TheWikipedian05

Welcome!

Hello, TheWikipedian05, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 02:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Elliot Rodger (September 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Gorden 2211 were:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Elliot Rodger and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Elliot Rodger, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Gorden 2211 (talk) 04:54, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

TheWikipedian05, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi TheWikipedian05! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Blaze The Wolf (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

October 2021

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Alec Baldwin, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Chevvin 03:40, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Category:School shootings committed by teenagers has been nominated for deletion

Category:School shootings committed by teenagers has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. 1857a (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from 2014 Isla Vista killings into Draft:Elliot Rodger. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 12:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Elliot Rodger has been accepted

Elliot Rodger, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a fantastic rating for a new article, and places it among the top 3% of accepted submissions — major kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:47, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Category:Millennials has been nominated for deletion

Category:Millennials has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Elliott Rodger

Don't add unsourced material to the article. If you want to expand it, do it in a sandbox, then you can move the material later when it's sourced. Black Kite (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

FYI, this article is being discussed here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Massive (vile) quote. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 01:17, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

OK, but since consensus was required to make the article, consensus should be required to delete the article, and should be based solely on the merits (or lackthereof) of having an article. That this article is recently new doesn't imply it's wrong. TheWikipedian05 (talk) 1:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, TheWikipedian05,

Since you do care about this article, it would benefit you to participate in this noticeboard discussion which is questioning whether this page should be an article. I'm sure you have an opinion about this and it's better to be part of the discussion than to be surprised by the outcome of a discussion you've chosen not to enter. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:25, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

March 2022

Hi TheWikipedian05! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Elliot Rodger several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Elliot Rodger, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Is it really edit warring to restore the original version of the article, as it was? Currently, the article is gone, and I don't think restoring it would qualify as edit warring. TheWikipedian05 (talk) 1:42, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

TheWikipedian05 (talk) 1:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Elliot Rodger. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}.  – Muboshgu (talk) 02:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

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).

TheWikipedian05 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was not engaging in any kind of edit warring, as opposed to merely restoring the page to how it originally was. This page had all of its content deleted, all 40,000 KG worth of data, arbitrarily, without any kind of discussion or attempt to reach consensus. Such a thing is obviously unfair, considering I put in a lot of time to make this article. I was simply restoring this page to its original version and, when it became clear that edits were constantly made, actually started a discussion to help achieve consensus. The onus of proof is on the people who want to make the relevant changes, not the person who wants to keep the status quo. TheWikipedian05 (talk) 4:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The content was not removed arbitrarily, but based on Wikipedia policy as described in the edit history. Your defense seems to boil down to that you think you were correct; being correct is not a defense, as everyone in an edit war thinks that they are correct. The onus is on you, as someone who supports changing a redirect into an article, to demonstrate why it is needed and how policy supports you. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 10:18, 5 March 2022 (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.

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)