User talk:ElijahPepe

Nomination of June 2024 United States presidential debate for deletion
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 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)

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)

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)

April 2024
Hello. I have noticed that you 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 and the second removing, 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)
 * 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 &#124; contribs) 21:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Starbucks v. McKinney, etc.
How come you don't start those one-sentence articles in draftspace?  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 00:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * For the love of all that is holy, would you please use edit summaries, not just for semi-automated edits? How many times to we have to ask/tell/beg you to do that simple thing?  Acroterion   (talk)   03:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Starbucks v. McKinney moved to draftspace
Thanks for your contributions to Starbucks v. McKinney. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and lack of contents. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Cavarrone 15:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

News
I will say that even if the AN/I topic seems to have been obviously created out of spite, I do have a bit of (incredibly petty) spite myself, so I may as well tell you it. Several times I have heard about some breaking-news event, checked to see if there was an article on it, and been beaten to the punch by you -- which is perfectly fair, but I will see that you haven't written an actual article, it's just a plopped-out single sentence for the sake of bragging rights as the page creator. Now, I think most of us have done something like this at least once (and it's not like we have some sort of entitlement to a fair share of bragging rights) but you've done it like a hundred times. This certainly isn't grounds for actually having any sort of administrative action taken against you, but man, as an editor, I wish you'd save some for the rest of us! jp×g🗯️ 01:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * As I've stated before, I don't create articles for credit. I do so because it's important for everyone to be on the same page. I am admittedly swift with creating articles, but there are many cases where I have worked on articles that became articles before I could create them, such as XZ Utils backdoor. I have been busy in the last three weeks, and slightly burned-out from editing. Assuredly, I'll start creating articles with some foundation, which may work out better for everyone. There are several times that I have created a stub with the intention to expand it, but work has already been done for me when I get the chance. I may have put work on my plate that is unsustainable, including multiple rewrites. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Protest map
Great job with Template:April 2024 Israel–Hamas war protests on university campuses map. Can we have a different color for protests and one for encampments, besides the red one at Columbia. Purple maybe? I hope that makes sense. Thanks. Kire1975 (talk) 00:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

DYK nomination US university protests
Hey, thanks for the good job. Do you have plans to nominate the page for DYK? -- M h hossein   talk 20:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, actually I meant this one. Thanks anyway. -- M h hossein   talk 08:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

University protests
Hello, ElijahPepe,

I saw you moved a 2024 campus protest article to April 2024 campus protests page title. Are you expecting these protests to end today? Or are you planning on a different standalone article for each month of the year? Liz Read! Talk! 03:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The original title was the April 2024 one. I reverted a move by an editor who was involved in a move discussion. If you believe that the discussion is WP:SNOW, as the editor did, you are free to close that discussion and move it back. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

2024 Meizhou expressway collapse moved to draftspace
Thanks for your contributions to 2024 Meizhou expressway collapse. 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. thetechie@enwiki :  ~/talk/  $  03:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)


 * P.S. your signature does not link to your user page and/or your talk page, which I just realized, which is required by Wikipedia's signature rules.  thetechie@enwiki  :  ~/talk/  $  03:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @TheTechie Are you sure about that? Any page that's linked from itself acts weird (bolded and unlinked). I believe Elijah's signature links only to this talk page so it looks off here but normal everywhere else. Soni (talk) 04:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That might be it. I'm not sure, sorry if I startled you.  thetechie@enwiki  :  ~/talk/  $  14:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Kanye West series
Template:Kanye West series has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Israeli invasion of Rafah


Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Israeli invasion of Rafah. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Rafah offensive. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Rafah offensive. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions.  // Timothy :: talk  14:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Barron Trump
Hello! Your submission of Barron Trump at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! GMH Melbourne (talk) 05:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Samuel Alito flag display controversy for deletion
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 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)

WP3O
@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 &#32;Bookku   (talk) 07:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @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. &#32;Bookku    (talk) 02:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Barron Trump
Z1720 (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Barron Trump
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)

Nomination of Attack on Mette Frederiksen for deletion
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 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)

Reupload Conan image?
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)
 * I'll get to this when I can. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

MacOS Sequoia
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)

Nomination of Elon Musk vs. Mark Zuckerberg for deletion
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 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)

Proposed deletion of Proposed merger of Paramount Global and Skydance Media


The article Proposed merger of Paramount Global and Skydance Media has been proposed for deletion&#32;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 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 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)

Next UK election
I undid the speedy deletion solely because I believe it to be too controversial considering the opposition to blanking/redirecting it. Noah, BSBATalk 12:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)

Christian theology...
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)

Merger of Paramount Global and Skydance Media moved to draftspace
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. Reywas92Talk 15:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

False titles
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)

Nomination of Biden crisis for deletion
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 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)

Nomination of Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election for deletion
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 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)