User talk:Alpha3031

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13

This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be auto-archived by if there are more than 5.

You've got mail

Hello, Alpha3031. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:31, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

👀 Toadspike [Talk] 05:33, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Toadspike? Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:15, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying hi, looking around, and engaging in some good-natured speculation... I hope you're doing well and I wish you all the best in any future endeavors. Toadspike [Talk] 14:10, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 70

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 70, July–August 2025

New collections:
- Times of Malta
- Africa Intelligence
- Intelligence Online
- La Lettre
- Glitz
Spotlight: Wikimania

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 13:15, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(This message was sent to User:Alpha3031 and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

Guild of Copy Editors – September 2025 Newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors – September 2025 Newsletter

Hello and welcome to the September newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since June.

Election news: Project coordinators play an important role in our WikiProject. Following the mid-year Election of Coordinators, we welcomed GoldRomean to the coordinator team. Dhtwiki remains as lead coordinator, and Miniapolis and Mox Eden return as coordinators. If you'd like to help out behind the scenes, please consider taking part in our December election – watchlist our ombox for updates. Information about the role of coordinators can be found here.

June 2025 blitz: 10 of the 12 editors who signed up for the June 2025 Copy Editing Blitz copy edited a total of 26,652 words comprising 13 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.

July 2025 drive: 30 of the 54 editors who signed up for the July 2025 Backlog Elimination Drive copy edited a total of 379,557 words comprising 151 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.

August 2025 Blitz: 11 of the 17 editors who signed up for the August 2025 Copy Editing Blitz copy edited a total of 65,601 words comprising 25 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.

September 2025 Drive: Sign up here to earn barnstars in our month-long, in-progress September Backlog Elimination Drive.

Progress report: As of 06:43, 20 September 2025 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 222 requests since 1 January, and the backlog of tagged articles stands at 2,010 articles.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we do without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:45, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Sheraziaun (06:02, 26 September 2025)

Hello! i have submitted a draft please review and suggest what should i do --Sheraziaun (talk) 06:02, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sheraziaun, as the reviewer of the draft mentioned, you need to reference your draft properly. You can find how to add references at WP:REFVISUAL if you're using the visual editor, or WP:INTREF2 if you're using the source editor. It would also help if you avoided using ChatGPT. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:05, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from AlisonBMorgan (22:14, 3 October 2025)

Hi. My subject Heather Grace Stewart wrote a book on Kim Campbell, and it is referenced in the Wikipedia Kim Campbell page under "Further Reading." How do I highlight Heather Grace Stewart here so it links to my drafted Wiki page I'm drafting up? --AlisonBMorgan (talk) 22:14, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AlisonBMorgan. You will need to wait until after the draft is approved after someone confirms it meets the criteria (assuming it is approved. I haven't reviewed the draft so I wouldn't be able to tell you whether it would be or not.). Once the article is approved and moved to its published location, follow the same steps you would for editing a reference (WP:INTREFVE3). The field to add is "author-link", see also Template:Cite book § Authors. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:06, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from GingerAlrich 2 (07:09, 5 October 2025)

Hello. How do I upload an image? --GingerAlrich 2 (talk) 07:09, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GingerAlrich 2, you can use the Wikipedia:File upload wizard to upload an image. Please make sure you check the copyright status of the image you're uploading before doing so. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:39, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Alpha3031. GingerAlrich 2 (talk) 04:42, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from NondualNature (11:24, 5 October 2025)

Hi. Can I make a new page about a new term i just created? --NondualNature (talk) 11:24, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NondualNature. Unfortunately Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and does not accept entries on terms not discussed in detail in reliable (i.e., published and well established) sources. If the use of your term is sufficiently attested to be covered in a dictionary, you may find it meets the criteria for inclusion on Wiktionary instead ("clearly widespread use", or "use in durably archived media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year"). If it meets neither criteria, you will need to wait for your term to catch on.

Please also note attitudes on conflict-of-interests on each project. (English) Wikipedia has a formal guideline at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, which you should read and comply with if you edit in a topic area that you have an external relation with (for example, the coiner of a term). I am not aware of any such guidelines at Wiktionary, and as independent projects, guidelines here to not apply there, but there would likely be an expectation to disclose somehow (for example, in the edit summary) if you do eventually choose to submit your term there. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:49, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok,thank you. NondualNature (talk) 22:03, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify afd close

Hi, could you clarify which articles among the ones that have been discussed shall be merged in this AfD discussion you closed? Thanks. FaviFake (talk) 16:12, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure FaviFake. In my opinion, the discussion ended with a rough consensus to merge all the content on word processing software to, preferably, word processor, though a reverse merge is also possible and I don't believe an AFD result should fully preclude alternative or additional merges from being considered. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:21, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, thanks, but could you clarify exactly which articles you mean among the ones that have been discussed? You didn't specify the articles to be merged in your judgement. I agree an AFD result should not preclude other merges from being considered, but I just needed to know which ones this specific afd found consensus to merge. Thanks again. FaviFake (talk) 16:32, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal primarily assessed was that of Word processor program to Word processor. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:36, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I asked because people also !voted for word processor (electronic device) to be merged as well, and your closure said "Editors agree that there should be a single article for the topic". I'll try to only merge Word processor program when I have the time. FaviFake (talk) 17:12, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Property Finder for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Property Finder, which you previously marked as reviewed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Property Finder (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and you are welcomed to contribute to the discussion.SodiumBot (botop|talk) 13:34, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These updates are delivered by SodiumBot. To opt out of these messages, add {{User:SodiumBot/NoNPPDelivery}} to your talk page.

Long-Term Stock Exchange – request to review redirect and new draft

Hi,

I was contacted by the Long-Term Stock Exchange (LTSE), who wondered why their article had been redirected. From the page history, I saw that you created the redirect to Eric Ries#Long-Term Stock Exchange on May 7, 2024.

I noticed from your edit summaries (“Added {{Notability}} tag…” and “Can't see it meeting NCORP…”) that you had concerns about the topic’s standalone notability. Having reviewed the "Long-Term%20Stock%20Exchange"%20wikipedia archived version, I fully understand your reasoning — the article as it stood then relied mostly on weak or superficial sources. That said, it turns out that several strong, independent, and in-depth secondary sources establishing LTSE’s notability were already available at that time, though they hadn’t been cited in the article.

I’ve since gathered those existing sources (along with a few newer ones) and built a fully referenced draft here: User:Toometa/Long-Term_Stock_Exchange. As I have a declared COI (LTSE commissioned me for this research and rewrite), I can’t remove the redirect myself.

If you find the draft sufficiently sourced and policy-compliant, would you consider restoring the standalone page from it? I’d be very happy to discuss or adjust anything if needed.

Thanks for your time.

Best, Toometa (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've only reviewed a few of the sources so far (8, 6, 3, 4 and 11, more or less in the order I looked) and I don't think it's clear that they would pass the bar set by WP:ORGTRIV and WP:ORGIND, though if you made a case you could probably get it past the "likely" threshold used at AFC. What do you think are the best three sources (when measured against WP:SIRS), Toometa? Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:08, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m hesitating between sources 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8, as they all seem to meet the WP:SIRS criteria. But if I had to narrow it down to three, I’d go with 2, 3, and 4. What do you think? Toometa (talk) 16:06, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I mentioned I went through 3, 4 and 8 earlier, but I've had a bit more time now so I'm going to try and write things up. The three is just a suggestion/rule-of-thumb, I wouldn't worry too much about going over the exact number in an informal discussion like this one, especially since I'd already looked at 8. One theme here is that I am going to be counting WP:ROUTINE as a factor weighing against meeting WP:ORGDEPTH. That is something that applies to a greater or lesser extent to all of the sources here, and it's not going to automatically eliminate any of them, but it does mean that the will receive more scrutiny.

Essentially, if it's one of the examples in the WP:CORPROUTINE sublist of ORGTRIV, we would expect a company to send out some sort of announcement saying something like "hey guys, we just raised a bunch of money"; now, we would only quickfail it if the announcement was literally the only thing printed in the news article, but it's always an indicator that we'd want to be more careful in examining ORGDEPTH. Now, looking at each of the mentioned sources individually, with the ones I hadn't looked at first:

(5) Massa, Annie (April 13, 2018). "Will Wall Street Buy Into the Slow Stocks Movement?". Bloomberg. Retrieved September 26, 2025.: I'd nix due to too much being composed of quotes. Overall I would agree dropping this and 8 from the best three if we really wanted to narrow things down completely, and 8 is slightly better.
(2) Osipovich, Alexander; Berman, Dennis K. (2017-10-16). "Silicon Valley Vs. Wall Street: Can the New Long-Term Stock Exchange Disrupt Capitalism?". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved 2025-09-26.: I think is better than the other sources, right on the edge of where I'd give the source a pass at AfD. There's a decent amount of analysis here, and I would likely accept an article with three sources of similar depth if at AfC.
(4) Osipovich, Alexander (2019-05-10). "Silicon Valley-Backed Venture Cleared to Become 14th U.S. Stock Exchange". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved 2025-09-26.: The issue I have with the article is that there is too little WP:SECONDARY content for it to be considered in-depth in my opinion. The only part that is analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis is para. 7 (starting One of LTSE’s listing ideas has proved contentious:) and the end of para. 4 (That could have appeal in Silicon Valley, where many tech entrepreneurs complain that Wall Street fosters short-term thinking.). My overall evaluation is that I would consider this to be relatively routine coverage, and insufficient to meet SIRS.
(3) Harty, Declan (August 26, 2021). "Silicon Valley's LTSE finally lists its first companies". Fortune. Retrieved 2025-09-26.: I'd say this is roughly comparable with 4, maybe slightly better. I'd pick paras. 7–11 as the best parts.
(8) Nguyen, Lananh (September 9, 2020). "Silicon Valley Stock Exchange Debuts in Search for First IPO". Bloomberg. Retrieved September 26, 2025.: Slightly better than 5, as mentioned, but I would place it below the other three sources as well.

Overall, I would say this is at the edge of what I would accept at AfC, and if I reviewed this in mainspace I would likely put a {{notability}} tag on it to see if people could find something clearly better, though I probably wouldn't nominate it. If I had to give a probability, I would say the chances of surviving an AfD is greater than 50% but not substantially so. Other editors at AfD may accept 3 and 4, but I wouldn't be able to say so with confidence. As I've mentioned, it's right at the border of my threshold to accept, Toometa. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:16, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Alpha3031 for taking the time to go through the sources and share such a detailed assessment. I understand your reasoning and find your points well taken. From here, what would you consider the most reasonable next step? Would it make sense to restore the page with a {{notability}} tag as you suggested? Or would it be preferable for me to start a short discussion on Eric Ries’s talk page to get at least one additional opinion before proceeding? Toometa (talk) 14:11, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to copy it over tomorrow morning (in maybe around 8 or 10 hours time assuming nothing else comes up) with the notability tag yeah. If you'd like you can take that time to get any final copyediting done Toometa, I don't think people will mind much either way for minor edits but it would be easier than making edit requests if you decide you need to make changes later. I'll need to catch some sleep now either way.

Things that don't really factor into the accept/decline decision but still worth doing, like changing the links to Bloomberg in your references to the correct one of Markets, Businessweek, etc (maybe changing the work= as well along with it), and I notice the Amy Butte sentence is fairly close to how it is in the source (Quartz/source 6) so you should probably decide if you can paraphrase that a bit more or if there's only that one reasonable way to say it (i.e. WP:LIMITED) that kind of thing. See if there is anything else that you want to tidy up. I'll ping you again in the edit summary when I copy it over Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:00, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edit suggestions, Alpha3031. I’ve updated the Bloomberg links and rephrased the sentence about Amy Butte. Everything’s ready on my side. Toometa (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with Alpha3031's notability concerns, and also that this is teetering borderline and yet I wouldn't be quite brave enough to nominate it for deletion. I've added two sources and have marked the article as reviewed. If someone later wants to take it to AfD, bear in mind that is a possibility! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Dr.DorinaShine (18:26, 15 October 2025)

What do I need to do in order to create a professional biography? --Dr.DorinaShine (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dr.DorinaShine. For academics, to have an article on Wikipedia would generally require the subject to meet WP:NACADEMIC (which is generally considered easier to meet for an academic than the basic criteria for biographical articles, WP:BASIC).

The resultant article may not have the same focus as a "professional biography", as our need for independent, third-party, reliable sources and non-use of subject matter expertise may lead to different areas of focus for subjects that do not already have more detailed independently written biographies published externally that we can refer to. Wikipedia editors should not conduct original research, and are in fact prohibited from doing so, so any gaps in coverage in the already published sources may mean similar gaps in the article that a professional biographer could instead take steps to investigate and rectify. There may be a different expected level of depth, and there may be other differences owing to different expectations of the genre.

If you wish to write an autobiography, our guidelines on doing so are at Wikipedia:Autobiography. The best place to start a draft (which you can do using the Wikipedia:Article wizard) would be in the Draft: namespace, the preferred place drafts are kept, rather than the User: namespace. While userspace drafts do exist, they are not typically used unless there is a specific reason to do so, and the User: namespace is typically used for content related to you and your activities as a Wikipedia user. Please let me know if there is anything else I could clarify for you. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:28, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Robinfromteentitensgo (17:02, 27 October 2025)

If I collect information from a sight but use it in my own words is it considered copy writing? --Robinfromteentitensgo (talk) 17:02, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robinfromteentitensgo, if you mean copyright violations, it depends a little on how similar your words are to your source material. You can find an explanatory essay at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing on what is and isn't considered problematic when paraphrasing. Alpha3031 (t • c) 23:20, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from DuskSky2018 (00:09, 30 October 2025)

Hello, where can I find my drafts that i have submitted for AfC (Articles for Creation)? --DuskSky2018 (talk) 00:09, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DuskSky2018. You can usually find the list of all articles you have created using this URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=DuskSky2018&namespace=all&tagfilter=&newOnly=1&start=&end=&limit=50 Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:15, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thank you!^^ DuskSky2018 (talk) 11:23, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from DuskSky2018 (09:30, 31 October 2025)

Hello, i just recently created an article about a song, submitted and it got approved and published. The only thing that i need to add is the art cover. How to upload an album cover and fill the upload form? --DuskSky2018 (talk) 09:30, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DuskSky2018. An album cover would likely be copyrighted, so you'll want to use the "non-free file" option in the Wikipedia:File upload wizard. In step 3, once you select This is a copyrighted, non-free work, [...] there should be an option for This is the official cover art of a work. Don't worry too much about getting the description perfect the first time, while it's good to get the key points right, once uploaded it can be edited just like a Wikipedia article. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:49, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oh! how about the resolution of the art cover? do i need to reduce it to 300x300 pixel or just upload it in original resolution? DuskSky2018 (talk) 10:02, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, checking the relevant section of the guideline (WP:IMAGERES), you should ideally rescale it yourself. If an image that is too big is tagged, there is technically a bot that would do it after a day or so though, so it's not the end of the world if someone doesn't resize it or resizes it wrong. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:42, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thank you so much. Oh can i ask once more? sorry..

i have made an article about a 2018 single Thick and Thin (LANY song) and i published it, but when i search for the article on the search bar in wikipedia, it does show the article name but when i press, it redirect to the album instead of the article that i made and turns out there are redirect pages exist with the same name and when i edit the redirect page link, it still not redirect to the article that i made but to the redirect page itself. So i have to undo both, edit the redirect back to the album and pull my article into the draft... is there any solution to this? sorry for asking too much DuskSky2018 (talk) 07:24, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DuskSky2018. Don't worry about asking too many questions, it's what I'm here for and yours are more interesting than what I usually get anyway. My recommendation would be to keep the article in the draft namespace for now, if it is accepted the AFC reviewer will tag the redirect for deletion so that your article can be moved in it's place. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:42, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! :D, hope it get accepted DuskSky2018 (talk) 14:34, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As an additional note, the cause of the issue seems to be the difference in capitalisation between (LANY song) and (LANY Song). I'll move your draft to use the lowercase for now (i.e. Draft:Thick and Thin (LANY song)) as that is standard on wikipedia. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:45, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! DuskSky2018 (talk) 14:34, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]