User talk:Elspea756

Hello, I'm M.Bitton. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Adrianne Wortzel, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! M.Bitton (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not add a new source for that information because it came from a source that was already used and cited at the end of the paragraph. Since this wasn't clear, I went back and repeated that footnote. Hopefully that made it more clear. --Elspea756 (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elspea756! 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 GreenMeansGo (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Can you please refrain from making future edits to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence_art this page thanks, you have made so many changes that where not required or needed. I will now have to spend hours fixing them.

Hello, Norttis, you should learn to sign your talk page posts. You have repeatedly put unsourced false information into that article, so other editors are of course going to continue to remove your unsourced false information. Ohnoitsjamie and I have both removed your unsourced incorrect "definitions." CharlesGillingham, MrOllie and I have repeatedly debunked your unsourced theory that AI art began in 2014 with many sources describing AI art and artists from the 1960s onward. When several editors are telling you to stop, and no other editors agree with you, that should be a good sign for you that it's time to stop pushing your promotion of the "world'd first ever AI artbook" from 2019. --Elspea756 (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Artificial intelligence art, you may be blocked from editing. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have created a section on that talk page where you can discuss your suggestions. Thank you. --Elspea756 (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Drmies, for clarifying on that article's talk page that you were not taking a position endorsing Norttis's false theories that I was removing from that article. As I and other editors have done in the past, once again other editors and I have all agreed to remove the unsourced false theories that Norttis has been trying to put in that article. --Elspea756 (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have received a previous notice about vandalizing the artificial intelligence art page.

> If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Artificial intelligence art, you may be blocked from editing. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Please refrain from unproductive edits of this page in the future.

Camdoodlebop (talk) 05:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Camdoodlebop, your non-notable images that you created yourself and then added to multiple wikipedia articles have been removed by multiple editors. Our removal of your self-promotional spam images, which we have explained to you in clear edit summaries, is not "vandalism" or "disruptive editing" and it is laughable for you to claim that it is. I am going to agree with the warnings against edit warring you have received from another editor and say please don't continue to spam your images into articles, and please don't waste our time with false accusations of "vandalism." Elspea756 (talk) 11:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Stable Diffusion shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --benlisquare_T•C•E 16:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I created a section on that article's talk page for you to discuss your unsourced images you have been trying to use to illustrate unsourced opinions. You can just discuss it on the article's talk page rather than send me a warning about how I should be discussing it on the talk page. Elspea756 (talk) 16:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't specifically want to go out of my way post the above; I am

obligated by Wikipedia policy to post it and have no other choice. It's a formality and part of standard procedure. --benlisquare_T•C•E 16:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

OK, if it is an obligation, I'll be sure to post that warning on your talk page as well. Elspea756 (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --benlisquare_T•C•E 16:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To close this discussion, this editor's frivolous complaining is archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1110. They were indefinitely blocked for harassment and disruptive editing at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1115. Elspea756 (talk) 14:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Artificial intelligence art, you may be blocked from editing.

>You have received a previous notice about vandalizing the artificial intelligence art page.

>> If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Artificial intelligence art, you may be blocked from editing. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

>Please refrain from unproductive edits of this page in the future.

>Camdoodlebop (talk) 05:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

You do not get to start a poll about whether the synthography page should be merged with the artificial intelligence page and then disregard, dismiss, and ignore other editors inputs nor claim that there was no conclusion or consensus just because you disagree with what other editors have said. You asked a question of whether "we all in agreement then that the Synthography article should not be merged here?" Literally all of the responses since then have been to say that synthography stands on its own. You do not get to re-add the removed the neologism and merge notices based on your own personal bias which you have demonstrated repeatedly. You do not get to then delete large chunks of other editors' inputs to support your own bias. You do not get to make unilateral decisions based on your own continued personal ego nor override multiple other editors' inputs. That is extremely dishonest and egotistical. The Original Benny C (talk) 10:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at

On the synthography page you have deleted approximately 35% of all editors good-faith contributions. This is a cease and desist order on your disruptive editing of that page. You have gone back to that page repeatedly between February and May to make deletions of entire sections with zero discussion of content beforehand even when no further edits have been made. Editors have stopped writing content on that page because of you. Then again, you've made it clear that you don't want that page to exist. If all editors were like you there would be no Wikipedia. Read the Wikipedia purpose and rules, get over yourself, and get a life.The Original Benny C (talk) 10:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. This is also your second warning about engaging in edit wars.The Original Benny C (talk) 10:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. Wikipedia aims to provide a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue to harass other editors, you may be blocked from editing. This is a cease and desist order to stop your repeated history of harassment of others. As defined by Wikipedia policy on harssment: Do not stop other editors from enjoying Wikipedia by nitpicking good-faith edits. Familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies and how to interact with Wikipedia, understand how to correctly edit, improve your social skills and competence necessary to work collaboratively. If you have suggestions for improvement on an article, then feel free to contribute instead of making wholesale deletions. Instead of deleting something, first look to how it can be re-worded, improved, or have additional citations. The fact that the disruption occurs in good faith does not change the fact that it is harmful to Wikipedia. Do not exploit the Wikipedia platform to push your singular point of view or vendetta against others' content. This is not a personal platform for you to bully others or override or silence other editors by attacking, deleting, or nitpicking every little thing that they do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Original Benny C (talk • contribs) 11:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC) You do not get to ignore, dismiss, disregard others input on talk pages, polls, article pages, or anywhere else. You do not get to nitpick every tiny little thing that others do.The Original Benny C (talk) 11:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC) It is a clear conflict of interest for you to petition to remove a page and then proceed to unilaterally delete large parts of that page by yourself while ignoring input from other editors. Pull your head out of your ***. The Original Benny C (talk) 11:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @The Original Benny C:, you've left me a long series of several messages about how I "do not get to start a poll about whether the synthography page should be merged." The suggestion to merge the articles you are referring to was made by Mmoozzee here [1]. If you have an issue with Mmoozzee starting their merger proposal, you could raise your issue on Mmoozzee's talk page or the appropriate article talk page, and if you do so I would encourage you to do so in a civil manner while avoiding personal attacks, and avoid spamming them with multiple messages. I am also going to encourage you to reconsider any an all inappropriate messages you have left on my talk page. Thank you. Elspea756 (talk) 14:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...and if you want to write a different reply to my actual comment, you may redact your last comment in any way you like. But you may not copy over the previous version of my comment from page history and paste it next to my comment making it seem like I made two comments. This sort of editing other's comments is against talk page guidelines. Sincerely. —Alalch E. 03:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I cleared things up by just quoting from the page history so my response to your deleted comment now makes sense. Elspea756 (talk) 03:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]