This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Life and Liberty Party, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Constitution Party. 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) 08:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2016 United States presidential election you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Babegriev -- Babegriev ( talk) 06:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The article 2016 United States presidential election you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:2016 United States presidential election for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Babegriev -- Babegriev ( talk) 07:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Elliot321! I saw you recently edited a page related to the Green party and green politics. There is a WikiProject that has been formed - WikiProject Green Politics and I thought this might be something you'd be interested in joining! So please head on over to the project page and take a look! Thanks for your time.

Me-123567-Me (
talk) 21:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Did you ever get an answer to this question, which I just saw?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@ Vchimpanzee: nope. I ended up including the text in the article I was writing, though. Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 01:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

The article 2016 United States presidential election you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:2016 United States presidential election for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Babegriev -- Babegriev ( talk) 07:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for reviewing The Men We Repeated. I wanted to give you a heads up that a synopsis or plot section for a book entry generally does not require cited sources as the source is assumed to be the book itself (ie, WP editors writing those entries need not cite page numbers for each plot point). Now, if such a section contained analysis of themes, etc., that does need a source—but it should probably also be under a different header. Anyway, just a heads up, hope it’s helpful in your NPR work—thank you for your efforts! Innisfree987 ( talk) 18:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@ Innisfree987: ah, fair enough, I wasn't sure about that after skimming through the guidelines. Thanks for the information! Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 18:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I have created a new page ( 2016 United States Shadow Representative election in the District of Columbia) as part of my goal of adding pages for all DC elections. I tried to do a new thing with recording under/overvotes since they are recorded at the source. Since you looked over the two previous pages I made, I was wondering if you could review this one as well to see if it fits in with wikipedia conventions. Baconheimian ( talk) 19:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@ Baconheimian: Thanks for reaching out! The article looks mostly good, so I've approved it. My suggestion would be to create Category:Washington, D.C. Shadow Representative elections, it doesn't have to be a particularly detailed page - just categorize it as Category:Washington, D.C. elections. About overvotes and undervotes - I'm not sure about how other articles deal with that, but what you've done should be fine. Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 20:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, your move to add the year to 2012 Arkansas Amendment 91 does not make sense to me. There will never be another Amendment 91 in Arkansas. In my opinion, this would make more sense for issues that do not pass (i.e., 2012 Arkansas Issue 1, 2020 Arkansas Issue 1) as they are numbered sequentially based on how they appear on that ballot, so names get reused. But if approved, they become sequentially numbered constitutional amendments. The year is not really relevant.

Prior to 1988, the issues sent to the voters were numbered as "Proposed Amendment _" on the ballot, and there is duplication where a number was re-used if it didn't pass. I agree the "year Arkansas Amendment ##" format makes sense for articles on those amendments. Brandonrush Woo pig sooie! 01:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@ Brandonrush: Fair enough, I'm not sure of the exact intricacies of the Arkansas amendment process. I'm not sure what the best thing to do would be for consistency sake - the policy says "use the format "Year Jurisdiction Measure Identifier"" - so I'd be inclined to name it 2012 Arkansas Issue 1, or at least have that be a redirect. Really not sure, I don't care too strongly but I do like having some consistency so maybe we should have someone else weigh in. Is there any other way of having the constitution amended? I think that might change things (since having "2012 Arkansas Amendment 91" but then just "Arkansas Amendment 92" [since it wasn't a ballot measure] would not make much sense). Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 16:32, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Please review again. Kwesi Yema ( talk) 03:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@ Kwesi Yema: thanks for creating and expanding the article - I've copyedited it a bit. Please note that when you copy content from one article into another, you should write which article you copied from in the edit summary. Also, please make sure you put references directly after text, as follows: This is an example sentence.<ref>example reference</ref>. Thanks! Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 04:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Well noted. Kwesi Yema ( talk) 15:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

An article you recently created, SponsorBlock, does not have enough third party sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs citations from reliable, independent sources. ( ?) 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. DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@ DGG: I feel like this is somewhat unfair. The extension has been featured and reviewed on Mozilla's blog before (and Mozilla is generally considered somewhat of an authority on web-related subjects) as well as in Chip (magazine). Sure, more sources are nice, but two is enough for notability. I could add a Gadget Hacks source additionally, but though they have a Wikipedia page, I'm unsure of their reliability - no comments when I asked on the sources noticeboard. Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 03:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I moved it to give you a chance to improve it with better sources, because I think it would otherwise be deleted at an AfD. But I don't decide that, the community does at AfD. Add what you can, from substantial 3rd party reliable published sources, not press releases or blogs or postings or mere notices . If you think the publications are good enough, submit it, and see if another reviewer approves it. I or anyone can then decide to send it to AfD; if it's sent there, make your argument, and the community will decide. I do not make the decision. DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@ DGG: fair enough. I'll see about adding more sources to it soon. I do appreciate you not speedying it, at least. Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 05:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Elliot321, I had make some changes on vcash based on your comments, though I still got question regarding further improvement that need to be done. You can see the question I left in talk page. Thanks. WPSamson ( talk) 03:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

18:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey there! Could you clarify if you support the alt as well as the original? This is usually done by changing your vote to Support original, Support alt, or Support either. Adam Cuerden ^{( talk)}_{Has about 7.7% of all FPs} 16:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@ Adam Cuerden: done, thanks for the reminder. Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 17:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Utah Desert Monolith.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 05:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I had been wondering what New Nevada was …… AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 17:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@ AleatoryPonderings: glad I could help! Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 17:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

power~enwiki ( π, ν) 05:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

You look to have nominated a bunch of userspace drafts for deletion under G13; my understanding is that they are not eligible unless they're under the Articles for creation project, which the couple I checked were not -- a number of them are by well-established editors and customarily their drafts are left alone even if apparently abandoned. Could you check and self-revert the errors, because I'm going offline shortly. Regards, Espresso Addict ( talk) 10:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

@ Espresso Addict: all of these were under the Articles for Creation project, as far as I could tell - they had {{ Userspace draft}} applied to them - and got the category "Stale userspace drafts" for that reason. I'll check and revert the ones which fit the criteria you described, though I'm pretty sure my characterization is still accurate. Perhaps there should be another template to disambiguate the two types? Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 10:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. It looks like that's just the default that comes up if one starts the article using the wizard? It doesn't look like the grey Articles for creation unsubmitted box (eg Draft:The Hobbit: Armies of The Third Age) or the pink rejected submission box (eg Draft:George Feifer). I note the former has the warning "Drafts not being improved may be deleted after six months." while the ones I looked at that you have just tagged don't.

Looking at the instructions for Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts#Stale userspace drafts, which is linked from the category you mention, the instructions don't seem to state they are eligible for G13? My reading of that would be leave them alone, unless clearly copyvio or contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia in some way. The G13 eligible category is Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions.

I'm very chary of deleting an established user's userspace drafts, however old -- it serves no purpose and has the power to significantly annoy editors who, even if currently inactive, might return to activity. Espresso Addict ( talk) 10:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

@ Espresso Addict: ok, fair enough. The policy seemed unclear to me, but in retrospect I should've been more cautious. The place I found them from was Category:Userspace drafts from April 2014 - which implies there is a backlog - though I think that is actually an issue with the way many categories are managed - I posted a note at the categories wikiproject about this. Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 10:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Elliot312, this is Debartolo2917. I see you have recently been marking plenty of my disambiguation pages with tags for speedy deletion, under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion. According to section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, a disambiguation article may be deleted if it links to only one other page and ends with "(disambiguation)". All of my articles are above that qualification. I understand they have not yet been deleted, but am willing to talk about why you flagged them. In reference to the copy-and-paste pages, they were designed to take the place of the pages with the same name, but without the "disambiguation" tag, as they appear red when linked to.

@ Debartolo2917: while the pages link to only two pages, they only disambiguate one page, from one other page. As for the ones with (disambiguation), please make them redirects instead - and tag them with {{rcat shell|{{r to disambiguation}}}}. I've been doing this for the current pages you made that followed that pattern. Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 06:57, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@ Elliot321: Just noticed. Did not know how to redirect, but will do from now on. Thank you for teaching me! What is the difference between linking and disambiguating, in terms of what I am donig. It just seems a little unclear to me. Debartolo2917 ( talk 07:02, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@ Debartolo2917: it's just a semantic thing. The way I read it, and the way it logically makes sense to me, would imply that the number of pages "disambiguated" is one less than the number linked - because the criteria "disambiguate zero extant Wikipedia pages" exists (if it didn't, WP:A3 could be applied. Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 07:05, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@ Elliot321: Got it. In theory the criterion then is three various links. Will replicate that in the future. Good this got clarified before I did more. Debartolo2917 ( talk contribs) 07:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@ Debartolo2917: yep - three links if the title ends in (disambiguation) or two if it doesn't. When there's no primary topic (the two people with the name are about as well-known) - I'd move the one at the base page to one with a disambiguating title (like moving "David Smith" to "David Smith (actor)" - and then creating the disambiguation page at David Smith). Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 07:13, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

The article Ashton Pittman has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Falls short of meeting WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO.

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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:46, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Elliot321

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged R/AmItheAsshole for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons. For more details please see the notice on the article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

JJP...MASTER! _{[talk to] JJP... master?} 16:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fuck you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS ( talk) 06:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Ken Bone debate appearance.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 18:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

More comments have been provided. Before I go further, I wanted you to have a chance to address them. SNUGGUMS ( talk / edits) 01:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

 —  Amakuru ( talk) 12:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:PogChamp emoji.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{ Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Andrew nyr talk contribs 01:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:PogChamp emoji.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Andrew nyr talk contribs 01:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Jake Angeli § Primary sources. Elizium23 ( talk) 01:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Your account has been granted the "templateeditor" user permission, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit editnotices. Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation.

You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edinotices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established. If you are willing to process edit requests on templates and modules, keep in mind that you are taking responsibility to ensure the edits have consensus and are technically sound.

This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

If you were granted the permission on a temporary basis you will need to re-apply for the permission a few days before it expires including in your request a permalink to the discussion where it was granted and a {{ ping}} for the administrator who granted the permission. You can find the permalink in your rights log.

Useful links

• All template-protected pages
• User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable – outstanding template-protected edit requests (bot-generated)
• Request fully-protected templates or modules be downgraded to template protection

Happy template editing! Primefac ( talk) 11:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

As you asked on Template talk:Wikidata redirect#Accidental category transclusion after last change -- Stylez995 ( talk) 15:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for making the election maps interactive you are a legend- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lcandrews04 ( talk • contribs) 04:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@ Lcandrews04: glad I could help! If there's any particular maps you'd like me to get to, please let me know. Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 04:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Seriously - your maps are so helpful. And yeah if you were to make interactive ones for the senate elections prior to 98' that would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lcandrews04 ( talk • contribs) 01:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@ Lcandrews04: of course, that's what I'm planning on doing next! btw, you might want to consider signing your messages on talk pages with ~~~~ at the end. Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 02:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, I am new to editing Wikipedia. FYI it seems like you missed 1997 gubernationals, no rush of course just curious if you forgot it. Lcandrews04 ( talk) 04:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@ Lcandrews04: Thanks for the catch! I hope you enjoy Wikipedia... feel free to ask my any questions you have. It's certainly a unique site compared to the rest of the internet, but I enjoy it a lot. Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 04:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I have been using Wikipedia probably since I was in First Grade so it is definitely fascinating learning how to edit it. I will certainly reach out if I need any help! Lcandrews04 ( talk) 04:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

He keeps continuously adding in Ryan Webber in the voice actors in the infobox of Mickey Mouse. He also keeps using IMDb as a reference for the info, is there by any chance you could remove it again? 97.33.65.251 ( talk) 01:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

The user's edits have been reverted and they have been reported to the administrators. Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 02:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Complete list, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Complete list and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Complete list during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. —  Godsy ^{( TALK} _CONT) 01:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for you great contributions on GameStop short squeeze Nithin🚀 talk 20:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@ Nithin: thanks! My first barnstar, if I'm not mistaken. Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 20:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Only took 6 years lol Nithin🚀 ^talk 20:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@ Nithin: ...lol Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 20:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Leave a talk page message if you disagree with something I do. Don't just revert. Jehochman ^Talk 20:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@ Jehochman: I'm sorry, but this article in particular is not the place to try to change consensus around how Wikipedia:Requested moves works. Do I like how it works? No. But this is the wrong venue. If you start an RfC about replacing the template with something less obnoxious, or some other indication, I'd probably support it - feel free to do that. Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 20:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I removed a line where someone left a half finished sentence "Corruption of Joe Biden" which seemed like a troll line considering that's all it was. 47.144.8.171 ( talk) 00:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Oops, sorry for reverting that! I meant to revert the person you reverted! *facepalm* Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 10:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey Elliot321, I just wanted to mention that there's currently an Editathon planned involving WP:LABOUR that you might be interested in: The Tech Worker Coalition wants to improve the coverage of unions and unionisation in the technology sector from February 19 to 21. There's already quite a list of things to do, but few people to do them. If you're interested, drop by! Shushugah ( talk) 13:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@ Shushugah: thanks for the notice! Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 13:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Barnstar thanks

Well, since the barnstar was a way of saying thanks, this is a way of saying "you're welcome".

I decided to enhance that article because, as I said at DYK, I have worked on other SCOTUS 1A case articles and I realized what this one could and should be. And I knew how to write it.

I will be keeping an eye on it going forward. Daniel Case ( talk) 19:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Re your message: I unprotected it and created the redirect. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 23:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Elliot321. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Primefac ( talk) 17:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Your DYK hook about Snowflake ID drew 5,180 page views (432 per hour) while on the Main Page. It is the one of most viewed hooks so far during the month of February and has earned a place on the Best of February list. Keep up the great work! Cbl62 ( talk) 10:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	I know this is a bit late, but I just wanted to thank you for resolving the whole issue with Joel S. Levine being put back into draftspace after publication in a peaceful and non-confrontational manner. I really appreciate your work! Yitz ( talk) 06:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@ Yitzilitt: thanks! Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 06:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

As creator of the redirect, I agree that your proposed target is better. Can probably be speedily closed. If you run into any of mine again you think have a better target, leave a message on my talk page and if I agree, then we can spare an RFD discussion. Hog Farm _Talk 04:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@ Hog Farm: gotcha. I was considering retargeting, but I figured this change might be controversial since the section does have some relevant info. Anyway, have a good one. I'll close the RfD. Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 05:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I've requested re-closure at WP:AN of the RfC you closed after voting in it. If you wish to review the instructions for closing RfCs, you can do so here. Best, Samsara 17:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Samsara fair enough. I figured that per "if the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable", I could close the RfC, as the consensus was very clear and non-controversial - and the RfC was not attracting more comments with a potential change to that consensus. Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 20:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		Thanks for helping out at CCI. The more the merrier! :) Keep up the great work! MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 22:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Eli Savit at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Rcsprinter123 (post) 18:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Elliot321

Thank you for creating FreeShop.

User:TheTechnician27, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

The only other reliable sources I could find about this software discuss it entirely within the context of the DMCA takedown, such as Gamasutra, the Daily Express ( twice), and Nintendo Life (this one uses the Kotaku piece as its sole source). The only other reliable sources I can find tangentially related to the freeShop are about its creator, such as this article from Patch and this one from Patch this one from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Of course, however, these would be both largely outside this article's scope and probably wildly inappropriate to include as none of them even mention the freeShop.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|TheTechnician27}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

TheTechnician27 indeed, I do think the TorrentFreak source I used discussed the software outside of that context - and TorrentFreak is generally considered a reliable source. Also, yeah, I wasn't going to include the stuff about the developer's legal troubles, because while it's certainly the same person, it's not relevant nor is the person that generally notable (though, maybe? Edvalson v The State did cause some law changes, apparently, though not documented in reliable sources) Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 17:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Thank you for the excellent help and discussion last night—I really appreciate it! You seem like a really nice person, and I wish you success in all your future Wiki endeavors. Yitz ( talk) 17:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@ Yitzilitt: *blush* you're too kind! Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 17:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The article Fuck you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Fuck for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS ( talk) 01:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Firstly I wanted to thank you for fixing a mistake I had made in Template:1959 United States elections. I could not find that one small bracket that I had missed and cannot thank you enough. Secondly, you had mentioned to me that redirects should be categorized and have a template on them. Another Wikipedian told me at one point that categories aren't needed. I'm not sure about the template part though. Plus, I must say that I appreciate you complementing me about creating these redirect pages and it makes my work have a higher level of value to it. It is my exact purpose to create these pages for navigational purposes.

Skim 01:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Skim127 glad I could help! As for redirect categories - the categories aren't absolutely necessary when making them but applying them is much appreciated - and please use the templates when available, they are preferable to the naked cats. Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 03:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)