism. Please do not do that. (I have not reverted you again out of respect for WP:3RR and similar policies, but the point stands regardless) Soni (talk) 02:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Blanking out sections is not vandalism, and having empty sections is acceptable. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

NY Times

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)

Elijah please, don't make any more edits to the article, or the sub-articles for the next couple of days. Let's make a plan on the talk page so that we can all work on this together. Will you please do this? Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I certainly plan to expand the ledes and would really prefer to start working on the virtual reality section tomorrow. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

How about instead of doing that, you suggest your plans on the talk page? That way we can see if other editors agree with them, or perhaps there's another way to structure the content that you haven't thought of. Don't frame it in terms of "this is what needs to be done" as you did in this reply, or "I have determined" as you did in this reply. Remember, collaboration is what makes good articles, and framing it in those absolute terms encourage collaboration. Instead you should make suggestions, ask people how the feel about structuring content in a certain way, and leave it open ended so that others can give feedback and suggest alternatives that might be better than what you think of.

It's going to be a lot easier to collaborate with those of us who are willing now than with the feedback you'll get during a GA and/or FA review. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Adding content to a one-sentence section is not controversial .elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Right now we don't know if the article is going to keep that section. We haven't discussed what the structure and content of the Online platforms article will be. We don't need to be adding any more content to the main article right now while we're planning what will become of it and all of the sub-articles. The only thing we need right now is for you to start talking on the article talk page, so that we can plan this properly together. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia ANI notification

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)

Nomination of 2024 Beechcraft Bonanza V35 crash for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2024 Beechcraft Bonanza V35 crash 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 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)

Drawbacks

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)

Yes, that has been noted. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

wow ok..draft space probably best to build till ready......in the meantime expect there to be sources concerns form others . Good luck. Moxy- 16:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

March 2024 GAN backlog drive

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
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)

Edit warring

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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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)

Given your responses on the talkpage and your edit-summary-less restoration after being asked to explain what you're doing (the self-revert was a good idea, the absence of explanation was not), I've blocked you from the article so you can spend the necessary time to explain what you're trying to accomplish on the talkpage and gain consensus for it. Acroterion (talk) 02:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Some feedback

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)

I hold no vitriol against any of the editors in that talk page. I have attempted to construct the greatest possible article, and I could not achieve that without the work of other editors. Unfortunately, my intentions have been misconstrued; I'm seeking understanding for everyone here. This article is reaching the level of incongruency that had adversely affected the article prior to the rewrite and the work that I had done to standardize it has been disregarded with my perspective. My work has not been appreciated—certainly not now, and it will likely not be me who takes this article to good or featured article, then. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of 2028 Democratic Party presidential primaries for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2028 Democratic Party presidential primaries 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/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)

Nomination of 2028 Republican Party presidential primaries for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2028 Republican Party presidential primaries 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/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)

Nomination of Trump v. United States (2024) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Trump v. United States (2024) 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/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)

Nomination of Initial public offering of Arm Holdings for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Initial public offering of Arm Holdings 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/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)

Your GA nomination of Disney–Charter Communications dispute

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)

Orphaned non-free image File:Akira Toriyama in 1982.jpg

⚠

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)

Your GA nomination of Disney–Charter Communications dispute

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)

Your GA nomination of History of The New York Times (1851–1896)

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)

Your GA nomination of History of The New York Times (1896–1945)

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)

Your GA nomination of History of The New York Times (1896–1945)

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)

"reverted for having no summary"

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)

Your GA nomination of Removal of Sam Altman from OpenAI

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)

Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act

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)

I personally do not see the point in points, but any help is welcome. If I were to comment on your writing style, include a few commas. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

The points are for the competition WP:CUP Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Good news it was approved! Very quickly as well Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Would you be interested in presuing a GA for this article? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Good idea, though I would hold off on nominating until Maria Cantwell's provisions are implemented. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Removal of Sam Altman from OpenAI

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)

@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)

@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)

Orphaned non-free image File:Nytimes.com, February 2, 2024.png

⚠

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)

Your GA nomination of Removal of Sam Altman from OpenAI

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)

Boeing manufacturing issues

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)

It's not my article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I just wanted to ask since you contributed a majority of the content. Given the current scope of the article, I will go ahead with a merge discussion. - ZLEA _T\^C 05:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I reject a merge discussion. The scope has been established. Contributing most of the content does not mean this is my article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not making WP:OWN accusations, if that's what you're implying. You did, however, create the article and contribute most of its content, so I was hoping to determine what you originally intended the scope to be. Next time, you might consider creating the article as a draft to allow others to help write it before being moved to the mainspace. Whatever you intended the scope to be, the article currently only covers manufacturing issues with the 737 MAX, and I have seen no one has express interest in expanding the scope to other Boeing types in the near future. Therefore, I believe it is best to merge with Boeing 737 MAX until someone is prepared to write the article to cover similar issues with more Boeing types. - ZLEA _T\^C 19:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Where is Kate? for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Where is Kate? 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/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)

One sentence articles

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)

The editing process works best when an article is out there and can be expanded by others in real-time, rather than one editor writing content independently. There is no assumption that the article will permanently be one sentence, and I have always linked to articles first to gather editors. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

My bad

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)

Your GA nomination of History of The New York Times (1998–2016)

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)

DYK for Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act

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.

Schwede66 12:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of History of The New York Times (1998–2016)

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)

@AirshipJungleman29: You failed to provide where the close paraphrasing was. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

There is a table with an example at the top of the review. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I handled the example. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

April 2024

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

Removing unused references is not in good faith, apparently. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:15, 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.

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

ANI notice

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)

Nomination of 2024 New Jersey earthquake for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2024 New Jersey earthquake 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 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)

Your GA nomination of Conan O'Brien Needs a Doctor While Eating Spicy Wings

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)

Nomination of 2023 Nevada air ambulance crash for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2023 Nevada air ambulance crash 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/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)