Who do you think you are fooling? You obviously have no intention at all fixing anything ever to these submissions, if they would be published with these 'minor flaws'. You have had ages to do so. But instead of spending 10 minutes to address the criticism, you rather spend months of waiting, and hours of writing complaints. And now that all arguments you brought forward have either been refuted as false or irrelevant, you try it in this devious way?
If the reason for not yet being published is merely that the editors involved in approving submissions are overloaded, being patient until your turn comes up will eventually help. If such editors, however, think the presentation is inadequate, and needs to be fixed first, no amount of waiting will do you any good. Inadequacies do not disappear with the passage of time, and the desire to get the thing published fast is entirely yours; the editors would never get impatient, even if your submission sits there for a hundred years.
I looked back to the beginning of this thread, to have a look at what the initial criticism was. And it seems that what I remarked then still applies: you submit a low-effort, low quality (i.e. just a static diagram, using a deprecated piece set), and then submit some 14 other, nearly identical articles (just changing the image and description of one of the participating piece types). I called this 'cloning', and raised the question whether it makes sense to have so many nearly identical pages here. Usually such tiny variations on a variant are mentioned in the Notes sections.
Aurelian has suggested you should publish these 15 variants as a 'collection' in a single article, like he did in a similar case. You consistently ignore him. People have posted Interactive Diagrams of this particular variant, with good quality graphics, which would have taken you about 20 seconds to copy-paste into your article, to remove most of the voiced objections. You ignored that too.
I don't think there is any flaw in the submission / approval system here. The problem is entirely in the way you (refuse to) deal with criticism.
Who do you think you are fooling? You obviously have no intention at all fixing anything ever to these submissions, if they would be published with these 'minor flaws'. You have had ages to do so. But instead of spending 10 minutes to address the criticism, you rather spend months of waiting, and hours of writing complaints. And now that all arguments you brought forward have either been refuted as false or irrelevant, you try it in this devious way?
If the reason for not yet being published is merely that the editors involved in approving submissions are overloaded, being patient until your turn comes up will eventually help. If such editors, however, think the presentation is inadequate, and needs to be fixed first, no amount of waiting will do you any good. Inadequacies do not disappear with the passage of time, and the desire to get the thing published fast is entirely yours; the editors would never get impatient, even if your submission sits there for a hundred years.
I looked back to the beginning of this thread, to have a look at what the initial criticism was. And it seems that what I remarked then still applies: you submit a low-effort, low quality (i.e. just a static diagram, using a deprecated piece set), and then submit some 14 other, nearly identical articles (just changing the image and description of one of the participating piece types). I called this 'cloning', and raised the question whether it makes sense to have so many nearly identical pages here. Usually such tiny variations on a variant are mentioned in the Notes sections.
Aurelian has suggested you should publish these 15 variants as a 'collection' in a single article, like he did in a similar case. You consistently ignore him. People have posted Interactive Diagrams of this particular variant, with good quality graphics, which would have taken you about 20 seconds to copy-paste into your article, to remove most of the voiced objections. You ignored that too.
I don't think there is any flaw in the submission / approval system here. The problem is entirely in the way you (refuse to) deal with criticism.