User talk:Alexagoodwin

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Welcome

[edit]

Hello, and welcome to my talk page!

If you’d like to leave me a message:

  • Please sign your posts using ~~~~ so I know who wrote it and when (see how to sign your posts).
  • Start a new section for a new topic by clicking here → Leave a new message.
  • I reply **here on my talk page** to keep conversations in one place, unless you request otherwise.

About Me

[edit]

I’m a new contributor to Wikipedia (joined August 2025) and I am contributing to articles related to healthcare technology and administration. This includes topics like practice management software, which sits at the intersection of healthcare, business operations, and public policy. I am particularly interested in how these technologies interact with and are regulated by government agencies like the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to administer public health programs.

My goals in this area:

  • Create and improve articles related to the systems that support the healthcare industry.
  • Ensure information about health IT standards and regulations is accurate and well-sourced.
  • Highlight the role of technology in the administration of public health programs.

Collaboration and Etiquette

[edit]

If you have suggestions, edits, or concerns about my contributions:

For more about how Wikipedia works, see Wikipedia Help and Manual of Style.

Thanks for visiting! I look forward to collaborating with you to improve Wikipedia. — Alexa Wilson.

Your submission at Articles for creation: TechMatter (August 15)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Stuartyeates was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. 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:
"Replace with independent coverage; company site alone is insufficient."
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.
Stuartyeates (talk) 08:07, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Alexagoodwin! 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! Stuartyeates (talk) 08:07, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 2025

[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Jlwoodwa. An article that you recently made, Eligibility verification, seemed to be generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or another application using such technology). Text produced by these applications can be unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and output must be carefully checked. In particular, you should check each citation, and fictitious references must be removed. If you want to practice editing, 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. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:08, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Jlwoodwa. Thanks for your review. I will review and update the content of the page. Alexagoodwin (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eligibility verification moved to draftspace

[edit]

Thanks for your contributions to Eligibility verification. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability, it consists of machine-generated text and the only reference is about a different subject (eligibility for a health plan, something else entirely) which pretty much proves that the whole thing is LLM-generated. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Pichpich (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Eligibility verification (August 29)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Pythoncoder was:
Your draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT. Their outputs usually have multiple issues that prevent them from meeting our guidelines on writing articles. These include:
Please address these issues. The best way is usually to read reliable sources and summarize them, instead of using a large language model. See our help page on large language models.
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.
—pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 01:00, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:TechMatter

[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:TechMatter requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G15 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it exhibits one or more of the following signs which indicate that the page could only plausibly have been generated by large language models (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology) and would have been removed by any reasonable human review:

  • Communication intended for the user: This may include collaborative communication (e.g., "Here is your Wikipedia article on..."), knowledge-cutoff disclaimers (e.g., "Up to my last training update ..."), self-insertion (e.g., "as a large language model"), and phrasal templates (e.g., "Smith was born on [Birth Date].")
  • Implausible non-existent references: This may include external links that are dead on arrival, ISBNs with invalid checksums, and unresolvable DOIs. Since humans can make typos and links may suffer from link rot, a single example should not be considered definitive. Editors should use additional methods to verify whether a reference truly does not exist.
  • Nonsensical citations: This may include citations of incorrect temporality (e.g a source from 2020 being cited for a 2022 event), DOIs that resolve to completely unrelated content (e.g., a paper on a beetle species being cited for a computer science article), and citations that attribute the wrong author or publication.

Text produced by these applications can be unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and output must be carefully checked. Pages created using them that did not undergo human review may be deleted at any time.

If you think these signs were incorrectly identified and you assert that you did carefully check the content, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Additionally – if you would like to create an article but find creating new encyclopedia content yourself difficult, please share this with other editors at the Teahouse, and they may be able to help. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your legitimate contributions. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 01:01, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Coordination of Benefits (September 8)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Pigsonthewing 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:
As I told you on the Help Desk: "you need to add reliable sources to all the statements that currently lack them." You have not edited the article since then.
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.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:33, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Pigsonthewing, I just wanted to clarify a few things.
The topic Coordination of Benefits (COB) is directly related to the Medical Billing and Insurance category. I understand that biographies and similar subjects require strong secondary reliable sources, but in this case COB is a technical and widely used concept in health insurance.
In my draft I did include multiple reliable references, for example official government sources like irs.gov, which I believe qualify as reliable per Wikipedia’s standards for official documents. If those aren’t acceptable, I’d appreciate guidance on which types of sources are considered valid for this kind of technical/industry-specific topic so I can revise properly.
My intention is to make the article accurate and well-sourced, not promotional. Please let me know which parts need stronger citations and I’ll be glad to fix them. Alexagoodwin (talk) 17:42, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say the citations need to be "stronger"; I said the parts with no citations need to be cited. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:51, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. Let me review and then submit. Thanks Alexagoodwin (talk) 12:20, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 2025

[edit]

Is your user page generated by AI? Hussain Romuzi Nothing to see here… 23:16, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

really? Alexagoodwin (talk) 10:37, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of TechMatter

[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on TechMatter requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Wikishovel (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TechMatter moved to draftspace

[edit]

Thanks for your contributions to TechMatter. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Wikishovel (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.
Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
Ponyobons mots 20:42, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Alexagoodwin (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would like to explain my situation and respectfully request reconsideration.

The articles and edits I contributed to (such as medical billing software, superbill, practice management software, Coordination of Benefits, and Explanation of Benefits) were all made through this account, alexagoodwin. My goal was to add informational content. While some edits were reverted or deleted, I understand now that this was due to policy and formatting issues, and I accept that.
The sockpuppet accounts connected to me were created and used in the past by team members who did not fully understand Wikipedia’s editing policies. Since creating this account, alexagoodwin, I have made sure that no other accounts are used, and that no irrelevant or inappropriate edits are made. I am the sole editor of this account, and I intend to keep it that way.
I value Wikipedia as a resource and I want to contribute responsibly by following community guidelines. I am committed to transparency, neutrality, and using only this one account moving forward.
I respectfully ask for the block to be lifted so I can continue contributing constructively.

Decline reason:

There are eight user accounts in this sockpuppet team, with editing going back 2.5 years, and you want us to unblock you so you can continue as if everything's okay, just like that?

It's also quite clear from your deleted content that you are not contributing appropriate content. I really don't see how it would benefit Wikipedia for your block to be lifted.

In any case, this is a sock account, and we don't unblock socks. If you wish to appeal again, go back to your original account and do it from there. DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Alexagoodwin (talk) 14:59, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Alexagoodwin (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

hello DoubleGrazing, I want to clarify that I do not have access to the details of the other accounts mentioned in the case, and I cannot explain who created or used them. What I can say is that I only want to contribute constructively with one account, in line with Wikipedia’s policies.

Going forward, I will:

  • Edit only with this account.
  • Follow core content policies (WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:NOTABILITY).
  • Draft articles in my sandbox first and seek feedback before publishing.
  • Avoid any behavior that could be seen as abuse of multiple accounts.

I am asking for a second chance to demonstrate good-faith contributions. I am committed to respecting the community’s trust and following all rules carefully.

Decline reason:

A review of the technical and behavioural evidence relating to this case makes me struggle to believe the assertion that you are unrelated to the other accounts. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.