Fort Towson

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)[reply]

		Current Events Barnstar
		Thank you for the many articles you've created on current events. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 15:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ElijahPepe: Request deletion of this redirect as page "2024 New York's 3rd congressional district special election" is already up. Check your contributions! Type db-g7 inside {{}} in that redirect then save. Santiago Claudio (talk) 02:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was sad to see you reverted my redirect. I redirected it to the yearly article because a draft-article was already in the making (Draft:Tornado outbreak of December 9, 2023). I even explained that in the redirect message. I have now placed a PROD on the article and would like to ask if I may re-redirect the article and let the much better-shape draft replace it in the future. Basically, I also think an outbreak article is warrented, but the current draft-article was created first and is in a whole lot better shape than the stub you reverted back. Please, let me re-redirect it (cancelling the PROD) and let the better-shape draft get ready for mainspace. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the flow of information is greater in a separate article, there's nothing particularly disheartening about unredirecting it, and I mean zero ill-intentions. I read that you are honoring WP:0RR. At your discretion, you may redirect it again, as are alternative avenues; note that this is a developing situation that is garnering notability. You may also copy your content into the existing article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and re-did the redirect. If I was the only editor, I would have just copied it in. However, seven other editors have edited the draft article, so I couldn't just copy/paste it over to mainspace without the article history being merged, which is a little bit of a hassle to do. Either way, I really thank you for letting me redirect it. It wasn't because I don't think it should be an article, just rather that several other editors had been working on this particular draft, so the 1-sentence mainspace article you made just complicated things a little bit. Once again, thank you! Feel free to help out on the draft: Draft:Tornado outbreak of December 9, 2023! Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If other editors are working on that draft in a significant manner, a history merge is likely necessary. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the courage to be free

Thank you for quality articles such as Tucker Carlson Tonight and The Courage to Be Free, for articles about current events such as Enyobeni Tavern disaster and Loretta Lynn, for copy-editing and "should be good now", - Elijah Pepe you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2899 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I've been putting together a task force for the show community and thought you might be intrested given your contributions to Jeff Winger Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ElijahPepe, we need experienced volunteers.

• New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, it basically boils down to checking CSD, notability, and title). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us.
• If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions. You can apply for the user-right HERE.
• If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message at the reviewer's discussion board.
• Cheers, and hope to see you around.

Sent by NPP Coordination using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 22 December 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Substitute Teacher (Key & Peele), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Key & Peele sketch "Substitute Teacher" was analyzed for its racial commentary and educational insight? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Substitute Teacher (Key & Peele). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Substitute Teacher (Key & Peele)), 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) 00:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 14,662 views (610.9 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of December 2023 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:28, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Apple Watch health monitoring patent dispute 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/Apple Watch health monitoring patent dispute 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.

InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lloyd Austin hospitalization 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/Lloyd Austin hospitalization 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.

KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 21:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]