User talk:Zachomatic

This is Zachomatic's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

AfC notification: Draft:Maria Polyakova has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Maria Polyakova. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 06:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon Thank you for you clarification on the page. That is helpful and makes sense. Zachomatic (talk) 16:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Maria Polyakova (economist) (May 29)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MurielMary was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Maria Polyakova (economist) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MurielMary (talk) 10:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zachomatic! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! MurielMary (talk) 10:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Yucaipa Companies

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Yucaipa Companies, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Deltek, Inc. has been accepted

Deltek, Inc., which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Paul W (talk) 12:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Paul W!! :) Zachomatic (talk) 16:13, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Maria Polyakova (economist)

Hello, Zachomatic. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Maria Polyakova (economist), 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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 11:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Maria Polyakova (economist)

Hello, Zachomatic. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Maria Polyakova".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! CptViraj (talk) 10:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Benioff removal

Hi, I'm not sure if you've seen the talk page history but I had asked the COI editor to suggest a more WP:DUE version of those sections, which they very much failed to do. The removal was to get them to engage with the underlying issue, after which I await their response. I appreciate that that was not ideal but the sections were clearly of a promotional nature. Axad12 (talk) 11:03, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I responded to your Talk page conversation - your edits are a huge overreach, and should be reverted. I appreciate the efforts, but you are removing notable information and replacing it with hearsay, moving goalposts for COI editors working in good faith, and not engaging with the underlying issue you pointed out to the COI user themselves. I am editing their page for WP:NPOV now, and encourage you to review those changes when it is complete.

And just to confirm, I will not be integrating any of MaryGaulke's requests - the goal is to cut down those sections to restore neutrality, which is all I'm doing. Zachomatic (talk) 11:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your response at the relevant talk page was nothing but a grossly offensive ad hominem rant. Shame on you. Axad12 (talk) 11:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You called me an idiot, then a stooge, and now you're trying to shame me? Incredibly immature. Zachomatic (talk) 11:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a moment, you were the one who started throwing allegations around...

Let's start with the allegation that I started following Mary Gaulke around on multiple pages.

I interact with Mary Gaulke on a fairly regular basis because she makes COI edit requests and my work on Wikipedia primarily involves working from the COI edit request queue, as you will see if you look at my contribution history. The idea that I follow her around is an allegation of exceptionally bad faith in relation to someone who volunteers many hours a week dealing with COI on Wikipedia. She is just one of many declared paid editors that I interact with regularly.

Secondly, the allegation that I 'faked' a Wikibreak... I intend to be on Wikibreak but it seems I am repeatedly called back to attend to minor points, but that does not change the fact that I intend to be on Wikibreak. The allegation that I faked a Wikibreak (to what purpose?) is another exceptionally bad faith allegation.

If you go around throwing obviously bad faith BS allegations about then you are inevitably going to face an amount of resistance from the individuals you annoy.

However, I ask you in good faith, where did you get the idea from that I followed Mary Gaulke around on Wikipedia? That was what made me suspect a degree of collusion because any reasonable examination of my contribution history demonstrates that it is an entirely baseless allegation. Axad12 (talk) 11:53, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will admit that could be an overreach on my own part - after I saw this discussion, I took a look at a couple random posts from Mary to see what kind of requests she was making and if they were reasonable, and saw multiple recent discussions from you, both on her Talk page and at least one other COI request she made following the Marc Benioff one. Those seemed to follow the less-than-productive conversation that happened on Marc's Talk page, so it gave the appearance, at least to me, that you were making it a point to follow her and critique her posts.

Whether you interact with other editors in the same regard and frequency, I don't know - I simply did some random clicking and saw your name more than I expected to. I do agree - taking a very brief look, you do seem to be consistently involved in COIN (which is certainly not easy work!), which would lead to more incidental crossover between you two.

As for the Wikibreak, from what I see you put up a Wikibreak notice and then have continued to edit as normal - which made me think you either put it up before you actually meant it, or were using it as a deflection of some sort (to what end, I have no idea - just didn't appear to be accurate). For that, I do apologize. Zachomatic (talk) 12:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that I'm trying to go on Wikibreak is because I'm pretty much entirely burned out, having been operating at a rate of about 500 edits a month for some time - all on COI related issues. This has involved consistently dealing with undisclosed COI users who are often (not wishing to put too fine a point on it) deceitful liars, and during which activity I've been accused by such users of harbouring pretty much every prejudice known to man (because those users seem to find it incomprehensible that there are rules on Wikipedia, and that some other users simply like to see those rules being implemented). That is on top of receiving a large amount of other personal abuse, which for me was the sadly predictable weekly reality of my volunteer work here.

Unfortunately I'm finding it somewhat difficult to commence the wikibreak. That's partly due to receiving notifications and partly due to a small amount of stuff which I wanted to put to bed before taking a break. In relation to the Mark Benioff material, I remembered somewhat belatedly that I'd previously said that I'd cull the material to an appropriate length. You will hopefully appreciate that I wasn't realistically going to do that under the present circumstances, but I removed the material to get the disclosed COI editor to attend to the issue (as hopefully was clear), which was what I meant by it not being an ideal situation. However, if I have in some way caused the matter to be taken in hand by someone else with a similar intent then that can be no bad thing.

The other material that I added to the Benioff article (and also to the, entirely unrelated, Greystar article) was because over the course of dealing with COI edit requests I've noted that there are a number of articles on Wikipedia where declared COI editors frequently ask for material to be added - which is always positive material and thus balance issues start to creep in. Looking for negative material to include is thus not some kind of petty revenge but simply an attempt to restore some degree of balance to articles which, in many cases, have literally been written by large PR companies.

I continue to believe that there are serious issues with the activity of a small number of disclosed COI editors. Mary Gaulke is one of those problematic editors and I'm not the only editor to have raised those concerns. There are serious issues with sourcing, promotionalism, repeated identical requests, etc., etc. and raising those concerns is a legitimate part of dealing with COI edit requests. Sadly there aren't many volunteers who wish to get involved with dealing with highly dedicated individuals who are paid to push the envelope and generally try to add material which sits outside of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. There is a very high turnover of volunteers doing that work, for obvious reasons.

I accept your apology for some of the comments in your initial post at the Benioff talk page. Hopefully this note clarifies some of the background to the present situation and the reason for the strength of my own response. Axad12 (talk) 13:47, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]