User talk:DementiaGaming

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by KylieTastic were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:S/2011 J3 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 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.

KylieTastic (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DementiaGaming! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KylieTastic (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DementiaGaming. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:S/2011 J3, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:

This submission appears to be a news report of a single event and may not be notable enough for an article in Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#NEWS and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event for more information.

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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:2023 Paris explosion and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 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.

KylieTastic (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't realize there was already a page on it, my bad DementiaGaming (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Carter00000. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, 2023, but you didn't provide a reliable source. I've added a source for the content. In future, please always add a source when inserting content into page. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Carter00000 (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in 1990 Manjil–Rudbar earthquake, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.



Hi DG, thank you for improving the article.All citations on Wikipedia needs to be in a consistent format. All information should be added into a citation when referencing. Kindly see Wikipedia:Citation templates for further information. You'll also be able to access these citation templates via your the editor toolbar on the source editor mode.

With reference with to the image, that's the editor toolbar. Under Advanced > Special characters > Help > Cite: the citations template is found under this capability. Drop-down option will enable the templates. Do reach out if you need further assistance! Cheers. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 13:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Carter00000 (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Carter00000. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, 2023, but you didn't provide a reliable source, please provide a source when adding content in the future. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Carter00000 (talk) 13:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. I think you might've made a boo boo, when removing collage images from the Decade pages. As I understood it, the RFC decision (since undone) was to delete collage images from only Year pages. Not the Decade or Century pages. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sorry, but you're slightly off. DementiaGaming (talk) 18:17, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey DementiaGaming. I saw your message and I wanted to see if you were interested in the weather. I edit a lot around the topic along with the WikiProject of Weather. My current project is working on a list of every deadly tornado. But, there is thousands of weather articles that need improvement or even creation. Again, I’m not sure if you are interested in editing around the topic, but if you are, feel free to message me. Cheers and keep up the amazing work on Wikipedia! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:08, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Actually, yes, I have studied many aspects of the weather such as cyclones and tornadoes, and I even tried to make a YouTube "iceberg" video on them. I am especially interested in the 2011 Joplin tornado and Cyclone Nargis. I usually get on this website to see updates on worldwide cyclone seasons (right now focused on the Southern Hemisphere cuz that's what is active right now). DementiaGaming (talk) 22:43, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although, for now, I think it would be best for me to take a break from talk pages or WikiProjects, because frankly, every single comment I posted on the collages were personal attacks and I'm lucky I'm not permanently banned (I've been acting like the Grinch or Anatoly Dyatlov (if you've ever seen Chernobyl. Also, what I have said goes against my faith and I need to get closer to God during the holidays. I might return to talk pages someday. DementiaGaming (talk) 22:50, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#RfC: Removal of image collages. I know discussions can get to be stressful. I hope you feel better. Best regards, Thinker78 (talk) 01:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just this discussion, I've been getting threats and personal attacks here and on Youtube I might vanish/delete my account.

Thank you. Happy holidays and a very exciting new year for all. DementiaGaming (talk) 04:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Before you take such a drastic step, if you have threatened in Wikipedia please read Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. I hope everything gets resolved. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 05:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your removal of the 2020 collage was unjustified. You can add collages to ongoing decades, there is no rule relating to that. Please take this to the RFC. Indiana6724 (talk) 01:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, prove that there is no rule that contradicts my edit. If you can't prove this, your edit will be undone. DementiaGaming (talk) 02:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you must provide evidence as to WHY you removed the collage. i will continue to revert your changes until you stop. Indiana6724 (talk) 03:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, you should be the one who is providing evidence. You never explained why you reverted my edit, but I explained why I did (on the 2020s page). DementiaGaming (talk) 03:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and its invalid reasoning. theres no rule barring collages on current decades, therefore its disruptive editing. i will continue to revert your changes. Indiana6724 (talk) 03:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid? WP:WAIT is invalid? DementiaGaming (talk) 03:30, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

yes, but it doesn't apply to decades as far as im aware. Indiana6724 (talk) 03:34, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I may consider undoing your edit. If you undo mine, you will be considered for WP:WAR. Now I have two WPs against you, are there any WPs against me? It's your job to prove this. If you can't prove this, your edit will be undone. DementiaGaming (talk) 03:34, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you can take it to the rfc, but im still reverting your edit. Indiana6724 (talk) 03:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're avoiding my question, and it's frustrating. Do you have a WP against my edit? Answer my question!

And no, I'm not taking to the RfC. That RfC is about the removal of them all because of their own violations. I should take it to the 2020s talk page. DementiaGaming (talk) 03:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

good luck Indiana6724 (talk) 03:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like people have already discussed this issue on Talk:2020s. Please go post your preferences. DementiaGaming (talk) 03:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WAIT does not apply to current decades and collages. WP:WAIT isn't reliable. Indiana6724 (talk) 03:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: You still didn't explain why you removed the collage on the 2020s page, so your edits are technically disruptive.

Also, I have pinged several people to include in the discussion on their removal in Talk:2020s. DementiaGaming (talk) 00:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

there's no rule that bars people from making collages for current decades. people have been making collages for current decades since collages appeared on Wikipedia. Indiana6724 (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then they shouldn't have been doing that. Just because they did it doesn't mean it was right. DementiaGaming (talk) 03:28, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another update: Your edit has been undone. The consensus in the talk page was overwhelming to remove it. DementiaGaming (talk) 21:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't prove it. But suspect the IP & Mobile editors, are the same individual. Though I don't know who the individual is. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that it's @User:Indiana6724. Both the user and the IP leave no explanation for why they are undoing my edits and they need to stop. DementiaGaming (talk) 00:35, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That IP isn’t me, I haven’t touched article in a week. Indiana6724 (talk) 00:53, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove collages in anticipation of the result of the RfC at WP:YEARS. Wait until it has been closed, and we can act accordingly. 🎄Cremastra 🎄 (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but if you’re going to add them back until they will be removed (when someone finally does the right thing), then at least add them all back instead of just two years. DementiaGaming (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The pages for 1985, 2016 and any other page that have the collages stick out like a sore thumb. I know that there is nothing on Wikipedia about consistency, but it's weird that only these two pages have collages.

Sooner or later, someone's going to make a huge, idiotic deal out of this. DementiaGaming (talk) 00:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cremastra, once again I am asking you to at least add all the collages back if you want to keep 1985 and 2016. At least ask someone to help you. DementiaGaming (talk) 14:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I'm doing it now. I'm really tired of your endlessly combative and hostile attitude to approximately everthing. Is it that damn hard to calm down and AGF? Not everything is a WP:BATTLEGROUND. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get what is so hostile an about this. In the end, these are all just pixels on a screen. It seems the RfC has been ended under the argument to keep them, so I will help you add them back. DementiaGaming (talk) 00:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, it looks like the RFC at Years isn't going to be closed until a consensus has been obtained for keeping the image collages. Suffice it to say, I won't be taking part in the never-ending disputes over which images should or shouldn't be kept in those collages. Kinda sad though, as I suspect 'most' of the keepers aren't interested in the Year, Decade or Millennium pages, bu only in having images. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DementiaGaming. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:2023 Paris explosion, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 09:06, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DementiaGaming. I'm an administrator, but I'm involved in all the articles and pages where I've observed your behavior, so please take this as a comment coming from a fellow editor.

Please stay civil in your edit summaries and comments. Please do not refer to good-faith contributors as "these idiots" (diff). It is also uncivil to describe those same attempts as "slobbering over this page" (diff). Separate from the civility issues, it's probably unwise to describe events in which people have died as ones "that nobody cares about". As far as I'm aware, you've been through the ringer with some debates over the way the years project will act, but please don't take it out on your fellow volunteers. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. There is no excuse for this.

I DementiaGaming (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:DementiaGaming reported by User:33ABGirl (Result: ). Thank you. 33ABGirl (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at 2024. 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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey DementiaGaming! So I saw you started Talk:2023#2023 collage picture candidates and I wanted to do a slight alternative proposal on how to handle them. Earlier, I had started nearly a duplicate discussion (Talk:2023#RFC — Proposal for images to be in article) and it was decided that to solve for an WP:UNDUE issue, we need to separate RfCs or 2 unique consensus'. Here is what I was thinking:

1. RfC on candidates only. So this is where all the different candidates/options are thrown into the ring and sort of "ratified" as the options for the 2nd RfC. (So like maybe 15-20+ options to pick from)
2. After that first RfC, we host this 2nd RfC more as a survey-style. Each candidate/image option would be a stand-alone sub-section in the RfC. Each user only gets 6 or 8 (or how ever many images would be in the collage) "votes". Similar "voting" to how a Request for Adminship work, where it is partially numbers-based.

That system would probably work best, as it allows people to put their candidates in without weird timeline style differences and allows for all voices/thoughts on the candidates to be held before the actual collage vote. So, with that idea in mind, I wanted to propose a WP:MUTUAL deletion, where we delete the "discussion" section (my comment as well as your comment) I added to your new collage picture candidates discussion and we convert your candidate discussion into that first RfC. It is a long process that I am proposing, but given the complexity of the recent RfC on collages, it is best to have that long of a process (i.e. 2 separate 30-day (at least) long discussions). Thoughts on this? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DementiaGaming. I was wondering why are you removing collages. Also, where is the discussion you mention in the edit summaries? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 07:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not going to mention who, but somebody, when they realized the RfC on collages was overturned, added them all back instead of keeping the ones with ongoing discussions about themselves removed. The collages with ongoing discussions on their own talk pages should be removed. DementiaGaming (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but if someone reverts your removals, remember WP:TALKDONTREVERT. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your mass collage removals. You don't get to do a WP:FAITACCOMPLI by systematically introducing your desired state across this many articles, especially not after an RfC which decided to keep the collages. The collages are illustrative and each complements the text on the page it is on in some way. Some do it better, some a bit worse. Please discuss each and every one of the collages separately on respective talk pages, point to concrete issues and identify ways to improve each and every collage, seek input, and take your time with it. That is what is consistent with the result of the RfC, not what you have done. I support the collages and none of the collages have such critical problems to warrant wholesale removal. Don't take this the wrong way. Sincerely—Alalch E. 17:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The agreement in the RfC was to remove the ones that were contested. WP:IDONTLIKEIT DementiaGaming (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any such agreement at the RFC. The closer supported restoring the collages where they had been removed: "Given the significantly wider scale of this discussion, any editor wishing to restore them may do so." You're removing material using edit summaries such as the "style of collage is under its own discussion" which as far as I can tell is not true. gobonobo ^{+ c} 20:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When he said that, he was not talking about photomontage content disputes of their own, he was talking about adding them back after they were initially removed. If you want to discuss this with someone, discuss it with Deb. DementiaGaming (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. You removed, for example, the collage at 1974, saying "The agreement in the RfC was to remove the contested images." What part of the close leads you to believe that? Why doesn't "many collages were prematurely removed from year articles during the course of this RfC with at most limited discussion. Given the significantly wider scale of this discussion, any editor wishing to restore them may do so" apply here? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have to establish consensus for the creation of collages. That's why I removed them. Nobody cared to establish consensus in the creation for the collages of 1991 and below, they acted in their own rules. If you're worried that I'm going to remove all of them, I won't. Please, understand that there has to be some rules for their creation, or else there will be bias.

First, act on this principle, then it will be appropriate to add the new ones back. DementiaGaming (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mass removal followed by demands for consensus is not collaborative editing. You also haven't stated your reasons for the removal, and you cited the RfC consensus in a way that I still don't understand. Additionally, the close mentions how discussions about collages should focus on the "factors particular to an article", but you haven't cited anything in particular to support the removals. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, let me show you an example of bias in these collages.

In the 1949 page, which I have not removed yet, to show you this bias, there is an entry about the Prüm explosion in Germany, which although damaged the town and was a large explosion, was largely a forgotten event for the time and only killed 12 people.

Along with that and a few other entries including a nameless strike and a coining of a forgettable term for the time (when nobody knew who the heck this Big Bang kid is), I think this photomontage has some bias in it. DementiaGaming (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assume for the sake of focusing on the real issues that I agree with you 100% on those issues. You should feel free to post about them on the talk page, or even directly remove the collage with an informative edit summary. You could even seek consensus for a mass removal at some central location (like a WikiProject talk page). My main objection is to a mass removal that you know is contentious, while using misleading edit summaries. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for not immediately undoing my edits and talking about this issue, it helps this situation a lot. DementiaGaming (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Firefangledfeathers and Alalch E., it looks like this editor did a mass removal of content on year articles. I was about to mass revert all of their edits today as it looked like disruptive editing but will just ping you since it seems like you know more about this situation than I do. This behavior, coming from a less experienced editor, makes me think that a block is called for. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DementiaGaming I tried to tell you about Talk dont Revert. No idea why you put yourself in this situation. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 05:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was - as you know - extremely concerned about the closer of the discussion (not an admin), egging on contributors to add back the collages without any consensus, but it seems I am in a minority. To me, the fact that it was decided that collages would not be outlawed is not a justification for them all to be restored. Deb (talk) 09:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take 1959 as a random example. What is the reason to remove the entire collage, and based on which criteria was this article selected for collage removal, as opposed to some other article? I could not determine the reason, I could not find a relevant talk page discussion about removing the collage (there is a discussion about the collage, involving a different set of images, but not about removing the collage), the removal looks arbitrary, so I reverted the removal. This was reverted to ensure that the collage is removed. I would argue that it should not have been removed in the first place; what should have happened is a discussion to identify ways to improve the collage. Only if the collage is so distinctly bad as to warrant total removal, would it be good to remove it, but that seems unlikely. If there are a few images that could be replaced with better images, why not just do it? Such incremental changes don't need pre-vetting. To an interested editor I would say: Just replace the images. If someone is unsure about which exact images would be the better images, it would be great to make a suggestion on the talk page, seek input, but during this time, there is no benefit in the collage being removed. But I could be wrong. Am I missing something? —Alalch E. 10:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"there is a discussion about the collage, involving a different set of images" Doesn't that sound like there was not consensus to include this particular collage? Deb (talk) 13:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That only signifies that there is a potential improvement to be had, which is presumably always the case anyway. There is a general assumption that things can be improved, Wikipedia is a work in progress, and there is no deadline. To remove something and to improve something are two distinct topics that can be relevant separately or concurrently. Let's simplify it by an analogy with a single image, in, say in a biographical article. Someone says "we could really use a better portrait". Editors would then look for a better portrait. There is no reason to remove the existing portrait in the meantime; no one has stated a reason. That's different from saying "this portrait is unflaterring, it doesn't look like what it's mean to represent /and maybe even "it's a disparaging portrait"/ ... so it should be removed" + "we could really use a better portrait". It could then be a good idea to remove the portrait, there is probably a reason to remove the portrait, and editors would look for a better portrait. In the case of 1959, no one said "the collage is so bad that it should be removed". There is no substantive rationale for removal. —Alalch E. 15:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you restore something where you know there has been a discussion, of which the outcome has not yet been agreed? Yes, it's true there are nearly always improvements to be had. In the case of collages, in few cases has there been any attempt to obtain consensus as yet. Hence all that is being achieved by continually adding images that have not been fully discussed is to encourage edit warring. Deb (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is not a discussion to remove, it isn't based on removal and doesn't indicate removal. No one even seeks removal. So the situation is not that I would restore something where you know there has been a discussion, of which the outcome has not yet been agreed. That's not the description of the situation that I agree with. It would need to be a discussion that involves removal, and a discussion that ostensibly only involves changes but not removal does not necessitate removal while the outcome is being determined. —Alalch E. 16:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide diffs for context? Because other editors may not understand what's going on. Thanks. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: There's been further back-and-forth reverting at 1985, so I have opened a talk page section to discuss it there. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Cremastra: What about 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, 1959, 1971, 1977, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1991, 2000, 2012, 1970s, 1990s? —Alalch E. 15:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed a process to get a community consensus for collage images in a yearly article. You can see it here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#Proposal for a standardized process for yearly collage images. Note, it is being experimented on for the 2023 collage. If consensus get’s behind it, we will have a similar process on every yearly article where a collage debate arises. I would highly suggest all of y’all take a look and comment on the proposal. So far, two editors have supported it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that @Setarip added the photomontages back with no edit summary.

So you think I'm the one breaking the rules? Look at yourselves, with @Firefangledfeathers WP:THREATENing me on my own talk page and @Setarip adding the images back with no edit summary (which is WP:VANDALism.)

@Cremastra @Alalch E. @WeatherWriter DementiaGaming (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Setarip should have left an edit summary, or, even better, not gotten involved. But they are not a vandal. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think I've threatened you? I mean you no harm. Setarip's actions aren't great here either; though, this was the inevitable consequence of knowingly controversial mass edits without consensus. Reverting without using and edit summary is poor conduct, but not vandalism. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I mistook you for @Liz. Yes, she was the one who threatened me. DementiaGaming (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few of your edits seem to be kindda in the edit warrish camp though. I recommend you read Wikipedia:Edit warring. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 02:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what vandalism youre the one who removed all the collages from the years Setarip (talk) 13:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At least I left an edit summary, you did not, so it is borderline vandalism. DementiaGaming (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it really, really, really isn't. Forgetting to leave an edit summary while executing an admittedly ill-advised removal is not tantamount to deliberately intend[ing] to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 02:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I am somehow mistaken, the agreement in the RfC was to remove contested images. DementiaGaming (talk) 13:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. Re-read the closing statement. The relevant portion is the last paragraph.

---

Editors supporting removal of collages from year articles argued primarily that they are inherently original research and non-neutral. They additionally argued that the process of selecting images for collages introduces an additional maintenance burden, and that they have other disadvantages like accessibility concerns.

Editors opposed to removal noted that these factors are not specific to collages for year articles, raising the concern that this is a localized referendum on collages generally. They responded to the removal arguments by arguing that image selection falls within normal editorial discretion and is therefore not OR/NPOV, that the maintenance burden is not intractable, and that the accessibility concerns can be resolved through using multiple-image collages rather than single-image collages. They additionally argued that the collages are useful to readers, having encyclopedic pertinence.

Overall, the keep side successfully refuted the arguments of the removal side, and presented the additional usefulness/pertinence argument which was not meaningfully refuted by the removal side. There was a strong trend over the course of the RfC, with many remove !votes early on giving way to many keep !votes later on. It is difficult to parse whether this reflects persuasion over the course of the discussion or the fact that proper notice to relevant articles was not given until the second half, but either would be a valid factor. However, there is not universal agreement, with some editors remaining stridently in favor of removal even after encountering the keep arguments. Given all this, I find weak consensus to keep the collages.

As for where to go from here, many collages were prematurely removed from year articles during the course of this RfC with at most limited discussion. Given the significantly wider scale of this discussion, any editor wishing to restore them may do so. However, taking into account the concerns raised here, editors are encouraged to follow best practices for collage building, including particularly the use of multiple-image collages (rather than collages in a single image file) and the selection of a diverse group of images. Additionally, this close should not be construed to mean that all year articles must have collages — if, for example, editors at a particular year article decide that a single image is iconic/representative enough of that year to use alone, they may do so. But such local discussions should look at factors particular to an article rather than rehashing the debate here. Lastly, for future RfCs anywhere, all editors are reminded to follow appropriate publicizing practices to help facilitate effective discussion. (non-admin closure) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

🌺 Cremastra (talk) 13:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it belongs there? I noticed how in the past you removed entries that weren't popular until much later from their release year articles, such as removing Wikipedia from 2001. Would you have done the same for Roblox on the 2006 article? 35.141.142.199 (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s completely ridiculous that it’s on that page and I think it should be removed without question. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. I frankly didn’t even know what that game was until fairly recently, and I bet you people didn’t know what Roblox was back in 2006. DementiaGaming (talk) 02:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with you. I tried to remove it but ItsCheck readded it just because it's "popular". This is his second revert on a year article anyway and methinks he has absolutely zero knowledge of what belongs and what doesn't belong on a year article. You should go to the 2006 talk page and express this on my RfC. I'm happy to bring anything bizarre on year articles to your attention whenever needed. 35.141.142.199 (talk) 03:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was just reverting vandalism and undid your edit because you removed content without adequately explaining why. We already discussed this on my talk page and reached a consensus. Please refrain from personal attacks and do not insult me because I reverted your edit and templated you. ItsCheck (talk) 03:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not even an insult, ItsCheck, because that is really only your second revert on a year article (I looked at all your contributions). AND AS I SAID BEFORE, I EXPLAINED WHY ADEQUATELY IN THE EDIT SUMMARY. Also look at what DementiaGaming told me above. He literally agrees with me that Roblox is not notable enough to be on that article and that my "removal of content" was correct. 35.141.142.199 (talk) 03:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ItsCheck, please reserve the uw-delete templates for cases of unexplained deletion. This would mean an empty edit summary, one that explains other parts of the edit but not some major deletion, or a summary that gives a nonsensical reason for deletion. Not one you disagree with, but true nonsense ("deleting this because it's raining today").

IP35, please read our policy on canvassing. If there's a dispute over an article and talk page discussion can't reach a consensus, consider more neutral and untargeted forms of dispute resolution. A little more politeness would help. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, Firefangledfeathers. I should've said someone instead of mentioning him directly. Sorry about that. 35.141.142.199 (talk) 04:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DoubleGrazing was:

This submission appears to be a news report of a single event and may not be notable enough for an article in Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#NEWS and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event for more information.

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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:2024 Kaduna State kidnapping and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 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.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UUUUUUGGGGGGH DementiaGaming (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me with this (larger resolution)? ArionStar (talk) 12:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a discussion on the 2023 talk page about it? DementiaGaming (talk) 13:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a voting section about it. ArionStar (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DementiaGaming. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:2024 Kaduna State kidnapping, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 08:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DementiaGaming. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "2024 Kaduna State kidnapping".

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]