User talk:PickleG13
Sources for article on Kat Abughazaleh
[edit]Hi! I saw in the logs that you had initially created an article about Katherine Abughazaleh in early 2023. There's a new article now and I've been improving it; if you'd like to point at sources we should use (in a reply here or on the talk page, or of course by directly editing the article), I'd appreciate it. Thanks! Sumana Harihareswara 10:09, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
- Hi Sumana! I'm happy to help. I was sad that the page on Abughazaleh did not last before, but I'm very glad it has now returned in light of her campaign for the U.S. House. I have started to help out with some edits directly on the page, and I will continue my work. I also wanted to thank you for your help on Draft:James Kenneth Campbell, which I am determined to someday have join the mainspace. Thanks! PickleG13 (talk) 19:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank you
[edit]Thank you so much for your fair and judicious edits of Lindy Li's page. Wikipedia leans left so it's rare to find an editor who is as impartial as you are. Napoleonjosephine2020 (talk) 07:13, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for your kind words, Napoleonjosephine2020! I work very hard to be impartial, as it is a major tenet of what we do here at Wikipedia. Please don't hesitate to reach out if there's another page that is not meeting WP standards of neutrality. PickleG13 (talk) 19:08, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
- Hi! Someone just deleted all of your edits and wiped out massive portions of Lindy's bio. Can you please restore her page to the version you instated? This editor is clearly partisan and motivated by animus against Li. Please help. Thank you so much. Napoleonjosephine2020 (talk) 03:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you so much! We did some background on this editor and they are either politically motivated or contracted by the DNC. It was one MASSIVE edit that wiped out vast portions of Li's life. This is not how editors usually operate.
- Thank you for being a godsend. Jamesdelilah (talk) 03:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
- Hi! Someone just deleted all of your edits and wiped out massive portions of Lindy's bio. Can you please restore her page to the version you instated? This editor is clearly partisan and motivated by animus against Li. Please help. Thank you so much. Napoleonjosephine2020 (talk) 03:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 27
[edit]An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Neighborhood councils of Los Angeles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hollywood.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:00, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
SCOTUS redirects
[edit]There's nothing to be done about it now because it is a bare improvement, but I did want to express that creating all those redirects for SCOTUS articles significantly interfered with my project of creating articles for them. Now, I cannot tell which articles have actually had any attention on them, and they will not be in the new page feed for review. As someone who has an "I created 300 articles for Wikipedia" note on your page, I think you'll understand that that sucks. I am not saying this was foreseeable for you. I am saying it sucks and moving on with the project. lethargilistic (talk) 16:59, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
- Hi lethargilistic, thanks for reaching out and sharing your experience. I'm really sorry to hear that my redirects interfered with your workflow, especially when you've clearly put so much effort into creating new SCOTUS articles and I see your project as so important to the future of Wikipedia. Given that my goal was to have people searching on Wikipedia have an easier time finding information about the context of individual cases, I certainly had not anticipated the impact that it would have on the new page feed or article-tracking for someone like you working to develop these cases into pages. I certainly imagine that would be very frustrating, and I sincerely apologize for the inconvenience that has caused.
- My motivation behind my redirect project, which took a surprising amount of time and detail for the pages that I had done it with so far, was essentially to make sure that no SCOTUS cases weren't reflected for people searching the site; your project is an even better and more helpful version of this. I had created redirects within Volumes 1-32, and from 311-604; all of the cases in between those have not been touched by me and likely remain as they originally were. I'd be happy to help with your project and any unintended effects of the redirects if there's a way that I can. Whether that's flagging pages, helping track articles that went from red-links to redirects, or just coordinating with you if I engage with SCOTUS articles in the future, don't hesitate to reach out. Thanks again for taking the time to let me know. PickleG13 (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
The article Zakaria Kortam has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
This page meets neither general notability nor political notability. It is not sourced by even a single reliable, third-party source that establishes notability and meets the standards of Wikipedia.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
This is an automated notification. Please refer to the page's history for further information. DatBot (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC)