User talk:WeatherWriter/Archive 2

Instructions

Portal:Current_events/Edit_instructions: "If a news item is part of a larger event, list it under a subheader consisting of a link to the larger event. Don't create subheaders linking to general topics or lists." 2021 Myanmar protests and COVID-19 pandemic are examples of events, which is why they are listed, but EuroAsia Interconnector or something like terrorism in France is not an event. Similarly, women in the Catholic Church is not an event, so it should not be a subheading for today. 188.148.229.11 (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@188.148.229.11:, not sure if you (the person who sent the previous message) will get the ping or if someone else will clear it since the edit was done on an IP. The news article is part of a "larger event". The idea was started back in 2010. This agreement isn't the entire point of the article, just a major point in it. So the way it is now (with EuroAsia Interconnector linked above and the news part linked in the 2nd line) is the correct way it should be. If you have any more questions, please feel free to ask away. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Elijahandskip! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Where is the best place to ask for formatting help, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Elijahandskip! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, How do you tell when an article reaches a new class, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

2nd issue of The Frozen Times!

Volume II, Issue 2, March 15, 2021 ←(Previous issues) 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 → The Frozen Times The Frozen Times is the semi-regular newsletter of WikiProject Non-tropical storms. The newsletter aims to summarize recent developments and activities in the WikiProject, in addition to recent extratropical cyclone activity on a global scale. The Frozen Times has been running since its revival in March 2021, although the first issue was published in February 2008. If you wish to receive or discontinue subscription to this newsletter, please visit the mailing list. This issue of The Frozen Times covers all project-related events from February 2008–March 14, 2021. This edition's authors and editors are MarioJump83, HurricaneCovid, Shift674, and LightandDark2000. Past editions can be viewed here.

WikiProject Non-tropical storms: News and Developments On the heels of the WikiProject Tropical cyclones revival from 2018–2020, MarioJump83 and LightandDark2000 took the initiative to formally revive this WikiProject on January 15, 2021. Not long afterward, on February 7, 2021, the WikiProject community came to the decision to revive the project newsletter as well. We decided to model the entire WikiProject after WPTC, following a similar format and creating similar project pages for use on WPNTS, since the two projects are closely tied. There was also general agreement among the active editors on WPNTS to coordinate work with WPTC, given the numerous overlaps between the two WikiProjects. On February 4, 2021, the WPTC and WPNTS communities came together to include WPNTS articles in WPTC's annual competition, the Cyclone Cup, based on a suggestion from HurricaneCovid. The decision was made as a result of agreement between editors over how non-tropical storms (nor'easters, European windstorms, etc.) are cyclones too, and thus merit inclusion as well. WPNTS editors are now allowed and encouraged to participate in the Cyclone Cup, regardless of whether those editors are a part of WPTC or not. Currently, a number of WPNTS users are participating in the Cup, and we hope you will too! On February 8, 2021, MarioJump83 introduced our project barnstar, which was accordingly named The Extra-Tropical Cyclone Barnstar. It was named based on a pun in which the "Tropical" word in The Tropical Cyclone Barnstar became more 'tropical', so much that it turned The Tropical Cyclone Barnstar to brown. (Hence the name "Extra-Tropical" and the brown cyclone icon). Since there were no barnstars that were shaped like a comma in the Meteorology barnstars category, we had to take one which is available. On February 24, 2021, we came to the decision to model the project newsletter after the WPTC newsletter, The Hurricane Herald. The first step of that was to give our newsletter a name. Agreement was reached on February 24 to use LightandDark2000's suggested name, The Frozen Times, as the name of the WPNTS newsletter. HurricaneCovid assisted in the creation of the logo for the newsletter, and MarioJump83 aided the endeavor as well. On March 9, 2021, HurricaneCovid first introduced the idea of modeling North American winter articles after tropical cyclone season articles. While a few editors rejected the idea at first, by the next day most users had shown their support for it and the plan was implemented. The improvements were done over a period of 3 days, mainly by HurricaneCovid and MarioProtIV, and involved the creation or modification of several templates, including a timeline, some new infoboxes, and a button template. The implementation of these new templates has only been completed in one season article, and is still unfinished in most. New articles since the last newsletter The number of new articles since the last issue are innumerable. Thus, we will not be able to list them all here. New GAs since the last newsletter Braer Storm Snow Low-pressure area Subtropical cyclone December 1960 nor'easter December 1992 nor'easter December 2000 nor'easter February 1969 nor'easter January 1992 nor'easter Rainband Wet season Winter of 1946–47 in the United Kingdom 2008 Super Tuesday tornado outbreak Waterspout Cyclogenesis 1991 Perfect Storm Mediterranean tropical-like cyclone Tropical Storm Rolf Member of The Edition Featured members – MarioProtIV and HurricaneCovid MarioProtIV joined Wikipedia in 2014, although his activity really ramped up in late 2015. He formally joined this WikiProject in early February 2021, just after its revival. Since and before formally joining, he has been one of the most prolific editors in non-tropical storm articles, particularly being a major part of getting 2020–21 North American winter to greater quality and taking the initiative to constantly update the article, as well as other separate winter storm articles. He has also participated in and started several discussions within WPNTS, further influencing the quality of current event articles in the WikiProject. We would like to thank him for his outstanding work, and therefore jointly give him the Member of The Edition award. HurricaneCovid joined Wikipedia in March 2020, though he began working with weather-related articles and joined WPTC in November. He joined WPNTS in January 2021, just before its revival, although he had begun actively editing extratropical cyclone articles in December 2020. He has been doing constant work on 2020–21 North American winter throughout the North American winter season so far. He has helped write much of the article, with aid from MarioProtIV, as well as numerous other articles for the most major storms. He was present throughout the barrage of winter storms and the Arctic air outbreak in North America, in mid-February, creating most of the articles for storms in that period. He also helped with the revival of the WikiProject, and it was partially his idea to model this newsletter after The Hurricane Herald. For his consistent work to WPNTS, we are jointly giving him the Member of The Edition award for this issue. Project revivers – LightandDark2000 and MarioJump83 LightandDark2000 joined Wikipedia as an IP editor in May 2009, although he didn't register an user account until 3 years later, in May 2012. He became active on WPTC and WPNTS in 2013, formally joining the projects in 2014 and 2016, respectively. He is one of the most-senior active members on WPNTS, as most of the active participants joined in 2020 or 2021. Soon after formally joining, he largely stopped editing Wikipedia on storm-related articles, turning his attention to MILHIST from 2014–2017, and later took numerous WikiBreaks in 2016 and in 2019–2020, due to real-life activities and college. However, he began making a return to Wikipedia in July 2020, and since then, he has made a full return. In December 2020, he returned to WPNTS, with the start of the climatological winter in North America. He became a main part of the revival and resurrection of WPNTS from January–February 2021, assisting in efforts to revamp the project and helping to coordinate it. During this time, he continued his work on WPNTS articles, including during a historic outbreak of cold temperatures and a barrage of back-to-back winter storms in North America, in February. For his aid in the revival of this WikiProject, and his work on WPNTS articles, we are jointly giving him a modification of the MoTE award. MarioJump83 first joined Wikipedia in 2013 as SMB99thx, although they first began working with storm-related articles in August 2020. They joined WPNTS in November 2020, quickly becoming the main coordinator and most active user in terms of getting the project restarted. They did outstanding work in terms of modeling the project after WPTC, with the aid of LightandDark2000, and got the project's act together. They took the initiative to formally restart the project in January 2021, and continued work restoring, improving, and creating project pages, including this newsletter. LightandDark2000 was along every step of the way, and helped out MarioJump83 create and improve project pages, modeling after WPTC. We would like to thank their outstanding work in getting the WikiProject together, and are thus jointly giving them a version of the MoTE award. For the time being, there will be no user nominations, as this WikiProject is currently relatively small; however, once we gain enough participants, we will begin nominating members for MoTE. Storms of The Edition over the last five newsletters Period Storm February 2008–March 14, 2021 February 13–17, 2021 North American winter storm (Winter Storm Uri) December 2007–February 2008 January 2008 North American storm complex Storm of The Edition – February 13–17, 2021 North American winter storm (Winter Storm Uri) The February 13–17, 2021 North American winter storm, also referred to as Winter Storm Uri, was a strong and destructive winter storm that affected areas from the West Coast of the United States, through the Deep South and Northern Mexico, to the Northeast and Eastern Canada. The second of three major winter storms to affect the continent within the month, the system originated as a powerful low-pressure area in the Pacific and came ashore as a frontal system on February 13. The system then dived southward along a trough in the polar jet stream, while also strengthening, and began producing snowfall in the Deep South. The storm system then began expanding in terms of size, and the main low spawned a secondary low in the Gulf of Mexico, off the coast of Florida on February 15. As the storm grew more organized, it spawned another low pressure center to the north on February 16, which quickly became the main low-pressure center. When the system exited the continent early on February 17, almost 75% of the continental U.S. was covered in snow, which almost broke a record. The newest low moved up the coast of Nova Scotia, beginning to strengthen faster along the way. It then began to quickly intensify, while approaching landfall on Newfoundland, reaching a central pressure of 985 millibars (29.1 inHg) by 12:00 UTC on that day. The system then began meandering across the Atlantic, while proceeding to strengthen further, reaching a peak intensity of 960 millibars (28 inHg) on February 19. Afterward, the storm then began weakening rapidly, dissipating southwest of Greenland on February 24. The storm system resulted in over 170 million Americans being placed under winter weather alerts, reaching as far south as Galveston, Texas. The swath of snow and ice it produced stretched from Washington to Maine. It ranked as a Category 3 winter storm on the Regional Snowfall Index (RSI) scale, and it became the second of three Category 3+ winter storms to affect North America in February 2021. The system caused over 9.9 million power outages, with 5.2 million in the U.S. and 4.7 million in Mexico, making it the worst blackout event recorded in North America since the Northeast blackout of 2003. The hardest hit area by both the severe winter weather and long-term power outages was Texas, with the 2021 Texas power crisis taking place due to the storm. Some long-term power outages in areas of the Deep South lasted over one week long. It also brought destructive severe weather to parts of the Southeastern U.S., spawning five tornadoes, including an EF2 and a high-end EF3 tornado. In total, the storm resulted in at least 136 fatalities, with 124 in the U.S. and 12 in Mexico, making it the deadliest winter storm in decades. Damage from this system is estimated to cost at least $195 billion (2021 USD), making it the costliest winter storm on record, as well as one of the costliest natural disasters in the modern era. Other significant storms Post-Tropical Cyclone Zeta – The post-tropical remnants of Hurricane Zeta began interacting with another storm system on October 29, 2020, as rain overspread the Eastern U.S. However, as a cold front came through overnight allowing a blast of colder air, precipitation began switching over to snow in parts of New England. By the next day, the remnants of Zeta passed south of New England and moved out into the Atlantic, strengthening on the way. Zeta became the first tropical cyclone to produce accumulating snowfall as an extratropical storm since Hurricane Sandy, resulting in several thousand power outages in New England and up to 6.5 in (17 cm) of snow. December 15–17, 2020 nor'easter (Winter Storm Gail) – The December 15–17, 2020 nor'easter, also unofficially referred to as Winter Storm Gail, the only Category 2 winter storm on the RSI scale in December, formed from a disorganized low pressure in the Southern Plains on December 14. The low pressure began organizing the next day, meandering east before it came offshore of the East Coast on December 16. It then rapidly intensified, reaching a peak intensity of 985 millibars (29.1 inHg) off the New England coast on December 17. The system then moved into the Atlantic, weakening slowly until dissipation on December 19. The nor'easter produced significant snowfall up to 15 in (38 cm) along the I-95 corridor, with over 3 ft (36 in) in parts of the interior Northeast. In total, it caused 7 fatalities and over 56,000 power outages. The nor'easter is estimated to have caused at least $125 million (2021 USD) in damages. Storm Filomena – Storm Filomena, the eighth named storm of the 2020–21 European windstorm season, formed over the Atlantic near the Canary Islands on January 7, 2021. It then slowly meandered northeastward, crossing the Iberian Peninsula over the next few days, producing heavy snowfall on the way. The storm then accelerated east, reaching a peak intensity of 995 millibars (29.4 inHg) and crossing Italy and Greece from January 11–13. Filomena then began rapidly weakening, and dissipated in interior Europe on January 15. It was significant because of unusually heavy snow up to 24 in (61 cm) in the Iberian Peninsula, which caused a total of 5 fatalities. Filomena is estimated to have caused at least $2.2 billion (2021 USD) in damage. January 31 – February 3, 2021 nor'easter (Winter Storm Orlena) – The January 31 – February 3, 2021 nor'easter, also unofficially referred to as Winter Storm Orlena, the first of three Category 3+ winter storms in February 2021, formed as a powerful low pressure off the Pacific coast on January 25. The slow-moving low pressure meandered off the U.S. West Coast for several days, causing an atmospheric river event and producing heavy rain and snow. On January 30, the weakening low pressure crossed the Rockies and moved into the Midwest, producing a second low pressure off the North Carolina coast on January 31. The second low slowly meandered up the East Coast from February 1–4, reaching a peak intensity of 985 millibars (29.1 inHg) on February 3. The system then accelerated into the Atlantic, weakening and dissipating on February 5. The system caused up to 100 in (250 cm) of snow in the Sierra Nevada and 18–24 in (46–61 cm) in both the Boston and New York City metro areas. In total, it caused 7 fatalities and resulted in over 575,000 power outages. The system is estimated to have caused at least $100 million (2021 USD) in damages. February 15–20, 2021 North American winter storm (Winter Storm Viola) – The February 15–20, 2021 North American winter storm, also unofficially referred to as Winter Storm Viola, the last of three Category 3+ winter storms in February 2021, formed on February 14 as a strong low pressure in the Pacific. The next day, the weakening low came ashore in the West Coast and the main low spawned several other low pressures on February 15, connected by a series of fronts. One of the low pressures to the south quickly took over, moving east over the next few days. It then spawned another low pressure to the east, which moved up the East Coast from February 18–19, becoming a nor'easter. The low reached an initial peak of 990 mb (29 inHg) as it exited the coast on February 19. The system then bombed out, reaching a peak intensity of 952 millibars (28.1 inHg) on February 22. It then slowly began to weaken, while moving northeastward, and dissipating on February 26. The storm brought a second round of snow and ice to the Deep South just days after another destructive storm came through the same areas. In total, the storm resulted in at least 29 fatalities and caused over 4 million power outages. The system is likely to have caused approximately $1 billion (2021 USD) in damage. New WikiProject members More information can be found here. The following list lists members who have joined/rejoined the WikiProject since the last issue. Evolauxia (talk · contribs) Yellow Evan (talk · contribs) Itfc+canes=me (talk · contribs) Robomaeyhem (talk · contribs) Cyclonebiskit (talk · contribs) KnowledgeRequire (talk · contribs) All2341 (talk · contribs) (Blocked due to sockpuppetry) Bettymnz4 (talk · contribs) Anhamirak (talk · contribs) TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contribs) Inks.LWC (talk · contribs) Bruvtakesover (talk · contribs) Earth100 (talk · contribs) (Blocked due to edit warring) JordanKyser22 (talk · contribs) Jdcomix (talk · contribs) LightandDark2000 (talk · contribs) PurpleDiana (talk · contribs) AC5230 (talk · contribs) (First new member of WPNTS in 2020!) Buttons0603 (talk · contribs) CyclonicStormYutu (talk · contribs) MarioJump83 (talk · contribs) HurricaneTracker495 (talk · contribs) (Blocked due to sockpuppetry) Shift674 (talk · contribs) CycloneFootball71 (talk · contribs) (First new member of WPNTS in 2021!) HurricaneCovid (talk · contribs) BrownieKing (talk · contribs) MarioProtIV (talk · contribs) Super Cyclonic Storm Corona (talk · contribs) ChessEric (talk · contribs) Destroyeraa (talk · contribs) United States Man (talk · contribs) Elijahandskip (talk · contribs) (WikiProject Current events coordinator!) RandomIntrigue (talk · contribs) Bn5660 (talk · contribs) To our new members: welcome to the project, and happy editing! Feel free to check the tasks or to-do lists towards the bottom of the newsletter for tasks that you might want to work on. To our veteran members: thank you for your edits and your tireless contributions! Note that most of the members listed here are inactive now, with the majority of them moved having been moved into the inactive list. Featured Content Update New featured articles (February 2008–March 14, 2021) Extratropical cyclone Christmas 1994 nor'easter December 1969 nor'easter Hurricane Charley (1986) 1991 Perfect Storm New good articles (February 2008–March 14, 2021) Braer Storm Snow Low-pressure area Subtropical cyclone December 1960 nor'easter December 1992 nor'easter December 2000 nor'easter February 1969 nor'easter January 1992 nor'easter Rainband Wet season Winter of 1946–47 in the United Kingdom 2008 Super Tuesday tornado outbreak Waterspout Cyclogenesis Mediterranean tropical-like cyclone Tropical Storm Rolf Current candidates None during this issue Current assessment table Assessments are valid as of this printing. Depending on when you may be viewing this newsletter, the table may be outdated. See here for the latest, most up to date statistics. As of this issue, there are 8 featured articles and 1 featured list. There are 21 good articles, but only 1 A-class article, perhaps because most articles of that quality already passed an FA review. There are 53 B-class articles, 110 C-class articles, 172 start-class articles, and 52 stub-class articles, with 14 lists. These figures mean that roughly one-fifth of the project is rated B-class or better. Tropical Storm Rolf was the 20th GA in the project. About the assessment scale → Project Goals & Progress The following is the current progress on the two milestone goals set by the WikiProject as of this publishing. Updates on the following goals can also be found on the project home page. 30 featured pages: 30% complete 100 good or better articles: 31% complete WikiProject tasks Featured article reviews 24 Feb 2021 – Extratropical cyclone (talk · edit · hist) was put up for FA review by Z1720 (t · c); see discussion Requested moves 17 Feb 2021 – February 13–17, 2021 North American winter storm (talk · edit · hist) move request to Winter Storm Uri by Hurricane Noah (t · c) was closed by Paine Ellsworth (t · c) on 03 Mar 2021; see discussion 17 Feb 2021 – February 2021 North American ice storm (talk · edit · hist) move request to Winter Storm Shirley by Hurricane Noah (t · c) was closed by Paine Ellsworth (t · c) on 03 Mar 2021; see discussion 17 Feb 2021 – February 15–20, 2021 North American winter storm (talk · edit · hist) move request by Hurricane Noah (t · c) was closed by Paine Ellsworth (t · c) on 03 Mar 2021; see discussion 17 Feb 2021 – February 11–14, 2021 North American storm complex (talk · edit · hist) move request to Winter Storm Tabitha by Hurricane Noah (t · c) was closed by Paine Ellsworth (t · c) on 03 Mar 2021; see discussion WikiProject to-do Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : October 2020 United States ice storm, Early December 2017 North American winter storm Cleanup : Northeastern United States blizzard of 1978, Nor'easter Merge : February 13–17, 2021 North American winter storm and February 2021 North American cold wave Stubs : May 2016 North American storm complex Update : Cyclone Kyrill Verify : March 2008 Midwest floods Wikify : 2002 Central Plains ice storm Why I revived this WikiProject, by MarioJump83 Since this is the first issue of The Frozen Times since the revival of WPNTS, I thought we should have an opinion piece detailing the reasons based on which the revival took place. And the project member who would know these reasons the best would be none other than the main resurrector of the WikiProject, MarioJump83! HurricaneCovid (contribs) Hello, WikiProject Non-tropical storms! I am the one who first took the initiative of this WikiProject's revival. While most of my work here is mostly related to maintenance work and some coordinating before resigning after the revival of this newsletter (I would like to say that LightandDark2000 is the coordinator of the project now given he is the only active member to join before 2020), there are reasons why I took the initiative to revive the project. Firstly, WPTC members, for some reason that was unclear to me, began joining the project in droves beginning in late 2020 and continuing into 2021. This surprised me since normally, people don't join defunct WikiProjects in large numbers. Secondly, many WPTC members, many of them based in either the United States or Europe, continue to edit extratropical cyclone articles, even when climatological winter ends in the Northern Hemisphere. This suggests that there is a space for WPNTS to spring up once again. Third and lastly, WPNTS-covered articles are quite active for a defunct WikiProject. I honestly think that this WikiProject shouldn't have been considered defunct in the first place. Ultimately, these reasons drove me to revive the WikiProject on the heels of Wikipedia's 20th anniversary on January 15, 2021. It's short, but it's what I can say for the reasons why I came to the decision to revive this WikiProject. I hope this WikiProject lasts for a long time, even when I'm not present as part of it. MarioJump83! Write the next issue of The Frozen Times →

Link on your User page

You should probably not have the link to that extremely obviously sketchy e-book download site in the Awards section of your User page. I certainly hope you haven't given them your credit card number. AngryHarpy‍^talk 16:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

AngryHarpy, I am not allowed to discussion that until September 2 due to a T-Ban. You can ask an admin to allowed me to talk about it if you want to discuss this farther. Hope you understand. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm frankly not sure what aspect of this needs further discussion, but fair enough. AngryHarpy‍^talk 17:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

March 2021

A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. Fram (talk) 06:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@Fram:, which draft are you talking about? I was a sleep when you sent that and apparently it was deleted while I was asleep. Also, your tone is extremely rude and I do not appriciate the "You will be blocked" attitude as you know me and know I wouldn't purposefully attack someone in an article (Especially after the T-Ban incidents.) Elijahandskip (talk) 10:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The "you will be blocked" is the text sent with every article tagged for G10 speedy deletion. The below section indicates which draft it was. Basically, creating an article (or a draft) for a stupid student who gets arrested and fined for a minor offense, is a very bad idea. You already have a restriction from US politics: creating other problematic pages may lead to a restriction from all BLPs, or indeed a block. Fram (talk) 10:55, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh that draft. I hadn't had a chance to work on it, but yeah, even after working on it, I am not sure if he would have passed the notability test. (In case you were wondering, the offense wasn't what I was creating the article for. It was taken all the way up the chain because the judge ruled that being drunk meant he couldn't be charged.) The CBS reporter made it sound more notable than it probably was.

Ah ok, that makes sense for the template. Didn't know a G10 sent that template. My bad. Elijahandskip (talk) 10:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

BLP violation

I have tagged your recent draft for speedy deletion. While it isn't completely unsourced, we should not, ever, have articles about non-notable individuals being arrested for some minor offense (apparently not enough for a judge to even have a case, just a fine), per WP:BLPCRIME and other related policies. Please don't create such pages in any namespace. Fram (talk) 06:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Sciencewise

They're not even a Wikipedia mirror, they just put frames-with-ads around a Wikipedia page. A "mention" of you there is your own username from where you're logged in, and the list of everyone who edited the article. DS (talk) 00:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I also noticed the Wollongong Memorial Gardens website is some weird mirror (?) of Wikipedia or whatever website you are on. I don't even know how this website was found but it's not relevant to content found on Wikipedia. JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

"An external site copied a Wikipedia article and, as per requirements, provided the usernames of everyone who ever edited the article which includes me!" is not a mention. DS (talk) 15:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Elijahandskip. Thank you. Fram (talk) 07:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

AE discussion closed with warning

Hello Elijahandskip, I'm leaving this message to let you know that I have closed the AE discussion, and logged a formal warning that you have been reminded that your topic ban applies to User space edits as well. You may contact me on my talk page if you have any further questions. Feel free to remove this message once you have read it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Apologies

Sorry, it removed a bunch of text when I posted mine, and I wasn't warned about any edit conflict. Thanks for reverting my edit, I'll try reposting again. Uses x (talk • contribs) 21:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Uses x: Ah no problem. I knew it wasn't vandalism from the edits to the blurb and stuff. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Stop

Stop gatekeeping other peoples comments here. It's not helpful and it's disruptive. TAXIDICAE💰 21:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, no... I got "gate keeped" a lot before my T ban for my opinions being mentioned in discussions. So thanks for the comment, but I will not stop letting people know about not to show their opinions in discussions. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

If your intent is to go tit for tat while be subject to a t-ban for this exact behavior, might I suggest you stop before you wind up fully blocked? Because if you intend to continue this disruption, I will be requesting an indef. Editors are entitled to their opinions but your insinuating motive for editors support or opposition of something is not. TAXIDICAE💰 21:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

"Editors are entitled to their opinions"...Honestly, thanks for that. I never meant to be disruptive, however, I find it very interesting that I wasn't able to share my opinions back in December/January. My opinions helped lead to a T-Ban. Very interesting... (And yes, I will stop commenting in that discussion.) Elijahandskip (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I came here to say the same thing as Praxidicae (but without the blocking reference). You said in one comment: saying your opinion is actually really bad on Wikipedia, especially in discussions. The whole point of a discussion is to express your opinion, so long as it's relevant. None of us are free from biases. You have an opinion on George Floyd's murder, and so do I. (And some people's opinion is "it doesn't really affect me; I don't care", but that's just as much as an opinion as anything else.) It can be wrong to express some opinions in some circumstances, but when you are told to drop the matter then you need to do it. Saying your opinion in an inappropriate way is a lot less bad than ignoring the same feedback expressed by multiple people about not badgering. If you don't understand the difference between this and your T-ban situation (which I'm not aware of and don't want to hear about) then try re-reading the comments you wrote and feedback you got there to work out the difference. This is a good way to escalate if you're looking to get blocked, but literally everyone benefits from you not pushing the matter and that not happening. — Bilorv (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• I am stopping the discussion here as I already said that I am not recommenting about the discussion. Thanks for that comment Bilorv, I will take it to heart. (For my talk page watchers, please don't use this as a stupid reason for a longer t-ban for me. I have read it and understand it.) Elijahandskip (talk) 22:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Your T-Ban

You go around claiming all the time that your Tban was for expressing your opinion, and that others should stop expressing their opinions lest they be TBanned as well. Please look again at the ANI discussion that lead to your topic ban: it was almost exclusively for your repeated creations of very problematic articles. Your behaviour outside of article space only contributed further to the rapid implementation of that topic ban, but wasn't the main reason by far. Going around "helping" or "informing" people that they might be censored for expressing an opinion is only an indication that you don't realise or accept what the problem with your editing was, and doesn't look good at all. Just drop it. Fram (talk) 07:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Can I also say, behind every user is a human and the idea that no one can express an opinion or their emotions here is simply nonsense. Polyamorph (talk) 09:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Fram, going to be honest here...I dropped this hours ago. You bringing it back up is now just disruptive...Please stop talking about that and do not use it in the future since you will be just causing more disruption...of course, that is my opinion that this is causing more disruption since I made it a point multiple times now to say I stopped commenting in that discussion. So you bringing this up is just a way to trap me and such, so do not bring this up again....Elijahandskip (talk) 10:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Makurdi kidnapping moved to draftspace per WP:NOTNEWS, single event without lasting, historical meaning

An article you recently created, Makurdi kidnapping, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@CommanderWaterford:, not going to lie, you just made my life slightly harder. You messed up a ton of formatting things and the article was linked on Portal:Current events. I suggest you read WP:RAPID. When the article (That has 0 info but still linked on a main page) is deleted, I am moving it back and adding the WikiProject of Current Events protection for a few hours to let sources create articles for Wikipedia. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Well @Elijahandskip , my job as a NPP is not to make your life easier. I suggest you make yourself comfortable with Wikipedia:NOTNEWS and Wikipedia:New pages patrol. If you move it back I will nominate it for deletion since it is clearly not notable and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

PS: Regarding Wikipedia:RAPID I would like also to remind you on WP:DELAY .... the entry on the Current Event Portal is linked to the draft, this is no problem at all. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to nominate it for deletion...after 2 hours, which is the standard “Current event protection”. It allows for RS to create sources for it. Also, the Portal isn’t supposed to link to Drafts unless it will be in draft state more than 24 hours, similar to Hurricane articles and such. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

P.S. this has a chance to be ITN later in life, similar to Zamfara kidnapping. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@CommanderWaterford:, I have moved it back to main space after making sure it had 7 sources and was linked correctly with the other kidnapping articles. If you want to nominate it for deletion, be my guest, but knowing that this is the 5th kidnapping in the 2021 Nigeria school kidnapping series and the first 4 have articles (With the first in the series having ITN recognition), I highly doubt an Afd would succeed, but since you believe it is WP:NOTNEWS, be my guest at the Afd. Would be fun reading your reasoning why a school kidnapping would be not notable. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:RAPID: "Other alternatives to deletion while the story develops are userfying or incubating the article in draftspace." (emphasis mine). Suggesting to someone that they should read WP:RAPID, when that page suggests exactly the thing they have done, is rather ironic. Can you point me to where the "standard current event protection" is dsecribed? I've never heard of such a thing, but we have so many policies that I may have missed this. In general, we don't ever create articles in the hope that sources will appear, we only create articles once enough sources exist to meet GNG (or some equivalent of it). Fram (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Fram Since the Creator confuses Wikipedia with a newspaper I took it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Makurdi kidnapping. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah. I will admit that I missed the "Move to draftspace" part of WP:RAPID. My apologies @CommanderWaterford: and @Fram:. Also, the "Current event protection" isn't a 'real' policy per say. More of a curtosy that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Current events has and has used in the past. Basically it is an in-line that is place at the top of a new/breaking type article that simply asks the article not be draftified/afd/prod for about 2 hours. They are really only used for things that get posted to the Portal:Current events. I do not know exactly what articles it was used on, but one that I added to myself (Found via edit summary searching) was 2021 Muskogee shooting. When the shooting happened, there was tons of RS for it since it was breaking news. It got posted to the portal and as the stub article was being made for it, aka the first hour that it existed, that was added more to let editors know it was being worked on, so please don't delete it right now. Again, it isn't an official policy by any means. It is extremely rare and some editors actually frown on putting a draft in the Portal since it has 60k daily views. Other than that kidnapping article, I have only seen weather related articles, like hurricanes and the winter storms, be in draft form and still be posted to the portal. Also, this is a comment to CommanderWaterford, you said earlier it redirects to the main (Fixing the portal problem). It didn't. I had to manually do that. To other situations, like searching or contribution links, it auto redirects, but since the Portal page is a "protected" page, it doesn't automatically redirect. So for about 2 hours, the portal had a blank page linked. That is the formatting problem I was referencing earlier.

Back to what Fram was talking about with "we don't ever create articles in the hope that sources will appear, we only create articles once enough sources exist to meet GNG". That is a reason that "protection" in-line was created. For current event articles that get linked to a heavily trafficked page, it is actually better to have a short stub article where people know it exists than to have it in draft state (Why drafts are hated on the portal.). When an article is in draft state & is a breaking news thing (Use anything like a bomb going off at a major event or anything), editors will try to create drafts/stub articles for it. At the same time, you could have maybe 2-3 articles going on at the same time, being edited by multiple editors. It saves some time and discussions in those situations by having 1 article, in a place people would look for it. An example is that Zamfara kidnapping/Jangebe kidnapping. I can't find it right now, but I remember seeing both articles exist, with information, and they were about the same thing.

So to answer back to what you said, for current events/breaking news stub articles, I believe it is better to have a stub for at least a few hours so editors don't create multiple drafts/articles on the same thing (Maybe different names even). If RS isn't picking it up after an hour or 2, then it should be speedy deleted. I have followed this pattern in the past and it seems to work. This is honestly the first question I had at creating a current event stub. All 3 of the articles I started that were nominated to ITN all had some time (I think a few hours) that they were stub articles linked at the Portal:Current events. I wouldn't worry about it, especially for the first hour it exists. After that, then I believe discussions should happen for notability and such. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

It would be a slightly stronger argument if you hadn't created the article at a name no one would look for (at the history you now have deleted, making it look as if Commande Waterford created the article). Madurai Kidnapping (never mind the capitalization, but a completely wrong name)? Then moved by you to Makurai kidnapping (still the wrong name)? Finally moved by another editor to the right name. That's one of the many dangers of rushing such things, which leads to drafts getting speedy deleted as BLP violations and so on. We are not a news ticker, and such events can wait a few hours to get their own article. Often, if something needs to be done, it is best to start it as a redirect to an existing article, where you add one line about the new event. Afterwards, if a lot more is known and things are clearer, a separate article can be created. E.g. here, an article about the kidnappings in general would make much more sense, and new kidnappings could be added there. Fram (talk) 07:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Hattiesburg plane crash for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hattiesburg plane 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/Hattiesburg plane 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.

...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hattiesburg plane crash, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Hill. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Athos (A712)

The article Athos (A712) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of notability.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fram (talk) 12:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Le Themis

The article Le Themis has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of notability.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fram (talk) 12:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:RAPID

...doesn't apply to two ships which already existed for a few years and will keep on existing for more years, but which are now named in a few reports of the fishing commercial battle. They are not "current events", they are minor elements in it. Either you create articles about the ships, in which this blip on the radar may be mentioned, or don't bother: but this kind of immediatism, as if what happens today is the only thing that matters is useless. If the main article states that 2 French patrolships X and Y particpate in the event, then creating bluelinks which state "patrolship X participates in event Z" is worse than useless, it is frustrating emptiness. Please see WP:NOTNEWS, and keep in mind things like "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. In addition to writing in encyclopedic tone, events must be put into encyclopedic context. " and "While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information". We are writing an encyclopedia, not a news ticker or a twitter feed. Fram (talk) 13:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Fram, just a heads up, you might want to Afd Athos (A712) since someone (not me) remade it since you believe it isn’t notable for Wikipedia (hence the draftification that is now irrelevant and that history being deleted due to no redirect being left so another person made it. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Article titles

Please take a look at WP:TITLEFORMAT. Article titles should be in sentence-case. I've had to move two of your new articles to the correct capitalization this week. Please take more care in formatting your article titles, thanks. Schazjmd (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Colonial Pipeline cyberattack moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Colonial Pipeline cyberattack, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

CommanderWaterford (An IMO statement)(Personal attack removed).... More RS even though it has 4 RS (Including the 2 most neutral and reliable sources in the world) and 2 sources that are highly RS (Even was told by an admin to use them) and you say use more RS??? I suggest you read WP:THREE... Elijahandskip (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

P.S. I moved it back after adding 8 RS...which now means I ref bombed it... Elijahandskip (talk) 21:15, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I really hope that I do not have to bring this kind of article creation behaviour to ANI. Draft Space is exactly for developing such articles - you seem to be very eager to create WP:SENSATIONAL articles and to ignore always WP:DELAY, you do not want to understand obviously our WP:NOTNEWS creation policy, Wikipedia is not a newspaper nor Twitter - please also watch your tone while communicating with me. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:03, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I am now very confused. You removed 4 words that you called a 'personal attack' and I read that entire policy over. Please explain why those 4 words are a personal attack. Even saying ANI to me is a personal attack based on the amount of WP:RAPID's you did (and lost). But that is not the topic for this discussion. So yeah, I will be looking forward to your answer as to why those 4 words are a 'personal attack'. Elijahandskip (talk) 10:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2021

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

ITN recognition for Colonial Pipeline cyberattack

On 12 May 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Colonial Pipeline cyberattack, which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2021

To enforce an arbitration decision and for continuing to make edits against your TBAN on the page Ty Bollinger, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

WeatherWriter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. I would like to appeal this block to shorten it for 24 hours (Not full appeal) for a few reasons. First of all, I did apologize for the edit on Ty Bollinger [1] and even self-reverted it. [2] Me apologizing for the edit shows that it wasn't meant to be in bad intention and to be honest, if I wasn't under a T-ban of post 1992 US elections, the edit wouldn't have been questioned. Second, since my previous block [3], I have made roughly 140 good edits on Wikipedia, including receiving two articles messages about ITN recognition (one I created and one I nominated). I have also done a new WikiProject proposal [4]. In reality, I did 1 bad edit compared to about 140 good edits on Wikipedia since my previous block, and that bad edit wouldn't have been questioned if I wasn't under a T-Ban. I fully admit and understand that I made a mistake by doing that edit, but I have and am changing. I only desire to improve Wikipedia and not cause disruption. I understand that I have to be blocked for my action (The edit on Ty Bollinger), however, I would like to appeal it to shorten the ban to 24 hours. During those 24 hours, I am planning on reading up on all the policies and making sure that I understand every last one of them. I truly apologize for my edit and in the future, I will read the entire article to make sure there isn't anything about US politics in it before I edit. Thank you for reading my appeal and considering my appeal to shorten my ban. (Curtesy ping @Rosguill:) Elijahandskip (talk) 11:10 am, Yesterday (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

Unblock converted to partial block on mainspace and Talk-space to allow for continued engagement with a WikiProject proposal that they had already initiated. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Please use the AE appeal template to make AE appeals. I'll also add that given the backlog at both the unblock request page and at AE, this request is unlikely to receive consideration before the block expires. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I will use the template on future ones, since you said it wouldn't be considered due to the time. If I may ask the question though, wouldn't you be the one considering the appeal? For my t-ban, the admin El C told me I could appeal directly to him.[5] I did the ping at the end so I would appeal directly to you. Would you not be the one considering it? (Curtesy ping since it is my talk page; @Rosguill:) (Real question as I am confused due to what El C said.) Elijahandskip (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Appeals can be made to the blocking admin (me) or to AE; the phrasing of your request made it sound like you were hoping to go straight to AE. That having been said, as far as my opinion on this perspective, I actually did take your self-revert into account: had you not self-reverted, I would have escalated to a 1-week block for this violation of the TBAN, instead of just 72 hours. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Sadly, it is a 10 day ban for me. I leave for a week long thing an hour before my 3 day block expires. Sad, very sad indeed. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Elijahandskip, was there specific work you were hoping to accomplish before you left on your trip? (Ping on reply) —valereee (talk) 19:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee:: Not really any specific work, but more of watch and answer questions about my WikiProject proposal [6]. So far, it is fairly mixed on views of the original proposal, but seems a consensus is starting for a decades based WikiProject. The only thing 'specific' I would have planned to do would have been asking an admin to snow close that discussion and allow me to open a decades WikiProject proposal, since most of the editors that commented they would support that. I don't know when to ask for that SNOW close though or anything along those lines, since it is my first WikiProject proposal, so I can't really 'plan' that out. So to answer your question, no, I don't have a specific work I want to accomplish. Just watching and answering questions about that proposal. (About 50 of my last 100 edits have been about it). Elijahandskip (talk) 19:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Rosguill, how would you feel about unblocking with an agreement by E&S that they will only edit at their WP proposal/their own user talk until the 23rd, when the block would have ended? —valereee (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Valereee, I think I'd be willing to downgrade to a mainspace p-block, I'll go ahead and do that now. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Wow. Thank you so much! Yes, I wouldn't even attempt to edit mainspace articles until the 23rd. Thank you so much!!! Elijahandskip (talk) 21:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Rosguill: & @Valereee: (Pinging both since the decision was made sort of by both of you.) For my WikiProject Proposal, it appears (if editors agree, which seeing their !votes, they will), that the original proposal [7] will probably be SNOW closed with a new type being opened (As consensus is on the current one). Would it be in violation if I was to open/propose that new one? Background for it is I proposed a 2021 WikiProject. Most editors opposed a 2021 one, but supported a decades one. So it would be a SNOW close on the 2021 one with a decades proposal being opened. So, would I be able to make that new proposal without violating my ban rules? Elijahandskip (talk) 21:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not a violation of your tban, but I do expect you to realize that a some of the content covered by the proposed wikiproject will be covered by the topic ban. If the discussion of the wikiproject veers towards addressing recent American politics, you do not have permission to engage (either ignoring that aspect of the discussion entirely, or briefly stating that you have a topic ban for AP2 and can't comment further, are acceptable ways to handle this situation). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:00, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Got it. Also, I wasn't really asking about the Tban part, I meant the real 72 hour ban I have on-going. I didn't know if starting the new WikiProject proposal would be against the real ban. But yes, I will be extremely careful about information with the tban. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of First High-School Education Group for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article First High-School Education Group 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/First High-School Education Group 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.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Redirecting from mainspace

Do not create deliberate redirects from mainspace to drafts. Redirects like these will be speedily deleted. Chlod (say hi!) 02:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Liz Cheney

I'm more than a bit confused as to why you reverted my edit about the Forbes 50 Over 50 award without an explanation. Can you tell me why?Whoisjohngalt (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Uhh. Help! @Rosguill:, I believe my account might be hacked. Need to change password. I am currently playing a video game and got the ping so I looked at my Wikipedia. The last edit I did was at 17:15 UTC today on the portal. I didn't edit Liz Cheney. Please temp block my account till I solve this. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked. —valereee (talk) 20:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

June 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  —valereee (talk) 20:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee:, I do not have access to your talk page, so here is the notification. I have sent you an email. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey, E&J, got your email. I think you may have to contact Trust & Safety, I'm thinking it's not kosher for me to make any assumptions. Instructions are at Wikipedia:Compromised accounts. —valereee (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Got it. Just sent them an email. I know for a fact someone was on my account since I never made that unban message, and I knew you have to email someone (admin or support) to solve the issue. Hopefully I can get the account unlocked with some verification method. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I have run the checkuser given the editor's statement here and see no technical evidence of a compromise on the Liz Cheney edit. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Can you check the other edits on my talk page a few minutes after the ban? I know for a fact of 3 edits I never made. Liz Cheney, the ban appeal, and that thank you message. I know I can't show proof of this (unless someone knows how), but my Microsoft edge history, shows that the first time I went on Liz Cheney's article was after I got a ping from my talk page. And the ban appeal wasn't me, so I knew someone was on my account. I changed my password fairly quickly, but it for sure creeped me out. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Everything I saw, which includes the edits you talked about, showed no technical evidence of a compromise. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

So,@Barkeep49, I was literally just composing a post at AN asking for advice about how I could be more helpful. Should I just unblock? —valereee (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee: I would hold off for a bit personally. Thanks! KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Elijahandskip, it would be helpful to know if you have any theories about how your account was compromised. To that end:

1. Could you confirm that you unequivocally did not make the edit, or perhaps accidentally make the edit via RedWarn?
2. Do you know who did make the edit, or have any guesses as to how the edit could have been made?
3. Which edits specifically were not made by you? These three? [8] [9] [10] And to confirm, are those the only edits made on your account recently that you did not make yourself?

Looking forward to hearing from you. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

1. I can 100% confirm I did not make those edits. The edit on Liz Cheney occurred while I was recording a Minecraft video for YouTube. The other edits I can also confirm that I did not make those edits. I was in the process of changing my password and checking other things.
2. I do not know who got my account and made those edits, and I the only main guess I can think of is that my email got hacked. I use the same email for a few online video games, so I am assuming someone got into it. I have my Wikipedia account linked with my email (Edits on pages I recently visit + my talk page send me an email of that recent edit). I got the notification email when there was a question on my talk page. The Liz Cheney article didn't send me an email of the edit. The next email I got was the Wikipedia email confirming that me (from my IP) had asked for a password change. I am working on an email to use for Wikipedia to separate this from my video games stuff. I can let you know once I finish that. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• Update I have changed my email that was linked with my Wikipedia account. It is linked with a new one and my Wikipedia password was changed. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  E&S, I don't want to email this to you in case your account is still compromised, so forgive me for this bit of awkwardness. If you edited Liz Cheney, then remembered in horror the t-ban, the answer is to simply revert yourself, then self-report on your own user talk and apologize for the error. Nearly every admin understands this can happen, we know how difficult t-bans can be, and as long as you revert asap and don't do it too often, you won't get into trouble for it. If that's what happened, and then you just panicked, it will be much better if you just admit it. —valereee (talk) 12:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• After what Valereee said, I want to come out and say the truth. I did panic a the Liz Cheney edit, but not in a "Oh crap, I broke my tban" way. So I was trying to hide this because some of my heavy contribution watchers would use it as a way to ANI me in the future (as was with my blog, my website, and my twitter), but about two weeks ago, I started writing a book about Wikipedia. Once unbanned from my user page, I will properly declare my COI's from that. When the Liz Cheney edit took place, I was looking at Whoisjohngalt's edit count via the Xtools. When Whoisjohngalt messaged on my talk page about the edit though, I was extremely confused as I never clicked a "publish changes" button at any point. So the initial "help, I might be hacked" was genuine. I did quickly change my password and then I did make those other two messages on my talk page. After that, I sort of ignored it and continued working on my book. The next day (yesterday), I read some policies and saw the email way to get unbanned. I then pretended the "hacker" tried to get a quick unban and such. Now we are here. I really don't know what happened with the Liz Cheney edit, because redwarn still makes you click a publish changes button, and I never clicked one. I know I caused a lot of problems and I hope you guys can forgive me. To what Valereee said about admins understanding, that isn't really the case. My tban has had so many confusing moment, that I really don't understand it ever. Just recently got told that COVID-19 misinformation is apparently covered under my "Post-1992 US politics tban" and before you think it, no, the misinformation was not from a politician. My contribution watchers wouldn't believe a word I say, since both (Fram & Grandpallama) believe I should be perm banned from Wikipedia, so in my mind, that Liz Cheney edit, even though I never did it, would have been an instant perm ban for me. That is why I did the other two edit to hold up the "lie" of getting hacked. Hopefully all that made sense, and once again, I am so sorry for the problems I caused. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I am adding this second message at the same time to confirm that everything above is the truth. Believe it how you want, but it is the truth. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to pull the rug out from under valereee, but I agree with Fram and Grandpallama below that this has gone on for too long and Elijahandskip has been given more than enough rope already. Whether this is an honest careless mistake, a premeditated attempt to fool us, or anywhere in between, Elijahandskip has demonstrated that they are not able to respect the boundaries of their tban at this time. I think that converting the block to a 1-month arbitration enforcement block is the appropriate course of action at this time. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

You can't be serious. Getting a 1 month block for a mistake that I don't even know how it happened is ridiculous. I told the truth, and I would have been ok with even up to a 2 week block due to the tban violation (Even though I didn't click a publish changes button). But a 1 month block would be too much. I would ask for you to reconsider. I truly didn't know how that happened. My book is "How Wikipedia Handled the World Cyberattacks". I was dead serious about looking at the xtools for Whoisjohngalt, because my book is covering the 4 major world cyberattacks in the last month and wanting to recognize the Wikipedia editors who helped build the articles about them. I was in the process of getting the editors and statistics from the Steamship Authority cyberattack, which Whoisjohngalt edited 4 times. I am sorry if you believe this was premeditated, but it wasn't. Do what you must, but I will be extremely disappointed if I do receive a 1 month block over what I consider a glitch edit. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Rosguill, not at all, I wasn't trying to promise that E&S could 'fess up now and all would be forgiven. I probably should have made it clear that while admins could understand a momentary lapse immediately corrected, and that maybe even the initial panic decision wouldn't end too badly, but that continuing to drag this out would mean a result far worse. A week is nothing compared to what might have happened. —valereee (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Comment from Grandpallama & Fram in a discussion between me (Elijahandskip) and Wikipedia admins.)

If you edited Liz Cheney, then remembered in horror the t-ban, the answer is to simply revert yourself, then self-report on your own user talk and apologize for the error. Nearly every admin understands this can happen, we know how difficult t-bans can be, and as long as you revert asap and don't do it too often, you won't get into trouble for it. valereee, I hope you are joking. To unblock after an egregious TBAN violation (the 5th or 6th, by my count, and after two previous blocks) for this completely implausible explanation, is wholly and highly inappropriate. There is absolutely no way a TBANned user doesn't know that Liz Cheney is involved in American politics, and this fiasco (lying about what happened, wasting CU time, doubling down) is more evidence of the immaturity and incompetence that led to the TBAN in the first place. Far from unblocking this editor, it's time to convert to an indef block and/or bring this back to ANI. Grandpallama (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC) No, I wasn't joking. If E&S had made that edit, immediately reverted, come here to report himself, and apologized for the error, I would likely be arguing that we should be warning him that each time it happens again we're restarting the clock on the t-ban, and advising him to drop the automated tools. I would be arguing that the real problem isn't the crime but the coverup. —valereee (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC) So, instead of just reverting and saying "oh, no idea how that happened, sorry" after the initial post by Whoisjohngalt from two days ago, you: Claimed to be compromised, pinged one admin and got anothet to block you Emailed the blocking admin who directed you to T&S Emailed T&S Got another admin to perform a checkuser Asked the checkuser to perform another check When yet another admin got involved and asked questions, claimed that both the original Cheney edit, and somehow the following "I'm compromised" edits were not made by you (by now, we are more than 24 hours into this) Claimed that you changed your password and email to remove the risk of further compromised edits ...all because you were "looking at their edit count via the XTools", and somehow reverted him from there, even though those XTools pages don't seem to link to individual edits or have any revert possibility? And somehow this explanation should be more believable? A tool which doesn't link to or gives the possibility to revert anything, somehow caused another tool (redwarn) to revert an edit, without asking for confirmation, and this just happened to be on a page under your TBan? And this caused you to lie, not only in the panic of the moment, but for days, until it became clear that you wouldn't get a swift unblock and admins were aware that your story didn't make any sense? And then, when you were found out, you suddenly were sorry but still had no responsability for your edit? What an utter waste of time and trust. Fram (talk) 15:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

To enforce an arbitration decision and for the clear violation of the topic ban. The subsequent messages about the incident show poor judgement, a lack of maturity, or both. I am choosing to do a standard escalation from the last violation which was a 72 hour block so, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Barkeep49 (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49:, If I may ask, why is the week starting today instead of on the 2nd? I am really curious as I don't know the answer to that. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Totally reasonable question and I did debate whether to start it retroactively or start it today. I decided to start it today because it's only today that I feel the confusion about this has been sorted out. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for answering. Completely understand it! Elijahandskip (talk) 17:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Commenting to note that I'm ok with this remedy despite having advocated for a harsher enforcement above. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Echoing Rosguill, in the sense that a harsher enforcement should have been evoked. Also echoing Fram's frustration at the utter waste of time and sheer deception. E&S, so if Valereee didn’t see right through this mirage, you would continued down this path of utter deception? Honestly a harsher enforcement should have been evoked. Celestina007 (talk) 23:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, for me personally, I am thankful that Celestina007 and Rosguill didn't make the decision. Glad to be back in a few days, but for now, I am reading policies and working to get any stats I still need for my book to ensure that no future glitched edits happen with redwarn and xtools. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

E&S, I'd recommend you disable any automated tools until your topic ban is lifted. You're unlikely to get a second chance. —valereee (talk) 11:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Nancy Pelosi on social media

Hello, Elijahandskip. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Nancy Pelosi on social media, 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. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

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. FireflyBot (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Steamship Authority cyberattack

The article Steamship Authority cyberattack has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Mostly local news coverage and no indication of lasting effects. A bunch of articles when the cyberattack occurred and some when the website was functional again. Fails WP:EVENTCRIT.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 15 (talk) 23:26, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Nancy Pelosi on social media

Hello, Elijahandskip. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Nancy Pelosi on social media".

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! —PaleoNeonate – 15:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Roadtrip (song)

Hello, Elijahandskip. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Roadtrip (song), 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. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

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. FireflyBot (talk) 08:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

No Original Research

Please stop blaming people for planning or facilitating the 2021 Kabul airport attack without a reliable source confirming your suspicions. There have been a lot of actual past and potential future ISIS attacks, even in Kabul, even against the United States and her interests. Named or not, dead or not, calling someone out for almost 200 murders is a serious accusation and needs unimaginary evidence. Honest mistake, I'll assume this time. Just take care, brother! InedibleHulk (talk) 18:01, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

And as another user suggested, yes, the IS in IL should not be confused with the IS in KP. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

What? I am so confused right now about this message. InedibleHulk, Are you calling CNN not reliable? In my opinion, I 100% agree with you that CNN isn't fully reliable, however, Wikipedia considers it reliable. I never "blamed someone without a source" since when I added that information, I sourced a quote from CNN. [11] where CNN said "Pentagon spokesperson John Kirby said all the targets were hit in a single strike, and that they were "ISIS-K planners and facilitators."". I would sort of do a Uno reverse card toward you and say, please don't accuse people without ground to stand on... Elijahandskip (talk) 18:27, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

You added "of the 2021 Kabul airport attack" after "facilitators", changing the meaning drastically. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

InedibleHulk Ah ok. That was a genuine mistake. As far as I knew, those killed were the planners of the bombing. I now see they aren't. Thanks for the warning about that! Elijahandskip (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict)Just as a side note, maybe start off your messages slightly less "stern" especially if you believe they are honest mistakes. To be honest, I actually thought it was a personal attack and I was so confused until you explained it better. I mean you started out "Please stop blaming people for planning...without a reliable source" and you didn't really explain what the problem (Edit in question) was. In the future, make sure to call out the specific problem not just to me, but to any editor that needs a warning/curtesy warning and that will reduce a lot of issues and discussion time. Take care my friend and I hope we meet again under better circumstances. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

In case someone sees this and is confused, this side note was an edit conflict when InedibleHulk added the edit in question. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I thought I was polite and specific. I guess I could try harder. Sorry for not trying harder in the first place. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Topic ban violations

You are currently topic banned from any articles relating to US politics post 1992 (and have been blocked for violations of that topic ban a few times). How does e.g. an article about the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan–United States relations, with discussions about the recognition of the Taliban government by the US government, not count as an article about US politics? Fram (talk) 08:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

You are right. God damnit. I was trying to get away and start a new time on Wikipedia because of my previous stupid edits, but I made a mistake. Well, to prevent any further problems, I am going to stop editing on that article and go back to WikiProject Twenty-Tens decade. Also hey Fram. Sorry this is how we met after my break from editing. I was planning to sent an apology message to everyone about the t-ban issues I had months ago on September 2, when it expires, but sadly, I won't be able to sent you one...since you know...this is how we met after my break. But take care my friend, sorry for the edit problems, and I hope we can get along especially once my t-ban expires in 3 days. Elijahandskip (talk) 13:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Also correction to the email I sent - Should be ‘International Relations’. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan–United States relations

Hello, Elijahandskip, your article Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan–United States relations, doesn't have much to stand on its own in my view. I think you should incorporate this information into the main relations article between Afghanistan and the United States under the necessary section or sections. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:23, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

WikiCleanerMan, thank you for bringing this to my attention. Unfortunately, I am not allowed to edit the article or discuss about it until September 2, due to a T-Ban which I was reminded about earlier today. I am under a Post-1992 US Politics ban, which expires September 2. (Don't worry, that article isn't the reason for it. The ban started 6 months ago.) So until September 2, the article will have to remain as it is until I can fix it and properly add needed information, especially information to fix that OR tag. There are reasons that I can't say right now as to why it should be a stand alone article, but on September 2, I can explain those fully. Have a good day and thank you for the notice! Elijahandskip (talk) 22:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

September 2021

Because of your numerous recent violations of your topic ban on post-1992 American politics (WP:AP2), your ban timer has been reset to six months starting now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328:, I would like to appeal that and instead request a block for the punishment. I took a break from editing and I made mistakes. However, once Fram told me and reminded me about it, I fixed the issue and stopped editing the pages that were in violation. My last block was a week, so could I request a month long block in exchange for the 6 month t-ban from being extended? I am requesting this because it is preventing me from tagging any political page for the Twenty-Tens decade WikiProject which helped start (proposed back in May and created a week ago). I was really looking forward to working with that project. So please, let me appeal the 6 month extension and replace it with a month long ban from editing. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Banning policy#Reset of ban following evasion to see that my decision is in line with policy. Please also read the subsection "Editors who are banned from a topic area or certain pages but can otherwise edit" and note that you can appeal at the Administrators noticeboard. I encourage you to consider the downside risks. None of this is punishment, and these sanctions are for the purpose of preventing disruption of the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• It appears you have been using the email system to circumvent your tban. Please respond to my question at you AN appeal as to why I shouldn't block you for that tban vio? Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

September 2021

To enforce an arbitration decision and for Using email to circumvent your tban and other violations that emerged in your tban appeal. To be unblocked you simply need to engage in a discussion about your tban and confirm your understanding of what is required., you have been blocked indefinitely from editing.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

To be clear. 12m is the maximum AE enforcement period but beyond that indefinite means undefined and subject to a conversation. I am also turning off your access to email.

I am also extending your tban to an indefinite period given the additional violations. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I feel bad about this because I thought that I had advised you to consider the downside risks of appealing at AN, and instead you forged ahead in less than an hour. Should I have been more forceful with my advice? That would have opened my up to accusations of bullying, wouldn't it? On the other hand, you chose not to engage me in further conversation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I just want to be clear this is not a permanent block. Its an undefined period not indefinite because I will unblock when you have discussed your understanding of what is and is not allowed. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, I will re-look at it after my long break from editing and fully respond then when my head isn't in this crazy mood. Though, as my last request, to make my return comments a lot easier, please delete the follow things. "President Joe Biden declared a state of emergency on May 9. The declaration removed limits regarding the transport of fuels by road, in an attempt to alleviate any potential shortages." from Colonial Pipeline ransomware attack and "In May 2021, YouTube suspended the Bollingers' Truth About Vaccines channel, as part of the platform's efforts to reduce the spread of COVID-19 misinformation. The channel boasted some 75,000 subscribers, with one video featuring Kennedy getting more than a million views. Their channel The Truth About Cancer was not impacted by the ban." from Ty Bollinger because you called my edits related to those to be "disruptive to the encyclopedia" and such information should be removed from Wikipedia. I would do it myself to fix some of the problems I did months ago, but alas, I am blocked from editing for now. Well, I will see you yall in a while and before I come back to explain the tban, I promise to read over every policy and rule regarding it. But please, remove those so my former "disruptive edits" can be removed from Wikipedia. Thank you! (Not checking this again until I come back) Elijahandskip (talk) 04:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

It is almost as if I had never written "preventing disruption to the encyclopedia". Rapid archiving of ongoing conversations just looks like an effort to avoid scrutiny, which will of course not be successful. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Sigh. E&S, I see you aren't going to be checking in here, but FWIW, when you do get back: Though, as my last request, to make my return comments a lot easier, please delete the follow things. "President Joe Biden declared a state of emergency on May 9. The declaration removed limits regarding the transport of fuels by road, in an attempt to alleviate any potential shortages." from Colonial Pipeline ransomware attack and "In May 2021, YouTube suspended the Bollingers' Truth About Vaccines channel, as part of the platform's efforts to reduce the spread of COVID-19 misinformation. The channel boasted some 75,000 subscribers, with one video featuring Kennedy getting more than a million views. Their channel The Truth About Cancer was not impacted by the ban." from Ty Bollinger because you called my edits related to those to be "disruptive to the encyclopedia" and such information should be removed from Wikipedia. is a violation of your t-ban. —valereee (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Damn...hope this eventually works out for the best somehow! InedibleHulk (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Spartaz:, Since you turned off my email, I felt like I should appeal to you here. (Please no one else respond to this but Spartaz, since this would have been an email appeal to him.)

I have made a lot of mistakes on Wikipedia and I caused a whole lot of disruptive discussions on Wikipedia. I understand that. I took a few days to clear my head and now I truly do see what I caused on Wikipedia. Edits which I believed to have been for the best on Wikipedia were in fact horrible edits which I should have never done. I am sorry for all of them. I understand that a Post-1992 US Politics T-Ban covers all and I mean all aspects in relation to anything US Politics and US foreign relations. I also understand that is covers ALL COVID-19 mis-information… (I understand that, but still slightly confused on how “all” COVID-19 misinformation falls under the t-ban. Could you explain that more to me?). I also understand that editors are allowed to have opinions on Wikipedia as long as it doesn’t interfere with having a neutral POV when editing. I understand that I created articles in the past which should have never been created ever on Wikipedia. I also understand how any edit that breaks a T-Ban is disruptive on Wikipedia no matter what the significance of that edit is. For all and I mean all my T-Ban violations, I am truly sorry. I know that no matter how much I try, there are some editors I will never have complete trust with, but I can sure as hell try my best to renew that relationship over months and even years. So far all my violations and disruptiveness on Wikipedia, I am truly sorry for all that. If you decide to let me continue editing on Wikipedia, I promise to not make any edits in relation to US Politics (post 1992) & COVID-19 misinformation. As I said multiple times, I want to edit and work on the Twenty-Tens decade WikiProject on Wikipedia. I blew my chance to really work with the WikiProject (Due to my t-ban violations in the last 2 weeks), but I want to have a 2nd chance to be able to improve it. I am not asking at this time to have my t-ban removed. At this current point in time, I have no desire to appeal the t-ban, because I do deserve it. All I am appealing is the block from editing, so I can continue working on a WikiProject which I proposed back in May and created in August. In a few days, the WikiProject had 8 other participants besides myself. I took on an idea and I want to be able to improve and grow that idea to further improve Wikipedia. Thank you for reading this very long apology and appeal, and I thank you for considering to unblock me on Wikipedia. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I would question whether 2010s can be edited without crossing into american politics and I’d appreciate your explaining how you will manage that. Likewise, your previous edit was also a tban violation and it would reassure me if you could explain why it was so I know you understand. All covid misinformation is included because its a broad tban and for some insane reason politics in the US seems to determine many peoples’ approach to the subject. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Spartaz Thanks for explaining the COVID-19 Misinformation thing to me. I asked multiple times (over the last few months) and never got a response. So on the 2010s WikiProject, I will be extremely careful to make sure that I read each article before thinking about tagging it (if it happened or crossed into the 2010s). I am studying Meteorology in college right now, so I will probably stick more to the weather articles between 2010-present day. I discovered through passed mistakes and discussions that even if a political thing is mentioned (Say a state of emergency), I can still edit the article as long as my direct edits do not involve US politics OR that the article subject has anything to do with US Politics. Hence, why I can edit things like Hurricane Sandy. As long as I make sure the subject of the article and my edits do not involve US politics/COVID-19 misinformation, I can prevent crossing that line. I mean, weather is a hard thing to get political about besides the occasional state of emergencies and “aid/grief” comments from politicians, which I will make sure to stay away from. I am a member of some weather WikiProjects and I get pinged for weather discussions, so I do have things that I want to edit that do not involve US politics.

On the talk about my previous edit, yes it was a disruptive edit on Wikipedia and a violation of my t-ban, and it shouldn’t have ever been made. It violated the t-ban because I asked someone to make an edit on something in relation to my t-ban. Sorry for that, and to be fair, I was extremely hot-headed during that edit, so any chance I could get some forgiveness for that edit? Elijahandskip (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, that is clear enough and I am confident you understand the limitations now. I have reduced your block to two weeks from tye original block, which would be the next escalation after the previous tban block and the fact you continued to violate it. I also restored your email access. Please don’t abuse it. After 6m clean editing, I am willing to review your tban and see if we can lift it. In tye meantime, you must realise that there are now eyes on your edits so follow the rules and feel free to ask if you have any doubts. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Elijahandskip (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I see you mentioned weather above, so make sure you never edit or make a comment that smacks of climate change denial, as such denial is another GOP/Trump litmus test/political position. Many of them require denying facts and reality. -- Valjean (talk) 19:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks Valjean! Elijahandskip (talk) 03:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of drone strikes in the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan

The article List of drone strikes in the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

An unnecessary fork of List of drone strikes in Afghanistan, the change of regime is easily reflected in the main article and until/unless substantial new 'striking' is done post-withdrawal, the subject is better covered as a continuation of the main article.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Pincrete (talk) 07:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)