Alpha3031

The page Buildkite is my first, and I've edited and found more sources from another folk's feedback. I've pulled a lot of what are my definition of notable sources where the company or the service is the focus of the article (edited for clarity), supported by the company documentation where relevant. When you have the time, can you share or direct me the right place to go to purge and replace the ones that aren't considered notable? I've yet to find a directory or filtered list or something that says hey this is a source we don't trust, etc. And Australian media is a bit of a different landscape than the US, sometimes. Appreciate the help, when you have the chance.-- Tehinterwebz (talk) 01:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

HiTehinterwebz, thanks for reaching out. The usual guideline we use to assess "notability" of an article topic is primarily based on what we call "significant coverage". Reliable sources are required of course, but notability is a bit different, and it requires meeting the other criteria as well. For organisations and companies, the relevant guidance is found at WP:ORGCRIT, and the part specifically about depth of coverage is WP:ORGDEPTH, but to sum it up a bit: "significant coverage" means the source should address the subject of the article directly and in depth (more on that later); "independent" means any content directly from the company (most often interviews or press kits) are excluded; "reliable" is usually not a issue if you're sticking to ordinary, reputable news organisations, though some caveats apply (you can find a list that has been previously discussed at WP:RSP for some examples, but it's hardly exhaustive); "secondary" is about the distinction between fact and analysis, a secondary source has analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources (see also WP:PSTS and WP:USEPRIMARY).

For organisations and companies, there is a list of coverage types (atWP:ORGTRIV) that we would not normally consider "significant coverage", for example, funding announcements or product launches. These is, otherwise, no bright line rule on what is clearly "significant coverage" and what is not, but in general looking for a paragraph or two of detailed analysis clearly not from the company from 3 separate publications and authors is a good target to aim for. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Alpha3031 yup, okay, that's everything I had in mind when reviewing sources for Buildkite, though I obvs couldn't find this documentation, so I'll review that. I'll do a second sweep though as given the tag it seems like I missed some, or misinterpreted some of the guidelines. While not looking at my reference list directly, I feel like there were at least 3 non-funding or PR pieces from separate publications — were there any sources in particular that stood out to you as particularly questionable? (I'm not sure if you're using a bot or if you remember any specifics with Buildkite). I did pull a few press releases, though only for secondary support and did occasionally pull directly from their documentation for how the platform worked. ((Also newbie sidebar question — should I remove the secondary sourcing with press releases full stop? I included them to have another source of validation, but are they doing more harm than good being there at all?)) TIA! ~~~ Tehinterwebz (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Regarding your sidebar question, there isn't too much harm in the occasional citation to press releases or the company website, but it can delay reviews if there are too many of them. I wouldn't consider 10 out of 36 refs being to the company website to be too much, for example, but it does make it harder when a lot of the other sources are to interviews or otherwise also non-independent. There is also a minor readability concern when there are an excessive number of footnotes in the same place, which seems fine for much of the article, but the paragraph ending in Pipelines has a web application to handle user authentication, build orchestration, store logs and metrics. has 9 refs, which is definitely too much. You can spread the refs around a bit, move some of them closer to the statements they verify, but I would definitely look at cutting a few of the refs here as well. Rule of thumb I would recommend, 2 footnotes in the same place is fine, 3 if you have to, but try not to go above that.

As for a specific review of the sources against the criteria, looking at the revision I added the tag to:

• 1 to 6 are funding announcements (skipping over one ref to the company website);
• 7 is an interview;
• 9 is not really what we would normally consider an RS, and it's hard to extract significant amounts of content from a "how we do this" blog post in any case;
• 12 (dev.to) is a blogging platform; 13 is "added a new feature", which typically falls under the product or a product line launch, sale, change, or discontinuance of ORGTRIV (I probably should have just said "product announcement" instead of "product launch");
• 14 is an interview;
• 15 is a single sentence mentioning the acquisition;
• 17, funding announcement and does not appear to be clearly independent;
• 18, interview;
• 19, funding announcement, with most of the content evidently from an interview;
• 20, blogs aren't typically considered RS, and I'm not seeing an editorial policy or much WP:USEBYOTHERS to distinguish it from other ones;
• 21, we may consider the Pinterest core platform team SMEs for the purpose of verifying uncontroversial facts, but the usual exception requires work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publication and rules are typically stricter when applied to establishing notability;
• 22, I can't tell what it's being used for, did you mean to link to the profile page instead? In any case, an investor in the company is not considered independent;
• 23, 24, group blog;
• 25, Uber, same comments as Pinterest;
• 26 to 30, another issue with citing these blogs, as I mentioned in 9, is that it's hard to extract significant content — "We're using BuildKite for this now" is not really considered "significant coverage" — in any case, they're useful sources to verify some ancillary facts, and you shouldn't remove them if used, but they don't contribute to notability;
• 33 does not seem to fit the usual definition of RS, but I would be willing to chuck it at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if there were two other clearly qualifying sources.

That's pretty much it. Let me know if you have any further questions.

​ Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

oh wow! that was a *lot* more detail than I expected — massively appreciated. Seems I have work to do. Thanking you, I'll be tackling this over the next while. Tehinterwebz (talk) 23:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 62, March – April 2024

• IEEE and Haaretz now available
• Let's Connect Clinics about The Wikipedia Library
• Spotlight and Wikipedia Library tips

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

• Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
• Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
• Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
• Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
• Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
• Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
• Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
• Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'm just writing regarding some pages you draftified recently:

• Draft:PropertyLimBrothers, draftified on 6th May, recently copied to PropertyLimBrothers
• Draft:Lifeplus, draftified on 10th April, recently copied to Lifeplus
• Draft:Gayathri Vivekanandan, draftified on 6th May, recently copied to Gayathri Vivekanandan
• Draft:Etf.com, draftified on 6th May, recently copied to Etf.com
• Draft:NextDNS, draftified on 10th April, recently copied to NextDNS

All the new copies were created by a new user, MeltPees. I already asked the user in question about whether they are being paid for their contributions, but meanwhile I wanted to ask your input on how to deal with these new pages. Broc (talk) 10:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

HiBroc, Thank You. I am not a paid user. Still doubt on my editing, please put these on afd as Alpha did. MeltPees (talk) 11:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

HiBroc, thanks for reaching out. I am aware of those disputed/reversed draftifications and intend to nominate (or not) most of them at AFD after completing a BEFORE (except NextDNS if Todette's G4 on that goes through). Hopefully they will at least stop doing copy and paste moves... If I choose not to nominate, I will tag with {{sources exist}}. Obviously that would be a far more time consuming process, so I would not necessarily prioritise it over other work. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Honestly, I'm more concerned that BoyTheKingCanDance marked two of those as reviewed. I will be prioritising nominating those ones as they will be indexed. Not a huge deal, but still. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi dear Alpha3031, which two articles are you refering to? I'll take a second look. Best wishes, BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 15:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

HiBoyTheKingCanDance, thanks for the offer. The specific articles are Gayathri Vivekanandan, which is tagged {{notability}} by someone else, and PropertyLimBrothers, which I have nominated. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

I think I replied to this somewhere, but can't find it, thus Im replying again,

I built the Adam Ethan Crow (Film Director) page literally by copying the format of other Filom directors pages, but being careful to make sure everything was cited correctly.

my original plan was to pop the directors page up, then add three pages for his commercailly released movies, linking them to his directorial page.

would it be better to just put up the movie pages, then add him as a director, but only list the movies on the site?

It took me quite a while to build the page up (it still lives in my sandbox), so seems a shame to lose the work I put into it..

Rhian Rhiandorothybell (talk) 01:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Answered on other talk page. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oh... I don't actually have a question. I just right now saw that I have a mentor, and thought that was pretty cool, so I figured I'd say hi... Hi! --Peter Schroeder (talk) 04:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

HiPeter, welcome to Wikipedia! And feel free to pop in at any time, even if it's just for a chat, I'll be happy to have you. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Alpha3031,

I noticed that you tagged the article on Davinder Pal Singh for deletion, stating that it seems to be promotional rather than an encyclopedia article. I appreciate your feedback and understand the importance of maintaining Wikipedia's standards.

I am committed to improving the article and ensuring it meets the necessary guidelines for neutrality and notability. Could you please provide me with specific suggestions on how to make the article more neutral and less promotional? Your guidance would be incredibly valuable in helping me to make the necessary adjustments.

Thank you for your time and assistance.

Best regards, EditpediaPro

Answered on other talk page. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Alpha3031. I just wanted to discuss a redirection of Piwik PRO Analytics Suite into Matomo. Those organizations indeed has a common past but it ended in 2016. Now those organizations are completely separate, both in terms of legal and business, but also in terms of software. Piwik PRO Analytics Suite is a more advanced platform with increasing visibility - it is used among others by governments, public services or banks. The history part is only a small one and it is not correct to just simply redirect users to another vendor's page. Thanks for understanding. Szymon

Will answer on User talk:Szymongrzesiak. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please leave the notability tag alone on Data-driven astronomy. Due to the Wikipedia anonymity I do not know what your experience is in academia. That article is currently identical to one (or more) of:

• A Part III or MS proposal by a student in Oxford.
• A writeup for a position -- add "Students/Postdocs are sought to work on..." in front.
• A summary of a funded proposal, also recruiting.
• The summary for a PhD prelim, although it would be weak for that.

None of the above are material that should be on Wikipedia. The notability tag is a soft first step rather than AfD which many would do. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thankyou for tidying up the references on Demtel International. As a rule, I try not to include any articles that are behind hard pay walls (especially not 30 year old articles!) I have found the Australian Financial Review seems to grant access without a subscription to three older (10 years+) articles per month - I've tested this on Chrome, Edge and the Samsung mobile browsers. In any case, your eventual decision to tag as limited access is accurate, all things considered. Unfortunately, there does seem to be a gap in free archiving services like Trove from the 1990s as most Australian newspapers began publishing online around then. Most archived stories on their websites from this time onwards are paywalled. I believe there is some licencing issue that prevents Trove making content published after then freely available, even if the printed versions are in the NLA collections! Dfadden (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

For the record, when do you intend to close the discussion at Tesla Inc.'s talk page? Emiya1980 (talk) 03:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just swinging by to say, thanks very much for such a well-written, measured, logical and procedurally-sound statement requesting DRV for Connecteam. Being a lurker there for just a little while now, it's a breath of fresh air when someone nails it the way you did! Daniel (talk) 22:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Regarding WP:Articles for deletion/Eat This Much, which you nominated: I noticed that the article creator created the very similar Paprika (app) four hours after creating Eat This Much. They also created Category:Meal planning apps, which now only has that one entry. Just letting you know in case they should be XFDed as well. Persingo (talk) 01:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I do vaguely remember seeing that, and may nominate it for XfD as well after a little time. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

what is a copy edit? --Sid28.28 (talk) 10:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

HiSid28.28!Copy editing refers to the process of making minor edits, usually to correct spelling and grammar, or otherwise improving the quality or readability of the text (known as "copy"). Usually, if you're aiming to make a copy edit, you would not be making more substantial changes such as adding new content or substantially revising the existing content, though it's certainly permissible to do both in the same edit. You can find a guide at Wikipedia:Basic copyediting if you'd like to learn how to do this on Wikipedia. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

how to start? --Ephrem DUSHIMIMANA (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Alpha3031 I noticed you save the page, but I decided to tag it with COI template. Ryderwear. I think it's appropritate there. what do you think? 93.83.98.212 (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Alpha3031! If possible, would you mind also closing the ATD for Kerry Xuefeng Chen? Like ATRenew, the page has already been deleted per G5. Since I have commented, and I take that as involving myself in the discussion, it may be better for someone else to do the closure. Thanks for your help!! — Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 04:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sure, done. It's a procedural close anyway. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks!! —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 04:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello Jim, I missed you n the product we made together - so much. I am ready for another battle in this business. It was hard to find you though. Just ping me on +919900141276. I am there for you. And I have designer who is willing to work under you --Vinay Bhat 1976 (talk) 12:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please call back - together we can make another or better than Superdry. Please Jim. Vinay Bhat 1976 (talk) 12:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Inthis post, did you mean "historical event"? Mitch Ames (talk) 05:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes I did, thanks for asking. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

How do we get a collection of restatements of math conjectures? I know a few, but don't have sources outside my head. --Roderick MacPhee (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

HiRoderick MacPhee, I'm not certain what you mean by collection of restatements but we have a List of conjectures and also Category:Conjectures if that helps? Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I posted a few to my user page now that thought to look( over a year ago) . I'm just not capable of supporting restatements as cited. This bars them from being used in normal articles. Roderick MacPhee (talk) 00:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

for example you can force things about the shared factors in Beal's conjecture. Roderick MacPhee (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

My payment send me --Ghalibmazari25 (talk) 10:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi ! I am writing as a dedicated subscriber and supporter of WestNet Wireless to request the restoration of the company's Wikipedia page. The recent deletion of this page came at a crucial time when WestNet is engaging in significant negotiations with larger corporations and government entities. The timing of this deletion is quite suspicious, given the company's substantial contributions to the telecommunications industry. WestNet Wireless is of immense significance, particularly known for its collaboration with WiLAN, the inventors of Wi-Fi. This partnership was essential in deploying the first Wi-Fi networks, an achievement that is well-documented and rooted in the innovations of Hedy Lamarr. WestNet's contributions span various sectors, including telecommunications, healthcare, aerospace, and logistics, making it a vital entity in the technological landscape. As a cooperative community, we highly value WestNet's efforts, especially in areas like Bridgeland, where their impact has been profound. WestNet has been instrumental in deploying Wi-Fi networks and supporting community initiatives, showcasing their commitment to technological advancement and community development. Deleting the WestNet Wireless page undermines the recognition of these significant achievements and contributions. Therefore, we kindly request that the page be restored to reflect the true historical and technological importance of WestNet Wireless. Thank you for considering this request. We are eager to contribute further to the Wikipedia community and ensure that notable entities like WestNet Wireless are rightfully represented. Sincerely, Matt 66.150.164.95 (talk) 00:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't actually have the ability to undelete pages, sorry. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

How Do I Can To At Edit The Wikipedia's Pages and read Without Any Troublesome Plus Without Any Other Problems Whatsoever Anymore Probably Problems Or At Least Any Reasons To Attack --Tim1354216789 (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Tim1354216789, I'm not sure I understand your question. What edits are you trying to make? Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 63, May – June 2024

• One new partner
• 1Lib1Ref
• Spotlight: References check

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Good morning sir, we need your help in Bangladesh people because the government has been stop internet at all, the she is killing all students, sir please help my country --Fatal keto (talk) 03:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply