User talk:Kent tate

In response to your question at the Teahouse
Hi Kent tate. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for reference since they explains what options living persons have when they have concerns about what's written about them on Wikipedia. All Wikipedia editors are volunteers, but there are many who work quite hard to try and help people who have issues with content written about them on Wikipedia and ensure that such content is written in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

Please also understand that while discussing this you may be asked to somehow verify that you are indeed who you're claiming to be for the reasons given in Wikipedia:Username policy. This may be necessary as a precaution against any possible damaging impersonation, i.e. someone is pretending to be you. You don't need to do that yet, but just be advised that you might be asked some time in the future as a precaution. Not sure if it needs to be said, but if by chance you're not who your claiming to be, then you should stop what you're doing asap and request a username change for this account before it ends up being blocked as a precaution.

Please also understand that anything you post on Wikipedia can pretty much be seen by anyone anywhere in the world who can access the Internet. So, please carefully read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is in the real world and Wikipedia:Harassment and take care about what type of and how much personal information you post about yourself or other persons anywhere on Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I am Kent Tate, the subject of the article. What proof would you like me to provide that doesn't invade my privacy.
 * sorry, I forgot to sign off. I'm new to this Kent tate (talk) 06:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi again Kent tate. You can if you want send an email to Wikimedia OTRS for more details about this. If you have an official email account, then you should use that. I'm not sure what types of things WP:OTRS requires this type of verification, but OTRS volunteers do sign a confidentiality agreement and will not (at least there not supposed) discuss anything you send to them with anyone other than other OTRS volunteers. Once OTRS verifies your identity, they will add Template:verified account to your user page. Please understand that this will not automatically mean that anything written about you on Wikipedia is going to be removed or deleted if you request it simply because you don't have any final editorial control or claim of ownership over anything written about you on Wikipedia; that's a separate question that may need to be resolved through further discussion and determined through Wikipedia:Consensus, but it will at least let others know that you're not someone pretending to be you, which in turn may make them sympathetic to any concerns you may have and willing to try and help you address them in a way that doesn't result in deleting any articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, I sent an e-mail from my personal e-mail account — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kent tate (talk • contribs) 07:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You should receive an automatic response that contains an OTRS ticket number. That's sort of like a case number that you can use to discuss things with OTRS. You should try to use the same account whenever you discuss things with OTRS. Assuming OTRS verifies your account, you should feel obligated to disclose anything you feel uncomfortable in disclosing on Wikipedia and others should try to press you to do so. If any one questions who you are, you just point them to the template on your user page. If that doesn't satisfy them, tell them to ask for verification at Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard. Similarly, no OTRS volunteer or Wikipedia administrator should press you to reveal any personal information about yourself on Wikipedia and anyone who reveals any personal information about you would be violating Wikipedia policy. You can if you wish create a Wikipedia:User page and post some personal information about yourself if you so choose to do so as a way of letting others know a little more about you, but you're not required to create a user page if you don't want to.Some other things you might want to take a look at are Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (COI for short) and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (BLP for short). The former provides some more advice to subjects of Wikipedia articles and the latter is the main Wikipedia policy which applies to articles and content written about living persons. For more information on why articles sometimes end up deleted, refer to Wikipedia:Deletion, but in general deletion typically is the last resort when there's no real possibility of bringing an article inline with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines; in other words, the problems with the article are so serious that no amount of editing will be able to overcome them. Please also understand that articles are generally deleted because subjects requests their deletion; there are sometimes courtesy deletions, but these seem to be fairly rare. If you have a specific questions about COI editing or BLP policy, you can ask them at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard; if you have questions about the OTRS process, you can ask them at the OTRS noticeboard I linked to above.Anyway, since you went to the trouble of creating an account, you might want to take a look around for a bit and even try Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure because it's a good way to learn about some of the basics of Wikipedia editing. You might also want to take a look at Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia to see if there are any areas of Wikipedia that you might be interested in contributing to. There are over six million articles and pretty much all of them can be improved in one way of another.One last thing. Try to remember to always WP:SIGN your talk page posts, particularly if you're going to be posting on noticeboards, etc. where lots of people are posting. It makes it much easier for others to follow discussions and figure out who posted what and when. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:07, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info, I really appreciate the effort you have made to give me a better understanding Kent tate (talk) 08:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Some other stuff
Hi again Kent tate. This might seem to contradict what I mentioned about about signing you're posts, but it's not always necessary to resign your post if all you're doing is going back to make some minor corrections or clarifications. As long as you follow WP:REDACT, you should be OK. So, if you want to correct a typo in a previous post you made relatively shortly after you made it, then you can just correct the typo and leave the post signed as is. You only need to start worry about whether a new signature is needed when (1) the post has already been replied to and you're changing something that basically changes the meaning/context of the post or (2) you want to go back and and a notification to the post. In the first case, someone has responded to the post so any change or clarification other than a simple typo correction (which doesn't affect the means in anyway) should probably be made in a new post or struckthrough/underlined in the original post as explained in REDACT. In this case, you can leave your original signature as is and just as a clarification either in the form of an edit summary or as a addendum after your original signature. In the second case, notification templates added after the fact to previously signed posts will not work and require a new signature be added instead. In this case, you can simply replace your older signature with a new. (i.e. delete the old signature and added the four tildes as if you were signing a new post). As long as you explain this in your edit summary you should be fine.For all intents and purpose, you can pretty much go back and edit (even remove) any post you make on a talk page (excluding your user talk page, please see WP:BLANKING for details on that) as long as nobody has responded and as long as lots of time hasn't passed since you made the original post. The meaning of "lots of time" probably depends upon who you ask, but with a 24-our period in probably OK; anything longer than that and you should probably clarify in a separate post or strikethrough/underline in the original post. One other important thing to remember is WP:TPO. You should try to avoid editing a post made by another editor, particularly if your edit somehow changes the intent of their post. Even doing this by accident can quickly create problems among editors; so, it's a good idea to try and double check things to make sure since it's easy to do if you're not carefully. There are certain specific cases when it might be OK to fix the formatting of another person's post or even remove content that shouldn't have been posted as is a serious policy or guideline violation, but these are not the norm and it usually takes a bit of experience to know when this is OK to do. So, if you notice a misspelling or grammar error anything else in another editor's post that makes it hard to understand, it's better just to ask for clarification in a new post than to try and "correct" the other editor's post yourself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Strike
Hi, the usual way on enwiki to withdraw a comment on pages with "signatures" (the four tildes) after another contributor replied is to replace the comment by comment  followed by "(withdrawn )" or "(updated )" or similar to get a signature with a fresh timestamp showing that the same contributor did this.

On the AFD page you simply removed your comment leaving a now apparently out-of-context reply by another user. The whole system of signed comments is obsolete, a better solution exists for years, but the various WikiMedia communities don't tolerate changes invented by the WikiMedia Foundation. Suggested fix, undo your removal, and strike the withdrawn comment, roughly &lt;s&gt;comment&lt;/s&gt; (withdrawn ) is rendered as comment (withdrawn signature). –84.46.52.251 (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I have restored Kent Tate's comment. As the IP says, the normal way to remove one's own comment is to strike it, if it has been replied to already. I had replied to it, so it stays. Feel free to run a strikethrough through it though, like this .ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

AfD advice
I know it must be hard to watch, but it's apart from you so you should just not read it or participate. We can't seriously take into account the wishes of the article subject or their family as it makes us less neutral. Also please be aware AfD discussions last forever: they are archived and can be found on Wikipedia. If the article is kept they are linked from its talk page. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the whole process has been very painful and depressing for me. I didn't take my step to request an AFD lightly. The COI issue has has been a problem for me from the beginning and I have never believed that the source material is strong enough to warrant an article in the first place. I really appreciate you reaching out to me and saying that. Thank you Kent tate (talk) 04:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It is entirely nothing to do with you. We are compiling an articles that are the third stage: compilations of secondary sources. And we ignore primary sources (like you and your thoughts about the article). We do this because secondary sources are already vetted, and this means editing becomes formulaic: something anyone can do without regard to subject knowledge. Regarding your own notability, I am sure that if I ran down to a good university library I could find articles that support your notability, as they will mostly be in print... but sadly I do not have time. When we talk about notability at AFD, it is not the general notability that people talk about in real life. In real life you sound like a notable accomplished Canadian artist/director. But on Wikipedia you are marginally notable at the moment because we cannot find enough good secondary sources. That is the notability we are talking about. Hope that helpsThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand, and I agree about the lack of good secondary sources for an article. Thank you Kent tate (talk) 05:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

help with how to correct and update an article
I am seeking some help regarding the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Tate

There are a couple of things that are not accurate on the article and there have not been updates since 2019. I have been very active since 2019 with many screenings internationally and a book has been published about my films in December 2022. https://www.cfmdc.org/product-page/kent-tate-selected-films-2010-to-2022

Any help I can get regarding this would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you, Kent Tate Kent tate (talk) 07:18, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

how do I update an article?
I am seeking some help regarding the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Tate that has not been updated since 2019. I have been very active since 2019 with many screenings internationally and a book has been published about my films in December 2022 https://www.cfmdc.org/product-page/kent-tate-selected-films-2010-to-2022 Any help I can get regarding this would be greatly appreciated. If it is not appropriate to even ask this I would appreciate knowing that & if it is okay to ask how does one go about it? The ISBN for the book is ISBN: 978-1-988707-36-5

Thank you, Kent Tate Kent tate (talk) 08:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)