Jump to content

User talk:Alpha3031/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5


Welcome!

Hello, Alpha3031, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! — Masum Ibn Musa  Conversation 10:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

October 2016

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Rajalingampet, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Vin09 (talk) 12:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Frank Nuttall

Hello, contributions have been made to the above page which are false, inaccurate, sensationalist, irrelevant, derogatory and from sources which have a very low standard of journalism. This is the reason for the attempted deletions of such contributions information and attempts accurately give the facts about Frank Nuttall. Please advise — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franknuttall (talk • contribs) 15:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Franknuttal: If that's the reason that you deleted the information, then it should be fine if you explain so in the edit summary. Consider removing the most obvious mistakes first, then follow the guidelines at WP:BLPSELF. Try not to delete everything if you can reword it to be more satisfactory.

Hi Algha3031, the page was updated on 13 November with information that was accurate and true. However, the page has since reverted back to the page that contained false, inaccurate, sensationalist, irrelevant, derogatory information and from sources which have a very low standard of journalism that we discussed. Please can you help solve this problem so that the page is updated again to infomation of 13 November and does not get removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franknuttall (talk • contribs) 11:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@Franknuttal:, TBH, I'm not too interested in football, and I don't know much about it. I removed what I can, but anything else is up to you. Also, I saw your addition here. Did you want to change your username? Consider reading Wikipedia:Changing username and adding something here if applicable. — Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 13:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Alpha3031! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 12:43, Wednesday, November 8, 2017 (UTC)

Mission 1 Mission 2 Mission 3 Mission 4 Mission 5 Mission 6 Mission 7
Say Hello to the World An Invitation to Earth Small Changes, Big Impact The Neutral Point of View The Veil of Verifiability The Civility Code Looking Good Together

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks!) Kingofwoods (talk) 09:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

rollback

I have granted the "rollbacker" permission to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. – Gilliam (talk) 10:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Stop vandalizing

gracias 77.179.112.215 (talk) 12:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

HOW is my editing disruptive?

All I did was remove an animal list from the Zoo Tycoon page, something that shouldn't have even been there in the first place. Wikipedia is not a game guide. How is that disruptive when it shouldn't have been there in the first place? 79.74.212.75 (talk) 13:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

About my edits on Armenian basketball articles

M8 look up KunoxTxa and my history on here. :^) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KūńœxTxæ (talk • contribs) 03:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Question

about the WePlanet article

I have edited this article according to your recommendations, adding references that provide a complementary viewpoint I have submitted it for review, it is still in the draft space

Please tell me if this is OK from you viewpoint.

Accounting for the number of secondary sources used that directly mention weplanet, notability should not be an issue Steyncham (talk) 14:28, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

About the WePlanet draft article

Hello

Thanks for your detailed remarks about this draft

I have tried to address your remarks, but I am a bit confused when you say that some of the additional sources I had previously added are not really necessary because they were not directly about Weplanet. In fact I added them to the first version in order to take into account neutrality requirements because the secondary sources I had originally included (mostly from The Guardian) which were actually about Weplanet, were all rather positive. Which is why I enlarged the topic to ecomodernism in the first section to include new references that are more balanced. In fact the only one among these new references which is directly about Weplanet is not really a secondary source because it is from and anti-GMO activist website. I did not find a negative article directly about weplanet from a reputable mainstream media outlet Steyncham (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, it is not necessary to actively seek out sources that take a specific, opposing tone in order to achieve a tone that is considered neutral by policy. As long as you start by primarily using sources that meet the criteria for notability*, and omit or rephrase (or, if appropriate, attribute) the parts where they appear to be giving subjective opinions or otherwise taking a dramatic or opinionated tone, then the article would generally be good enough to publish, though of course people would still try to change it or discuss changes to it.
Even if it isn't enough, that is where you should start, since pulling in sources about other, not directly related topics is considered original synthesis, and causes issues with other parts of policy, namely the fact that articles should be directly based on what is explicitly written in reliable sources, meaning that unless a reliable source explicitly makes the connection, you would be trading one issue with another one.
* that would be, one addressing the subject directly and in detail, in its own words, giving fact-based analysis rather than opinion, and authored and published by a reputable and independent organisation. If you find what you think are the best three at meeting all of those criteria, it would usually help another reviewer pick things up faster, and also guide appropriate article development. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alpha3031/Archive_1&oldid=1253859611"