Your account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia with this username. This is because your username, OWPTM, does not meet our username policy.

Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below) and continue editing.

A username should not be promotional, appear to represent a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account. However, you are permitted to use a username that contains the name of a company or organization if it identifies you individually, such as "Sara Smith at XYZ Company", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", or "FoobarFan87".

You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines and create the account yourself. Alternatively, if you have already made edits and you wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:

1. Adding {{unblock-un|your new username here}} below. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked, as you can usually still edit your own talk page. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "Email this user" on their talk page.
2. At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
3. Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. The account is created upon acceptance, thus do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Changing username.

If you think that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding {{unblock|Your reason here}} below this notice, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Randykitty (talk) 13:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

KSz at OWPTM (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Requested username:

KSz at OWPTM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Accept reason:

I have changed your username and will remove the block. If you intend to edit about anything with which you have an association, please review conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 11:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Mathematica Applicanda has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.

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. Randykitty (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Jan Poleszczuk, from its old location at User:KSz at OWPTM/sandbox/Jan Poleszczuk. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 22:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, KSz at OWPTM. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 22:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Jan Poleszczuk and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Jan Poleszczuk, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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 , on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Snowycats (talk) 03:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, KSz at OWPTM! Having an article 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! Snowycats (talk) 03:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Jan Poleszczuk and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Jan Poleszczuk, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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 , on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Snowycats (talk) 06:12, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Curbon7 was:

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

The first paragraph is entirely unsourced.

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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Jan Poleszczuk and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Jan Poleszczuk, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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 , on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Curbon7 (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Probability and Mathematical Statistics, 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 . 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 .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Many sources are not WP:RS ones. Please cite a source for the Tadeusz Price.

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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Witold Roter and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Witold Roter, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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 , on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Every statement must be supported by a source- most of the first paragraph is not supported by any source.

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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Jan Poleszczuk and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Jan Poleszczuk, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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 , on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Nightenbelle (talk) 21:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Witold Roter, 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 Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs 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 . 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 .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Theroadislong (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, KSz at OWPTM. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Jan Poleszczuk, 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) 22:01, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, KSz at OWPTM. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Jan Poleszczuk".

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 deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, KSz at OWPTM. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Jan Poleszczuk".

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 deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Jerzy Filar. Thanks! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AlphaBetaGamma@Significa liberdadeThank you for your comment and suggestion.

I agree with most of your comments. Thank you for your suggestion.

The trouble with this person's bio is that he was very active and generated a lot of important, noteworthy events in his life. The scientific books he published have quite a readership - as can be seen from the citations in MathSciNet or zbMath. He also has an unbelievable number of promoted PhD students as far as mathematics is concerned. The list of institutions where he has left her mark is also considerable. For me, this is not a biography (which I have written and presented to Wikipedia), but a demonstration of what the career path of a scientist open to the applications of mathematics, a mathematician precisely, might look like. This is the main reason why I decided to introduce This Figure in Wikipedia.

To sum up, parts of the section have been reworded. I have added links to explain and justify most of the entries. For me, a bio on a university profile is 2nd order source - the administrators do not allow, as is the case on media such as Linkedin, the posting of contrived information.

I count on the favourable treatment of this article. Regards KSz at OWPTM (talk) 11:17, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, KSz at OWPTM, and thank you for reaching out with your concern! I recommend reviewing Wikipedia's notability guidelines for academics. Notability is how Wikipedians determine which articles deserve their own articles. Typically, notability is established using reliable, independent sources with significant coverage of the subject.

Once notability has been established, it's also important to recognize that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and thus, articles must have an encyclopedic tone. As I stated in my comment, the draft article for Jerzy Filar currently reads like a resume rather than an encyclopedia article. To help get a sense of what you should be aiming for, I recommend reviewing articles about mathematicians that have received designation as Good Articles (see here).

In the meantime, let me know if you have any follow-up questions, comments, and/or concerns. Take care, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

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:Jerzy Filar 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 or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Significa liberdade Thank you for your suggestions. Working on style can take a long time, although significant changes are already visible. I added a graphical analysis based on data from a reliable source, MathSciNet. Sometimes one analysis reveals more than a page of text. What do you think about such support? KSz at OWPTM (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! Be wary of adding original research and synthesizing information. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Significa liberdade Yes, it is done in the caption. Thank you for pointing me to the issue. KSz at OWPTM (talk) 21:57, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Significa liberdade I reread the proposed article on Jerzy A. Filar, a mathematician, or perhaps better a mathematical modeler and writer. @AlphaBetaGamma

I have added two graphics that make it easier to understand that JAF is a multidimensional figure. These graphics, however, show the lack of reliability of journal editors in accurately defining the profile of the journal. Maybe it should be like in mathematical sciences, and consequently MathSciNet - the classification of the contribution is by the article itself, and not the journal attributes (which are the basis for article classification).

I can remove these graphics at any time if it is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. I am interested in your opinion, which may help to finish the work before republishing.

Kjs (talk) 23:09, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article again, I am still concerned about original research. The article was previously declined because it did not have a promotional point of view and because it needed in-text citations from reliable, independent sources with significant coverage of Filar. Continuing to add images that are not drawn from a secondary source is considered original research and will not help the article be accepted.

Additionally, may I ask if you are editing using multiple usernames (i.e., KSz at OWPTM, Kjs, and EALCCJJ)? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Significa liberdade

Yes, I switch between KSz at OWPTM (for en) and Kjs(pl).

However, EALCCJJ is not me.

Let me say few works concerning your Looking at the article again, I still have concerns about the original research. 

It is difficult for me to agree with such a view. Admittedly, I gave up on graphics because perhaps Wikipedia readers are not accustomed to statistical presentations in bios, e.g. to show the distribution of contributions between disciplines, but the failure to consider sources such as zbMath, MathSciNet, MGP - where each record is based on actual publications and records in archives or libraries - as credible is a misunderstanding.

Mathematics and its applications have their own code based on reviews of publications. The reputation of the creator is built from this.

In Filar's case, additionally, there are applications in disciplines where the result is significant to the discipline, and is not noted in mathematical publication databases. Referring to SCOPUS in this case is perhaps appropriate, only problematic because of the rather complicated way of dividing into disciplines ( I don't know if it's convenience, but the classification of the output is determined by the profile of the journal, not the content of the article). I have uploaded a diagram in Wikimedia on the share of Filar's publications in various disciplines, but I am not posting it, because I have as I see it reliable statistical analysis in Wikipedia articles is not well received - if only because it is static, rather than dynamic, changing over time after the article has already been written.

The reliable source of knowledge is https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Filar+JA&cauthor_id=29484454 where the Filar's contribution to biology, medicine, ecology is recorded. I add this.

Next, in your writing: Continuing to add images that are not from secondary sources is considered original research and will not help the article get accepted.

This is also a frivolous accusation - I do not do research for the publication. It is reported information contained in third party sources: zbMath, MathSciNet, SCOPUS - these are independent, opinionated media. Of course, to get a diagram, a graph, I have to actively use the source, but that's the way it is with modern sources, that they don't give "solutions", but tools for their generation.

Thank you very much for taking the time to read and share your point of view. I believe that I will make revisions that will bring the article closer to the standards typical of biographical articles. Changes have already been made in several places based on your suggestions. I assume that many of the errors and shortcomings have already been addressed. KSz at OWPTM (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In your previous message, you write, I switch between KSz at OWPTM (for en) and Kjs(pl). However, both accounts are contributing to the Draft:Jerzy Filar article -- and others. I recommend reviewing Wikipedia's guidelines regarding multiple accounts (here). Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! I have added information on both accounts. KSz at OWPTM (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]