User talk:WeatherWriter/Archive 1

A barnstar for you!

 * I appreciate the star. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

A message from Ed6767 about RedWarn


Hello RedWarn tester! I hate to reitterate, but thank you so much for being willing to test RedWarn, I really appreciate it.

In the past few updates, I have added AIV (admin) reporting, a preferences panel, themes, customisation options and made many, many bug fixes and added many features based on your suggestions and feedback.

Unfortunately, recently feedback has run dry.

Even if you do not use RedWarn at the moment, or you do (tysm), I would greatly appreciate feedback of any kind. While I go round Twinkle users, sounding like that broadband salesperson in the mall that nobody ever wants to speak to, I'd like some updated feedback from recent and current users.

Any sort of feedback below would be greately appreciated!


 * Your first impressions when you tried RedWarn?
 * How have you used RedWarn as time has gone on?
 * Would you value customisation features, such as macros or shortcuts, such as adding your own quick revert reasons so the tool can fit your exact editing practices?
 * Any suggestions for how I could promote the tool to a wider audience?
 * Would you appreciate a more developed and thorough user guide?
 * Any theme suggestions?
 * Anything you'd like changing?
 * Something you've always wanted to see in an anti-vandal tool? (I might add it!)
 * RedWarn app?
 * A way to introduce Recent Changes patrol to new users to make using RedWarn or other tools less daunting?
 * Any bugs, gripes, or things that just really annoy you about RedWarn?

Click the button below to begin a new section on the talk page

My goal is to create the most user friendly moderation tool, and that's why I need your feedback to help make this truely the most favorable anti-vandal tool. While we will never elliminate vandalism on this site, we can get closer to fighting it quickly and easily.

Many thanks for your continued support. Ed6767 (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

If you do not wish to get these feedback reminders, let me know on my talk page.

RfCs
Hey, just for the record, it's not actually a vote. We don't vote here except in a very few cases, like arbcom elections. We call an RfC discussion a !vote, which we render as 'not-vote'. It kind of looks like a vote, but numbers don't really matter much, even if it seems like consensus is strongly in one direction. What matters is the arguments being made and supported by policy. In the rare case you had 10 people saying, "Yes, I think we should keep that" and 3 saying "No, this is a BLP privacy violation per WP:BLP", an experienced, well-intentioned closer would quite likely close it as No because the Yes !votes hadn't supported their opinion with policy and the No !votes had. —valereee (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah. Thanks for that information.  Didn't even know what Rfc's where. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * D Always something on WP that someone else knows and I didn't even realize exists. Literally I've only in the past couple years started to feel like I at least know what I don't know. :D —valereee (talk) 19:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

new items for contemporary history
hi! I created some new items to help with documenting contemporary history. open to any feedback. thanks!

here they are:


 * 2020s in political history
 * Template: 2020s in political history

--Sm8900 (talk) 23:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Invite!
Consider accepting this invite, and welcome to the WikiProject Tropical cyclones! It looks like that you have some interests given with your involvement of some people within WikiProject Tropical cyclones (of course given you're an aspiring meteorologist - I'm not but I LOVE watching tropical cyclones for pretty long now)  SMB9 9thx   my edits  11:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Welcome!!
I'm glad that you finally joined us.  SMB9 9thx   my edits  01:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

useful script
Hey, E&S, there's a super-useful script at User:Headbomb/unreliable which will turn all the sources for an article different colors depending on their reliability per WP:RSNP. IMDb, twitter, wordpress, youtube get highlighted in a dull pink by it. It's very useful when you add something, then see it turn colors, it tells you to investigate. For instance not everything on youtube is a problem; many news organizations' official youtube accounts post clips, and those would be RS. Forbes turns yellow because some of their pieces are by "contributors" instead of staff. —valereee (talk) 18:33, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Impeachment resolutions.
I realise, you & the other fellow are passionate about the 'impeachment resolutions' topic. Would be helpful, if one of you began an RFC on the entire topic. Setting a precedent would be helpful, not only at the DeWine & Whitmer bio articles, but for other bios. GoodDay (talk) 13:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for the Rfc recommendation. I began one here.  Elijahandskip (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Should be on the topic-in-general, not just the DeWine article. Afterall, impeachment resolutions could (potentially) be brought against any official. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory
Hello:

I've just begun the copy edit you requested at the GOCE of the article Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory.

I wonder if you could clarify what you had in mind with this phrase "Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory"? The article is divided into sections/subsections that appear logical to me.

Thanks,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 15:23, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * , Thanks for the Copy Edit. IMO, I actually don't agree with that phrase, but per Rfc's and discussions on reliable sources that involved nearly a hundred editors and some of the admins, the majority of sources (That are considered reliable) call the allegations false, so the Rfc's determined that "conspiracy theory" would best suit the article. Not much else I can say other than that. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm an idiot! I meant "massive formatting session". Sorry! Your thoughts? Twofingered Typist (talk) 16:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Ah no problem, lol. So in general, the article just seems to have a lot of paragraphs that are either really large or really small.  Some of the smaller paragraphs are like 2-3 sentences.  The sections/subsections are logical, but the formatting inside the subsections is weird due to the nature of the information itself.  I read it a few times before submitting for a copy-edit, but I couldn't find a way to combine some of the smaller sections or split up the larger sections.  Also, the "New York Post Reporting" section is 8 paragraphs before a sub section.  Not sure if that should or could be broken into one or two subsections.  Hopefully all that made sense and also feel free to ping me if you have any more questions.  Elijahandskip (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Impeachment resolution against Gretchen Whitmer
That page should have been deleted along with the article. -- Doug Weller talk 15:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * , I didn't do the deletion. You would have to ask the admin who did.  I don't know why it wasn't deleted. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I was just explaining why I deleted it. -- Doug Weller talk 20:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Ah ok. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory
Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

I have added section headings which I think break up the New York Post reporting section in a manner that makes it much easier to read. I only had to move one sentence to have it all make sense. I hope you agree with this. I mention this on the article's Talk Page in case it's an issue.

In the new Laptop and hard drive section, unless I'm blind, the citation used in the first sentence of the last paragraph did not cite the information. I found and added a NY Post article that does. Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for the copy edit . Elijahandskip (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden
Thank you for checking in with me on my talk page about my flagging of Impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden for deletion. I very much understand all of your points. In that vein, I am trying to contribute as much as possible to the page, and revise it to bring it to the highest standards of quality. While we may, at least for the moment, disagree on certain aspects of its validity, we both absolutely want Wikipedia to carry the best articles. Please let me know if there's anything I can do to help with this or in the future. PickleG13 (talk) 23:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Current Events Timing
Not specifically regarding the Coup in Myanmar, but under the about page on Current Events, it clearly states:
 * Stories should be added under the date in which they occurred in local time. Most sources indicate the day of the week in which an event occurred.

I am unsure as to why you assume that news should be reported in UTC (because it is the default Wiki time?). (61.200.33.99 (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC))


 * I was coming here to write the same. The guidance says stories should be added under the date on which they occurred in local time. The coup attempt began between 3 and 5 a.m. local time on February 1. Johndavies837 (talk) 01:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I completely forgot. I had been editing the tornado articles lately and my brain was in that mode which is UTC time but local date.  All fixed. Elijahandskip (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

"Wikipedia minimum death of 4"
Hey! You mentioned on Articles for deletion/Muskogee home shooting that there is a "Wikipedia minimum death of 4". Would you mind directing me to where exactly Wikipedia dictates that? I don't recall seeing anything like that anywhere in Wikipedia's rules that I am aware of. Thank you! Love of Corey (talk) 01:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello. I just spent the last 20 minutes looking through my contributions and I can't find the thing that specifically states that.  If I remember correctly, in the early-mid part of 2020 I was involved in a lot of Afd discussions.  I am thinking I saw someone (admin maybe?  or non admin) use Bare notability and use a comment like 4 deaths is normally the minimum for a semi-routine things like a shooting/weather event (not earthquake) to have some notability.  It really is all "judge on an as needed" basis, but since I revived the Current Event WikiProject 10 months ago, I have been using that philosophy. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. Thanks for the clarification. Love of Corey (talk) 06:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Osaka Nana Grave
Hello, Elijahandskip. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Osaka Nana Grave, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Bot0612 (talk) 02:52, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Mention of my username of your userpage
I wish to have my username be removed from your userpage as the comments made about me are unconstructive. As I explained on my talk page weeks ago, I was not referring to your vote in the Impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden AfD as a !Supervote and my comments were not constructed towards you. I knew you had closed the AfD by mistake as you quickly reverted it, I was merely wondering why the article had already been merged by BD2412. On my talk page I simply was giving friendly advice for closings of AfD discussions you are involved in so you can avoid such a mess in the future. Outside of the Impeachment inquiry AfD I have not have much of an interaction with you and I do not see how we will run into conflict with each other again. Regards, JayJayWhat did I do? 03:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I removed your name. I added it during the whole discussion of Afd and whatnot.  Honestly, the list is more for Admins as 3 of those people have tried to get me banned from editing.  We haven't had conflicts in a while, so I am perfectly fine and happy to remove you from the list.  Hope we get to edit together some time in the future. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, Elijahandskip. I've been concerned for a while about this list. Not just because my username is included, but also because your list accuses editors of having "show[n] a strong biased on a talk page or edit summary" and "hav[ing] a potential to have edit wars with Elijahandskip". I don't know the context in which you added the other editors, but I can assure you I have no particular ill-feelings towards you. I've voted against your articles at AfD based on my understanding of our policies, not my personal opinion of you as an editor. We haven't interacted much, but I've been critical of some of your actions in the spirit of constructive feedback when I've felt it's important.
 * I'm not sure the list will help you in the way you hope it will (admins won't disregard your interactions with certain editors simply because you've stated that you think they're biased) and writing these unevidenced accusations on your userpage is not very conducive to a friendly, collaborative atmosphere. It's unpleasant for editors to see their names listed this way or associated with behaviour such as edit warring. Sometimes I too come across editors who I frequently disagree with, whose input I feel is unhelpful or whose personal views I think significantly affects their judgement. Occasionally I may express concern directly to them, but I wouldn't add their names to a list of editors I consider 'bad' on my userpage. I hope you'll consider removing that section. Jr8825  •  Talk  04:52, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Elijahandskip, the following content on your user page is inappropriate:

Especially in combination with the first sentence, the second sentence is a series of aspersions, which is a form of personal attack. Please remove this paragraph from your user page. —  Newslinger  talk   06:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I see what you mean to a degree, but I do not see that at all. I will agree to remove Nirvanaoreilly, Alsoriano97 and Jr8225, but the others I will keep.  They have personally attacked me with multiple attempts to get me banned from editing Wikipedia.  I see nothing wrong with making a statement that says "Please disregard non-productive conversations between me and them" as it has and will continue to happen.  Both have wanted me banned for the last 5 months and just about anytime I cross their path a new attempt to get me banned happens. The list, to me, helps anyone new to a conversation, if they check user pages to see who they are talking to, might know that me and these 2 users will most likely have a massive conflict. So no, I will not remove the sentences, but I will remove the names that are unnecessary. Elijahandskip (talk) 13:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, on your point about aspersions, here is one for you. I asked a question on a talk page.  Just a question to start a discussion.  30 minutes later, I apparently crossed the path of one of those users and I had a message on my talk page about a adminboard notice, aka, an attempt to get me banned on Wikipedia.  So the list, in my opinion, isn't aspersions, but instead a warning for other users if they see us fighting. Elijahandskip (talk) 13:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Wait, I just discovered that is an admin. Yes I will remove the sentences, but I won't be happy by it. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for removing the paragraph, Elijahandskip. The part that definitely needed to be removed was the list of usernames, and you can keep any portion of the remaining text that is not prohibited under WP:POLEMIC. However, if you ever find yourself in a user conduct dispute on a noticeboard, you will likely be treated more favorably by the community if you keep divisive material off of your user page altogether – regardless of whether it violates any policies or guidelines. What you choose to keep on your user page is your choice, of course, as long as it meets all of the policies and guidelines.
 * The guideline that most directly applies to this situation is WP:POLEMIC, and if you search the administrators' noticeboard archives for "WP:POLEMIC", you can get a sense of how other editors react to this type of content. The reception is almost always negative. By removing the paragraph, you have done yourself a great favor by eliminating a source of controversy that may arise if you ever need to participate in an incidents discussion in the future. —  Newslinger  talk   15:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I would like to note that in addition to naming me in his list, Elijahandskip has also attempted to smear me on his blog, and removed it only upon my request. This does not make it easy to AGF in his activity here. soibangla (talk) 19:35, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow. I said sorry for that now like 3 times.  This is exactly why I had that on my user page.  This conversation is disruptive to us editing Wikipedia.  Let us move on and be friendly. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Removal request
Your profile page section "Outside Wikipedia Recognition" includes a link to what you acknowledge is a fake news site that makes significant misrepresentations about me. As with the link you were asked to exclude, I ask you exclude that one, too. In fact, it's just not good form to even mention this kind of external trashtalk about other editors. soibangla (talk) 01:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I actually sent a request into an admin a few hours ago to review the links and see if they truly (aka directly) break Wiki policy. Honestly, you still seem to have beef with me after I apologized (the message above slightly shows that "trashtalk about other editors" is a nice touch after you have tried multiple times to trash talk me in front of admins even after I said sorry multiple times).  If the admin comes back and says it directly breaks a Wiki policy, I will remove it.  But since it is you asking, I won't.  Hopefully you understand. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I don't understand, actually. It reinforces my doubts about your judgment. soibangla (talk) 02:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I don't see how I can't have a link that shows that I was mentioned by other people outside of Wikipedia, but you are perfectly allowed to hash things that happened months ago back up and not get warned for it. To me, you sound more hypocritic that anything.  I will remove the link if you can provide a direct wiki policy that it breaks.  Unless it lists personal details (like the first did, which I was ok removing), my defense to keep them is that it is recognition about me that I was important enough to talk about outside of Wikipedia.  Elijahandskip (talk) 02:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Stop Biden Agenda for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Stop Biden Agenda 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/Stop Biden Agenda 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. Jr8825 •  Talk  18:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Osaka Nana Grave


Hello, Elijahandskip. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Osaka Nana Grave".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 19:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:NPOV
Please stop creating slanted, Fox News based articles. I see above that another one, Stop Biden Agenda was deleted days ago, and now you try to create Draft:Cancellation of Dr. Seuss which is a NPOV amalgamation of Fox News anti-Biden propaganda and an opinion piece on the one hand, and articles which don't discuss the loaded "cancellation" or blame it on Biden, but discuss the decision from the publisher to no longer publish some potentially racist or problematic books. Fram (talk) 13:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * do you hear yourself? The information is from AP News, NBC, ABC, WSJ.  Those are not at all "right wing news" and they are considered RS.  Please stop the vandalism or be reported. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * None of these discuss the "cancellation" of Seuss or claim that it started on March 1 with Biden. You are writing this in a WP:BLP violating manner, as a sensationalist tabloid piece targeted at a person instead of a neutral discussion of the facts, based on neutral sources. Fram (talk) 14:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The WSJ one is an opinion piece, not a RS. Fram (talk) 14:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note how neither ABC nor NBC nor the School Library Journal even mention Biden? Or that the de-emphasizing started years ago, the decision to pull these books was taken late lst year, and the Loudoun County decision was from last year as well? But still Fox (and Wikipedia, as written by you) decides that the "cancellation" of Seuss was started yesterday by Joe Biden? Please explain how this is not a WP:NPOV and WP:BLP violation. Fram (talk) 14:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Admin Board Notice started. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Important message
— Paleo Neonate  – 15:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Another thought for you
I don't know if you will receive any sanctions as a result of the thread at AN, but I just wanted to make a small observation, which you are free to ignore. You seem interested both in sharp-elbowed political editing (which is fine, when done within guidelines) and also as being part of Wikipedia's public-facing apparatus, through current events and whatnot. Those two things tend to stand in tension with one another. Where things are likely to be seen by many passersby is where we should necessarily be the most cautious and circumspect. It might be best if you focus your energies one way or the other, but again, just a thought. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Request
would it be too much to ask if you could create a new perm link for the ban above that includes the 3000+ byte message I made? Over the next few months as people see that, I don't want people to think I was lying about it. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. El_C 19:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Elijahandskip
''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.''

''To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).''


 * Appealing user : – Elijahandskip (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

User talk:Elijahandskip (Notice) Administrators' noticeboard (Discussion to cause it)
 * Sanction being appealed : post-1992 American politics (WP:AP2) for 6 months


 * Administrator imposing the sanction :


 * Notification of that administrator : The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Elijahandskip
So the ban in my opinion was too quick. I had been asked by an admin to explain what my mistakes were. I was edit conflicted so I didn't get my 3,000+ byte message out. I might have misunderstood what Girth was telling me, but from what I got, I was creating a message to prevent the ban from happening. The arbitration sanction (ban) came 1 minute after my very long message. My appeal is just for the timing of it all as didn't get to read the message I had sent to Girth. Also, the perm link above does not have my long message, which can be seen in the discussion listed above. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Formally withdrawing the appeal. Can you close it ? Elijahandskip (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Statement by El C
For my part, I am declining your appeal. There has to be some consequences for recent troubling editing in this fraught topic area. That said, as I noted in that AN discussion just now, if consensus is that the sanction should be adjusted, including lifting it outright, I will amend it accordingly. El_C 18:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Girth Summit
I truly think this TBan is in Elijahandskip's best interests, and those of the project. Girth Summit  (blether) 18:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Cullen 328
I've now read the histories and deletion discussions of a variety of political articles created by this editor, including the shockingly incompetent Bidenism and agree that this editor should not be involved with American politics articles for at least six months and possibly much longer. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  19:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Elijahandskip

 * This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.



March 2021
I see you behaving aggressively at User talk:Beyond My Ken. That is a really bad idea. Your account name looks an awful lot like a violation of the username policy, and you should expect other editors to mention it unless you change it. I am not going to block you for it, but I will block you if you go around looking for a fight. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  01:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I wasn't looking for a fight. I was asking a question.  Also, it is 1 person and I can provide proof if I have too.  It is a pen name I use.  Elijahandskip (talk) 01:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Isos Acquisition Corp


A tag has been placed on Isos Acquisition Corp requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. JayJay</b><sup style="color:black">What did I do? 20:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Isos Acquisition Corp
Hello Elijahandskip,

You asked me for some advice and on March 3, I gave you some. One thing I recommended is that you avoid creating crappy articles. You wrote Isos Acquisition Corp on March 4, which got speedy deleted. The relevant guideline is Notability (organizations and companies), and I see no significant coverage of this company in independent, reliable sources. All I see is press releases and directory listings. Why did you think that there ought to be an article about this company? <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  22:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , Honestly, at first I thought that because it was a public traded company that it had automatic notability.  (Sorry for the ping Jay) actually explained the Notability (organizations and companies) to me and I now fully understand it.  One of my first thoughts to help me start getting away from the US politics stuff was to create articles for business's, which I still can, and I now understand more of the notability requirements for businesses.  But year, thanks for the original recommendations on the 3rd.  I am trying to get away from "crappy articles", but it was a habit for me because of my work with current events.  Not talking about politic articles that are "current events", but I mean like disaster stubs.  I use to update and create a lot of those and then other editors helped me edit it since it was a brand new disaster that was or just happened. I still got some progress to make, so any recommendations you ever have for me, please drop them on my talk page.  I really want to learn and grow on Wikipedia so I can possible gain a good reputation instead of the weird good/bad one I have now. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello!
I saw your contribution at Talk:Voyager Station and yes it seems pretty strange and I think to draftify would be good. In this strange times it could be just type of scam or attention seeking. 109.93.20.87 (talk) 05:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Topic ban violation
Hi. You have a topic ban on "editing articles related to Post-1992 US politics". This means that your ProD of Nicholas A. Jones("...ran for election to the US House for the First Congressional District of Idaho. He lost in the primary on June 2, 2020.") was a violation of your topic ban.

Please be more careful and avoid editing such articles completely. Fram (talk) 08:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * God Damnit. There goes all my progress.  Going to revert my edit on his article now.  Thanks for the alert  and I hope you don't use that as an excuse to get me a longer T-Ban.  I didn't even see that he was a politician.  I was patrolling new articles that day.  Elijahandskip (talk) 10:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I don't tend to try to get people blocked for what seemed like a genuine mistake. Not everyone will take the same approach probably, but the admins who would go for a block or a longer TBAn for one violation like this will be the exception. Fram (talk) 11:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Please stop giving poor advice to other editors
I noticed your attempts to advise User:TableSalt342, which completely missed the actual problems with their articles, and focused on stuff which wasn't a problem or only a minor issue instead. I see that you also presented yourself to User:Withmedarlene as "n editor with years of experience"  claiming that all that is needed is to tone down the promotionalism of the article, and to insert the refs from the bottom as inline refs. What you at least should have noticed is that the first ref is a wiki, the second ref is a link to Wikipedia, the third ref is a link to wikia, the fourth ref is a primary source, the fifth ref is again that first wiki, the 7th ref is a primary source, the 8th one is a press release, the 9th one doesn't work, and the 11th one is a passing mention. Which leaves us with at most 2 sources to actually work with, which may well be not enough to get this accepted; and with a lot of wiki or dubious sources which aren't acceptable in any case. Just saying that "once the formatting errors are completed, then I believe a reviewer will accept the draft. " is only giving the editor false hope and poor advice. Fram (talk) 08:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok I see the problems I missed on the advice to Withmedarlene. If you call all the advice "false hope" though, why did you not just delete the draft or start an Afd on the spot? I didn't agree with anything TableSalt342 was saying about you having a biased or anything, however, with the amount of "fuss" you are putting on me for missing a few things of advice, it would have been easier for you to just remove some of the bad links.  Don't ya think so?  Maybe let that sink in some.  I at least tried to help (and I feel like I helped some).  You seem to just be putting him and me down for no reason.  I know you probably don't intend to come across like that, but you are.  Elijahandskip (talk) 10:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Me correcting the draft doesn't solve the problem of you, with your "years of experience" (1 1/2 year and lots of problems), offering bad advice to people. I am not putting Withmedarlene down, I am trying to stop you from doing things you aren't any good in. Oh, and I can't delete articles, and AfD is not allowed for drafts. So, er, thanks for the advice I guess? Fram (talk) 11:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)