User talk:PK650/Archives/2020/January

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, PK650, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Giooo95 (talk) 03:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Ways to improve David R. Kaeli

Hello, PK650,

Thanks for creating David R. Kaeli! I edit here too, under the username Path slopu and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

Please try to fix the issues mentioned in the article.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Path slopu}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

PATH SLOPU 12:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC) @Path slopu: Hi! Thanks for cotacting me about the article. Could you please elaborate what kind of copy edit the stub requires? I'm new here! Thanks again, PK650 (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Amparo Alonso Betanzos

Hello, PK650,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Hughesdarren and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I’ve proposed an article that you started, Amparo Alonso Betanzos, for deletion because it meets one of the relevant criterion. The particular issue can be located in the notice, that is now-visible at the top of the article.

If you wish to prevent the deletion:

  1. Edit the page
  2. Remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
  3. Click Publish Changes button.

But, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the raised issues. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Hughesdarren}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

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


Hughesdarren (talk) 00:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC) @Hughesdarren: I don't understand! She has thousands of citations. That alone would make her eligible under the first criterion. I thought Wikipedia encouraged the addition of female scientist biographies! PK650 (talk) 04:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Women in Red

Hi there, PK650, and welcome to Women in Red. As you are obviously interested in creating biographies of women, it looks as if you'll be a useful member of the project. If you haven't already done so, you might like to look through our Ten Simple Rules. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 06:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I look forward to working towards this goal. Thanks for the rules too! PK650 (talk) 01:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

October Events from Women in Red

October 2019, Volume 5, Issue 10, Numbers 107, 108, 137, 138, 139, 140


Check out what's happening in October at Women in Red...

Online events:


Editor feedback:


Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

hey

An article on Ms Russell, sure. But the second half of the article doesn't really pertain to her, does it? (If it does, you haven't shown that.) DS (talk) 06:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

DS: I'm sorry? I disagree completely. It establishes very clearly why her work was ultimately important to suffragism both locally and nationally. Perhaps the language used in the article could be improved, but the sources are quite solid in this regard. It is quite an issue when it comes to 110 yo bios. I took the liberty to slightly tweak the article to better mark her influence. I'd love to hear your thought on this. Thanks! PK650 (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
The problem is that you have two paragraphs about the Everett Suffrage Club before you mention that Russell was its president. Can you provide any more information about her activities specifically pertaining to the club? DS (talk) 23:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
It's in the lede, in case you missed it. As club president she obviously managed the club and its activities. There are no sources I could find pertaining to such minutiae. Removing information about the club itself (by the way it would probably be difficult to make a stand-alone article about that, so it's best to keep it in this context as it adds vital information) would make her her article a rather useless stub considering her noted role in WA's suffragism movement. I'll ask my colleagues at WiR to see what they think, as they're more knowledgeable given they're actually running this initiative. PK650 (talk) 11:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Andrea Frome

Hello, PK650

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Meeanaya and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Andrea Frome, should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrea Frome.

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Meeanaya}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

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

Meeanaya (talk) 05:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Rama Akkiraju for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rama Akkiraju is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rama Akkiraju until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Meeanaya (talk) 05:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Lemonade

Bio creation lemonade!
For sharing information about so many important women, please enjoy this delicious fruit cup -- you earned it! Astrophobe (talk) 04:33, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

November 2019 at Women in Red

November 2019, Volume 5, Issue 11, Numbers 107, 108, 140, 141, 142, 143


Check out what's happening in November at Women in Red...

Online events:


Editor feedback:


Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, PK650

Thank you for creating Dorothy McEwen Kildall.

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

Thank you so much for creating articles about women computer scientists. Your contributions are very much appreciated.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Abishe}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

Abishe (talk) 07:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the encouragement! PK650 (talk) 22:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

December events with WIR

December 2019, Volume 5, Issue 12, Numbers 107, 108, 144, 145, 146, 147


Check out what's happening in December at Women in Red...

Online events:


Editor feedback:


Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

January 2020 at Women in Red

January 2020, Volume 6, Issue 1, Numbers 146, 148, 149, 150, 151, 153


Happy Holidays from all of us at Women in Red, and thank you for your support in 2019. We look forward to working with you in 2020!

Online events:


Editor feedback:


Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

Ways to improve Eleazar Eskin

Hello, PK650,

Thank you for creating Eleazar Eskin.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

The article needs more sources, especially sources that are independent of the subject.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Jmertel23}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Jmertel23 (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

IP block exemption request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

PK650/Archives/2020 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi! I've unfortunately been caught in an IP range block twice over the past month through no fault of my own. It looks as if an IP block exemption is the only preemptive measure I can take. Let me know if there's any information I need to provide. Greatly appreciated, PK650 (talk) 04:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Please follow the instructions at WP:IPEC. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@JJMC89: I did not use the Unblock Ticket Request System because I do not have an email address associated with my account. Can I still do so despite that fact? Thank you, PK650 (talk) 07:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

COI user warning template

Hi PK650! Next time you find a COI, it is advisable to post {{Uw-coi}} template to the user talk page to give a chance for proper compliance before reporting to WP:COIN. Best, --MarioGom (talk) 01:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Also for cases when the username is a company name, you can directly use {{Uw-coi-username}} and the user will be quickly blocked. --MarioGom (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
MarioGom Hi! Thank you so much for the above! I am still learning the ropes around here. They are old edits, but I thought notifying the community was the proper thing to do. So company names are blocked until the user requests a name change? Best, PK650 (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
PK650: Yes, they are blocked and they can request a rename and unblock. But that rarely happens. They usually abandon the account and come back with new sockpuppet accounts. --MarioGom (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Excellent. Does that apply only for company names? Thanks again! PK650 (talk) 01:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Notability on Nero X

Hello, I believe the page about the musician falls under WIKI's criteria for musicians and ensembles.

It falls under criteria 2, 9 and 12. I think in future you will need to check these before you tag articles as not meeting Wiki's notability.

Any more comments should be on the talk page. Thanks

Kwamevaughan (talk)

February with Women in Red

February 2020, Volume 6, Issue 2, Numbers 150, 151, 152, 154, 155


Happy Valentine's Day from all of us at Women in Red.

Online events:


Editor feedback:


Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

January 2020

Information icon Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Gazecki. You're really crossing the line by accusing me of not reading the article before nominating, then demonstrating that you haven't read the nomination by repeating the same notability guidelines I cited in your replies. We can disagree without you being nasty, indeed that is what is required of you by policy. VQuakr (talk) 01:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel this way, but I think you're a) getting emotional over an AfD discussion, and b) making value judgements about my person and why/how I edit. I advise against both. Best, PK650 (talk) 03:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Nice non-apology. A quick review of the notice above reveals neither value judgments about you as a person nor speculation about why you edit. I have trouble imagining that an objective third party would describe a standard warning template as "getting all emotional", either. I suppose any reminder to follow WP's guidelines does literally constitute feedback about how you edit, but if that was a problem we probably wouldn't have developed warning templates. So I guess I can take your advice for as much as it's worth. VQuakr (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Could you be less vague and tell me what offended you so I take appropriate action? Best, PK650 (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Regarding the AGF violation? You don't have to do anything except interact better; it's just a notice. On the AfD, I'd appreciate if you have located sources that meet SIGCOV, you give your AfD !vote some weight by linking those rather thank links to coverage of a movie. So far you've provided bluster but haven't provided a rationale to keep the article, let alone justification for the SK accusation. Stuff like This is not the only AfD I'm currently participating in with the doubling down on your (bizarre) accusation of an emotional reaction isn't productive. VQuakr (talk) 03:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Ooooh, so you believe saying WP:BEFORE was not performed is tantamount to not assuming good faith. I understand now. You are, I assure you, mistaken. Let me reiterate (and clear up): I did not assume anything apart from that which I stated backed up in the relevant notability guidelines. You unfortunately took it personally; one must often remind oneself that posts on Wikipedia don't usually reflect speech, assumptions of tone can therefore be misleading. We all make mistakes while reviewing, and I include myself for not making myself clear. As for this case, as I've pointed out: 4 Emmy + an Oscar noms should be proof of notability enough for any sensible person. Sources do exist, but I definitely wouldn't delete the article because they're not reflected in-article fully. Best, PK650 (talk) 04:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Statement from Wgazecki

I don't know who you are, but THANK YOU for standing up for me. What is with these people? I've been involved in major media production since 1976! And how they repeatedly dismiss the research and verifiable data you present is very difficult to accept as anything but willful harm. William Gazecki 00:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wgazecki (talk • contribs)

I recently received an email indicating there is a potential current Conflict of Interest with respect to the editing of the William Gazecki article. The reference provided was: 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 This has become quite a mess. I am William Gazecki, and I stopped editing the William Gazecki article last year after Wiki Editor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:VQuakr deleted almost the entire page. Which apparently he had the legitimate option to do, EXCEPT that he/she did it in such a manner that there was NO WAY TO UNDO what was done. This Editor left NO way to assess whatever it was they considered outside the realm of Wikipedia standards, thus eliminating any opportunity to correct said issues. Which I consider an egregious over-stepping of editorial authority. Such actions demonstrate a form of one-sided control which as I understand it is NOT what Wikipedia is meant to foster. That said, in that interaction with VQuakr, I began to learn the policies regarding living persons, etc. I have stayed away from all of this ever since. As I said at the time, I would like nothing more than any account of my life and career to be accurate and unbiased, and to fall WITHIN Wikipedia guidelines.

Also, in trying to get a comprehensive assessment of all this, by following the various links and entries (many of which I don't understand), I have read a number of completely inappropriate comments about how the page was "sprawling", and nothing more than a "promotional CV". These comments are completely inappropriate and do not demonstrate any form of respect or even simple common courtesy. I am a notable individual in my profession, whose life story includes notable and historically worthy events and associations for over a period of almost 50 years. I am *not* a newbie. Many of these instances and examples are still NOT on the page (as noted here). One thing I do not understand about this also is that, rather than delete entries en masse (which keeps happening repeatedly by the SAME Wiki Editors), why not first ask for verification? The way this is being done appears to me to demonstrate some sort of unconscious double-standard, rather than real concern for adhering to policies beneficial to the majority. Which is what Wikipedia is for, yes? The double-standard I am referring to is the deletion of bona fide entries supposedly because they have not been "verified", except that once they have been deleted, no one could know whether they had been verifiable or not. In truth, most of the original entries that VQuakr initially deleted WERE VERIFIED. A few may not have been- but there were many that were properly notated and just deleted en masse. Which is just sloppy work, in my opinion. My first documentary film, "WACO: The Rules of Engagement", had its World Premiere at the Sundance Film Festival (1997), was nominated for an Academy Award (I took my parents to the Ceremony), and WON an Emmy Award. These are FACTS. They are not puffed up hyperbole or misleading empty assertion.

The entertainment industry as a whole is a highly specialized field, involving many aspects of art, higher education, technology and political and social history- especially when it involves major, theatrically released documentary films (which is what I make). It is an area of expertise and complex information that those outside of it often do not easily understand, and the original William Gazecki article- as it was developed over a multi-year period of careful entries- offered examples of relevant and unique historical points. And, for anyone who cares, I already have plenty of CVs and online career biographies- I have my own website, LinkedIn account, Facebook, etc. The William Gazecki article in Wikipedia is NOT a promotional opportunity in my estimation- it was initiated years ago when Wikipedia was first launched (BEFORE a lot of the current policies were even conceived let alone implemented), with the intention of adhering exactly to the intention of Wikipedia's creation: to provide verified documentation in areas of specialized and bona fide history that conventional historical accounts do not provide.

For anyone who reads this and is interested, THIS is an existing article that serves as an ideal model and example of how the William Gazecki article should be formatted and articulated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_Walker_(director) This is a documentary film Director like myself, and she and William Gazecki share very similar life stories. EXCEPT that William Gazecki- besides his accomplishments as a filmmaker, whose work represents many authentic and valuable social contributions, in addition has also been witness to- or a literal part of- several most notable events and/or processes which deserve notation in Wikipedia. These include the first public dissemination of information on Remote Viewing (a bona fide technique of psychic information collection used by US Army Intelligence); and the first film on Jacque Fresco, a renowned futurist whose viewpoints on social development have been studied by millions of young people. There are other examples, some in the field of analogue sound and video technology development. Suffice to say that a lot of work that was well-intended and earnestly entered into the Article is now lost. Hopefully there is a way to respect William Gazecki, again with this page as an ideal model: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_Walker_(director) Thank you William Gazecki 01:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wgazecki (talk • contribs)

@Wgazecki: Thank you for contacting me. I encourage you to participate in the deletion discussion here. Please sign your posts with ~~~~ after them. Per Wikipedia:Autobiography, you are right in pointing out one shouldn't edit one's own article, and indeed discussing these issues in a transparent manner is an ideal outcome. Regarding the above, I am sure VQuakr had the encyclopedia's best interests at heart. I am not entirely familiar with the page's history, but unverifiable information can and is removed from biographies of living people routinely. If you have supplementary sources, particularly print sources which are rather hard to obtain, I encourage you to provide them in the discussion proper. Regards, PK650 (talk) 02:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PK650/Archives/2020/January&oldid=1063672758"