This is an archive of past discussions with User:PaulRKil. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Journalist request
Hi! I’m a public radio reporter working on a story about the challenges of editing Wiki pages related to Palestine and Israel in the current moment. I’m hoping to interview some active editors about their experiences right now. Can you email mdalton at ct public dot org? Appreciate all your efforts so much! 69.126.242.38 (talk) 01:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Year pages: Domestic events and astronomical event etc inclusion
Why not include domestic events, notable astronomical events, etc in future year pages? First, these events are included in event lists of past years. Second, I just don’t see the point of omitting them, there aren’t very many non domestic events to include anyways, and you’d expect any international events included, people would know of anyways CoastRedwood (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
The point of omitting most domestic events is Wikipedia tends to only focus on western countries, limiting domestic events to their respective country articles allows editors to contribute evenly for each one. PaulRKil (talk) 13:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Also I should add: why do events in future year pages have to be notable? And some of the entries you removed seem notable enough anyways. CoastRedwood (talk) 12:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Why do editors insist on omitting so many categories of events from the year pages? Not just eclipses, but construction projects, software decommissionings, probably more. CoastRedwood (talk) 12:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
There’s quite a few unsourced things in Wikipedia overall. There isn’t a strict rule for sourcing content in the rest of Wikipedia. CoastRedwood (talk) 01:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
“There isn’t a strict rule for sourcing content in the rest of Wikipedia.”
I mean it’s only a guideline. Just looking at pretty much any one random article you will probably find quite a few things that aren’t sourced at all (and then some more which aren’t reliably sourced). As far as I know sourcing added content is a guideline, not a requirement. Although I haven’t actually read the page, so the observations I pointed out could just mean a lot of editors break the rulesCoastRedwood (talk) 10:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
In response to this revert, I see that you have cited an essay. As it clearly says on the top of the page, a essay contains .. advice or opinions and is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. The essay in question was authored by a single editor. Both other editors who made further edits added disclaimers stating that the essay held no weight as policy. 1, 2 Blocked Sock PaulRKil (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
I would like to draw your attention to a community discussion where it was made very clear that the community found hand-waving and citing of nonexistent consensus unacceptable on WP:YEARS related pages. I strongly recommend that you take some time to review the discussion I've linked before making any more edits. I also suggest you think very carefully about what edits you make in the future. Please consider this a formal warning from me. 33ABGirl (talk) 15:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC) Blocked Sock PaulRKil (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
For that, I apologize but consensus seems to exist for many of the edits including public domain and eclispes for example. Regarding sporting events, I've personally opened an RfC regarding them. I could create a new RfC for every edit you've taken issue with but I'd personally find it overkill.
For other edits, they simply lack sources and I cant find anything to support them such as the olympics vote entry or the sources contradict the statement being made as in the case with Artemis. If you want a fresh RfC for everything, that certainly can be done.
Hi Paul, thanks for liking some of my edits. I'm also one of the many people she's being hostile to, breaking WP:CIVIL. She's telling us what not to do, as though she has authority. However, she's an ordinary editor like us, not an admin. She made a false 3RR & sockpuppetry report against me & is canvassing to find people to back her unreasonable claims against me. We're both good editors, yet she's trying to prevent us from continuing to improve articles! X2023X (talk) 20:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear that. Nonetheless, I've opened a noticeboard regarding this incident because it simply did not sit well with me. I will let it be handled there. PaulRKil (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 AT&T outage until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.
I honestly have no idea how that happened. I was going to revert it and re-add my piece, but I legitimately have no idea how this occurred and I apologize for the inconvenience. PaulRKil (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Upon revisiting, I still don't know how this happened. Could it have been an error where other edits got merged into mine? I know there was a dispute when I tried to post my edit but I just went ahead and refreshed the page and re-submitted my edit. That could have been what caused it. I can say all I did was re-add what you deleted with a source. I didn't do any of the other edits. PaulRKil (talk) 19:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
You can't overrule people on wikipedia. The entry lacks notability not to mention a source. We don't have OJ Simpson getting out of prison in 2017 or Bill Cosby's conviction getting vacated in 2021. Why would we add someone being merely eligible for parole here? It makes no sense whatsoever.
-I counted twenty (20) other entries on this page that lack an external source. Curiously, you did not delete those.
-"Notability" is subjective. But the level of celebrity of the subject in question should be a key determinant.
-How can you be so sure there was no prior entry about O.J. Simpson's projected parole date? With seven years having passed, any such entry would have been long deleted by now.
1. I've removed them in the past or have gotten citations for entries. A lot of them are entries I've deleted in the past. I can't police every year page, but having a citation is the bare minimum to add content to Wikipedia. It is also because the ridiculous statement you made in your edit note caught my eye.
2. Notability is subjective sure, but if we don't include when celebrity criminals or world leaders are fully released from prison, why would we document someone merely being eligible for parole?
3. I ran a search of the edit history for both years and nobody has made an attempt to add the release of those figures but I am certain that such entries would be removed. I'll give another example: we don't include when the guy who shot Ronald Reagan got released either.
@Sean 2015 I reverted your reply because the way you did it made a mess of other replies if you want to do the comment again feel free to but in a way that doesn't cause this entry to get hard to read. PaulRKil (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
October 2022
Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! InvadingInvader (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Coolman2917. I noticed that you recently removed content from 2022 in the United States without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. 𝘾𝙤𝙤𝙡𝙢𝙖𝙣2917 (talkpage) 15:45, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
On further causes on my edits being reverted, would you give me some reasons of why I'm behind the other IP? I'm a completely a different person and I'm here to build an encyclopedia. I have nothing wrong about any of my edits and the edit requests I made are constructive. --2601:205:C001:EA0:DD9D:F980:1B2C:6117 (talk) 21:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
You have a disctinct style of writing and both accounts are editing year articles and local shopping malls usually by making unconstructive edits or adding unnecessary links to other articles. These tend to be your hallmarks. Additionally, you were repeatedly told to use sources, and on this new profile you are arguing with other users who remove your content by saying that you are now adding sources. But you don’t have any awareness of how unconstructive your edits are. I don’t think English is your first language and as a German who moved to the United States in my teenage years, it isn’t mine either so I relate to that. If you do want to contribute, I’d recommend doing it in your first language as there’s always a need for non-English Wikipedians over English ones. PaulRKil (talk) 01:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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.
The welcome may be belated, but the cookies are still warm!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, PaulRKil! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
Hi. Just making you aware of the above essay. I believe that it was bad form to remove the hatnote at Storm Daniel after a discussion had started but without giving a chance for any dissenting opinions to speak up, which they later did. There was already implied consensus on the hatnote through the editing of others for well over a day before it was brought up. I strongly encourage you to heed STATUSQUO and restore the hatnote until an actual consensus forms to remove it. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)05:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
There is an active discussion for it right now in two places and we typically withhold an edit such as that until a consensus is reached. My perspective is that it is being done in bad faith and that the arguments in favor fall short but I'm willing to concede if a true consensus is met. PaulRKil (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
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.
Hello, PaulRKil. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:2024 Iranian Strikes Against Israel, 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.
