User talk:Alpha3031

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them the Arab–Israeli conflict They should not be given alerts for those areas.

Question from Rkrajput3 (05:45, 28 March 2025)

Hi,

I want to suggest reference or some external website. I want to know the process of it. How i will do? --Rkrajput3 (talk) 05:45, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rkrajput3, in most cases you should not be adding links to external websites unless they are used as an reliable source for a specific claim in the article. You can see Wikipedia:Reliable sources for what sources are considered reliable, but this will usually be a source that has, and is known for, a relatively rigorous fact checking process, both pre- and post-publication, and that other sources trust the reliability of. To create a reference, you can see Help:Referencing for beginners. The very limited cases where it may be appropriate to link to a site is described at Wikipedia:External links. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:42, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from SHILPA SHANKAR (05:56, 2 April 2025)

I recently edited the page on personal selling but it is removed now. Could you please give the reason for removing the edited content? --SHILPA SHANKAR (talk) 05:56, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SHILPA SHANKAR, I've taken a look at your edits and those reversing your edits, and it seems like the primary objection is that the tone and style of the added content appears more like guide or manual, which is not considered suitable for Wikipedia. There were also points raised about the sources that you were using, though I do not know specifically what issues those editors found objectionable. If you want to know, you can try and ask on the talk page (Talk:Personal selling).

Also note that boldface should only be used rare circumstances. For where it is appropriate and inappropriate to use bold as opposed to other methods of formatting, please see our manual of style section on this topic (MOS:BOLD). Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:42, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Kevin9217 (09:23, 4 April 2025)

Hello,

Hope all is well. I just saw that Wikipedia has assigned you as my mentor. I am just sending this message as a friendly introduction. Thanks! --Kevin9217 (talk) 09:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Mickey chase (08:06, 7 April 2025)

Hello how don’t create a profile to google --Mickey chase (talk) 08:06, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Mickey chase, I don't understand your question. If you want to create a Wikipedia article, please see Help:Your first article. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Rerickson50055 (11:54, 8 April 2025)

I am a ultramarathon runner who recently set the record for the Fastest Known Time running across the state of Iowa. I am also a published author and illustrator, along with being a high school coach. How do I go about getting my own Wikipedia page? --Rerickson50055 (talk) 11:54, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rerickson50055! In general, to have a Wikipedia page written we need at least three or four sources meeting four criteria, which are sources that are reliable, independent, secondary and in-depth. In Wikipedia technical jargon, this is called "Notability" (and the biography-specific version can be found at Wikipedia:Notability (people) § Basic criteria), but it basically means that we need enough sources for an article to actually exist that is based on those sources.

Reliability and independence are usually fairly simple, most people write articles based on news articles, and most (though not all) news organisations would be reliable enough for most of their content, especially the more detailed articles, and most non-interview articles are usually independent unless you're the type to issue press releases. The tricky parts are the in-depth "significant" coverage — we'd want there to be enough coverage in each of them that just the three can be combined into a reasonably detailed description of your life — and they need to have some secondary coverage, having analysis and interpretation rather than just a direct, straightforward recounting of facts (this is often confused, but not all news coverage is secondary just because it's independent).

That's about the gist of it, but there is some further guidance at Help:Your first article and Wikipedia:Autobiography § Creating an article about yourself covers some potential pitfalls. Let me know if you have any further questions! Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the detailed response, very much appreciated! There are several news stories, a short film coming out on Iowa PBS, and news articles about who I am and what I have accomplished. Also, my results on my Fastest Known Time have been confirmed with FKT.com the overseeing power for Fastest Known Times.As far as my children’s book it is available on most platforms including Barnes and Noble, Amazon. Would this be enough to prove my notability?

Once again, thank you for your time! 14:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

No worries Rerickson50055. I would focus on the news articles and short film unless your book has received independent, third-party reviews by well-known, established critics. Barnes and Noble and Amazon are not considered independent sources about you as an author, as they have a commercial relationship with the authors that sell books with them, therefore, any content they publish should not normally be a major part of a biographic article. As for whether they'd be enough, that would really need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis — it is almost impossible to say whether a source is sufficiently detailed or secondary from just a description, without reading or watching it. This is what the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process is for. (Also, as that page mentions, if anyone solicits money from you it will probably be a scam). Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:11, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Translation

Good evening, Mentor.

I want to translate some articles on Wikipedia from English to Arabic. Do you have experience in this? Antonios Adly (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Antonios Adly, I've not translated things into Arabic specifically, and because each language is mostly independent, the best guides to follow would probably be on the Arabic Wikipedia (ar:ويكيبيديا:ترجمة مقالات ويكيبيديا) but you can find some information on translating English Wikipedia articles at Wikipedia:Translate us. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Assistance

Hi Alpha3031. Back in October, you had a conversation with the user Closed Limelike curves, who had moved the page "Monotonicity criterion" to "Negative response paradox". I agree with the way you felt, that it wasn't a good change. They also did this with three other articles. "Participation criterion" became "No-show paradox", "Consistency criterion" became "Multiple districts paradox", and "Reversal symmetry" became "Best-is-worst paradox". Their main justifications appeared to be that: 1) The terms "monotonicity" and "consistency" are vague and can mean multiple things; and 2) The articles should be named consistently.

But the way I see it, these changes create an inconsistency between these four articles and the other articles on voting system criteria (which are named after the criteria themselves and not the paradoxes that occur when they are violated). And the vagueness of the terms "monotonicity" and "consistency" could be addressed by simply making the titles more specific. "Monotonicity criterion" could have been renamed "Mono-raise criterion" or "Monotonicity criterion (voting systems)" and "Consistency criterion" could have been renamed "Join-consistency criterion" or "Consistency criterion (voting systems)".

If you check the pages' histories, you'll see that I tried to do this. I moved "Best-is-worst paradox" back to "Reversal symmetry". I had to request that "No-show paradox" be moved back to "Participation criterion", which later happened. I moved "Negative response" to "Mono-raise criterion" (which required some editing to reverse the way that they had "inverted" the language). And I moved "Multiple districts paradox" to "Join-consistency criterion". Of course, they later reversed most of what I did. They moved three of the pages back. They requested that Participation criterion" be moved back to "No-show paradox", but so far that request hasn't been granted. And they reverted my edits to the page that is once again called "Negative response". In their edit summary, they offered to discuss things on the article's talk page. I intend to do so, but I think that I'll need some backup.

If you agree that the articles were better before they made their changes (or between my changes and their newest changes), then I ask that you keep an eye on the "Negative response" talk page and jump in whenever you feel it's appropriate. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this issue. Do you think that my position makes sense? Thank you for your assistance. Man of Steel 85 (talk) 06:50, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend, if you reach a deadlock, starting a requested move with the process detailed at Wikipedia:Requested moves (this is a bit easier if you have something like Twinkle installed as a userscript) which would reach other uninvolved editors. While I am somewhat interested in the topic, it is not my primary interest, and I cannot guarantee my availability or participation for any upcoming discussions if other demands on my time, on- or off-wiki conflict with things. The titling policy may be of use as guidance on how to approach your argument. Best of luck, Man of Steel 85. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Cteixeira22 (08:44, 9 April 2025)

Hi, nice to e-meet you. I have added a page in wikipedia in Portuguese language but it appeared in the Wikipedia English website. I have translated the page to English language. Can you please check if the page shows the write formatting? Also, I'm trying do publish a Portuguese language content in the Wikipedia Portugues website but i doenst allow me to do so. Could you please help? Thank you! --Cteixeira22 (talk) 08:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cteixeira22, each language is mostly independent, so I wouldn't be able to tell you much about the Portuguese Wikipedia. The people at pt:Ajuda:Tire suas dúvidas might be able to help you with your questions. As for formatting, that usually isn't the biggest issue. Most of the time, the biggest issue for an article to be published is because it doesn't have enough of the right, high quality sources, or they have a different tone than what we'd expect from an encyclopedia article. You can find more general guidance at Help:Your first article, and more information about the typical tone at Wikipedia:Writing better articles § Tone. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:28, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

great, tks! Cteixeira22 (talk) 19:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors April 2025 Newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors April 2025 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the April 2025 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since December. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. We extend a warm welcome to all of our new members. We wish you all happy copy-editing. Election results: In our December 2025 coordinator election, Wracking stepped down as coordinator; we thank them for their service. Incumbents Dhtwiki, Miniapolis, and Mox Eden were reelected coordinators, and IQR and WikiEditor5678910 were newly elected coordinator, to serve through 30 June. Nominations for our mid-year Election of Coordinators will open on 1 June (UTC). Drive: 55 editors signed up for our January Backlog Elimination Drive 33 claimed at least one copy-edit and copy-edited 611,404 words in 237 articles. Barnstars awarded are here. Blitz: 14 editors signed up for our February Copy Editing Blitz. 10 claimed at least one copy-edit and copy-edited 46,749 words in 18 articles. Barnstars awarded are here. Drive: 47 editors signed up for our March Backlog Elimination Drive. 28 claimed at least one copy-edit and copy-edited 479,172 words in 207 articles. Barnstars awarded are here. Blitz: Sign up for our April Copy Editing Blitz, which runs from 13 to 19 April. Barnstars will be awarded here. Progress report: As of 9:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 89 requests since 1 January 2024, and the backlog stands at 2,264 articles. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Dhtwiki, IQR, Miniapolis, Mox Eden and WikiEditor5678910. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Ahadhas (15:24, 15 April 2025)

I want to English translation ওয়াজেদ মিয়া আন্তর্জাতিক স্বর্ণপদক --Ahadhas (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ahadhas, I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, but if you want to translate an article from another page to English, you can find instructions at Wikipedia:Translation. If you want to translate from English to another language instead, see Wikipedia:Translate us. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Oxigalia ObtuseTriangle (19:55, 20 April 2025)

Hello! I am a new editor who has been interested in Wikipedia for quite some time. I know most of the more important rules, but I might make a few mistakes new editors are prone to. I hope to become a useful contributor one day. Do you know any unprotected articles that need work that I can work on? I'd like to help. --Oxigalia ObtuseTriangle (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oxigalia ObtuseTriangle, you can find a list of things you can do at pages like Wikipedia:Task Center, Wikipedia:Backlog or Wikipedia:Maintenance, organised by type of work so you can find something you might be interested in. While they don't separate out protected from unprotected articles, most pages on Wikipedia are not protected. If you are mostly interested in one specific topic area, many (though not all) pages are tagged with Wikipedia:WikiProjects which sometimes have their own to-do lists. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Thoppy234 (12:36, 21 April 2025)

I hope you're well. I’ve drafted an article on Toks Omishakin in my sandbox and would appreciate it if you could kindly review it before I proceed with submission to the mainspace. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Thoppy234/sandbox/Adetokunbo_%22Toks%22_Omishakin

Your feedback would be invaluable in ensuring it meets Wikipedia’s notability and formatting standards.

Thank you in advance for your time and support.

Best regards, Thoppy234 --Thoppy234 (talk) 12:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thoppy234, I've taken a quick look at the article and while it might be considered to meet our inclusion criteria on the basis of WP:NPOL, it would probably benefit from sources with a bit more detail. In general, I would recommend people start an article by looking for a few big, detailed sources. The bigger and more detailed you can write an article from only your best one or two sources the better, as long as those sources are reliable and independent. Other sources can still be used of course, but once you have your core sources it's an easier job to use other sources to fill in details. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:42, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Ifeanyi Njoku (15:54, 21 April 2025)

How do I start a new page, I am writing a biography --Ifeanyi Njoku (talk) 15:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ifeanyi Njoku, you can find Help:Your first article as an guide to writing your first article. It will also have a blue button for the article wizard that you can use to create a draft that you can put things in. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Errperson (16:50, 21 April 2025)

I want to fix this citation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanistry#cite_note-Fletcher-1979-13

The citation links to the incorrect Joseph Fletcher. The correct article is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fletcher_(historian), not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fletcher who is the historian's father. I think Joseph_Fletcher_(Historian) should also be clarified as Joseph Fletcher Jr. --Errperson (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry I wasn't able to respond in time but thanks for picking up things like this! Hope you continue to spot things in articles interesting to you. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:30, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol May 2025 Backlog drive

May 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 May 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Pages Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A bowl of strawberries for you!

A big THANK YOU for reverting the apparent whitewashing of the Australian Citizens Party page. It seems a lot of us had concerns that the dregs of the LaRouche cult were trying to sex-up the unflattering public information about their Australian arm. Maybe not a surprising event given that Oz is on the brink of a federal general election, & the recent attempt by one of the party's candidates to massage the page was spurned by diligent editors. What was so disturbing about this latest manipulation was just how slick it was, with the dexterity & civility of the partisan POV-pushing being just a little sinister. The editor responsible would seem to be something other than a novice despite their public claims, which begs the question of are we dealing with a sock puppet, or a "reputation management" specialist, or a skilled LaRouche flunkey, or all 3? In any case, you did a fine job when you tackled the damage. Keep up the great work. Cheers! Bluevista99 (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from NotQualified

Hi, you told me to look here Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Usage by other sources to evaluate if a source is to be deemed reliable. This is pretty vague, how often is often enough for a source to be cited on a particular topic? NotQualified (talk) 19:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NotQualified, I'm a little hesitant at doing anything that might be perceived as encouraging you to test the boundaries of your topic ban, but since this question was addressed directly to me and not on a general page, I will try and answer this, but... just, do keep in mind that if someone else saw you start discussions like this closely related to why you were banned, it's unlikely to be looked favourably upon in any hypothetical future appeal.

On the actual question, to start with, to evaluate a source in general you should look at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline as a whole, not a specific section of it. § Usage by other sources only covers a specific type of evidence, and a type usually considered less definitive than other evidence (where available). Positive UBO could be outweighed by evidence of a negative reputation from other factors, and vice versa, other evidence of a positive reputation for fact-checking or accuracy could be outweighed by negative UBO. Hence, there is not any one single frequency of outside citation that is often enough, all of the evidence being looked at need to be weighed before determining a source has good or poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

You should also familiarise yourself with other content policies and guidelines, including but not limited to WP:OR, WP:DUE, WP:EXCEPTIONAL, WP:NOT and WP:BLP, because even if a specific WP:SOURCE (that is, all of: the publisher and publication, author and the specific article) is considered "generally reliable" or "generally unreliable", it can still be not used, or used, due to those other content policies. (though for the "not reliable" side, if we managed to get down to a specific article, it is rather unlikely we would turn around and decide to use it for something) In general, you'd start with the best secondary sources, and then use those as the structure from which the rest of what you're writing is built. As an analogy, if you're building a house, your core sources are the frame, the other secondary sources are the bricks, and other sources are mortar that you might use in little bits here or there.

The usual suggestion is to do a lot of the work you're struggling with in an area that you aren't likely to get into trouble for. Find pages with active sourcing disputes in, I dunno, chemistry or something equally uncontroversial that you're not likely to diverge wildly from consensus and get into massive disputes, and that you won't likely find a issue you feel you can't drop. You will get a better idea of what kind of things would get pushback from other editors, and how to answer their objections, once you've done it a bit more, and it's better (easier) to do that in a less controversial topic areas without ending up doing something you shouldn't have. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, this question isn't to do with the ban discussion, it's just a general question. Also, I was banned for bludgeoning, not misusing sources, in case someone else wants to know what that's referring to. NotQualified (talk) 13:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]