This is an archive of past discussions with User:Alpha Quadrant. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Ok, I have done another review. There are still some sentences that need rewording. For example:
“
Observing the metamorphosis of a butterfly in approx. 21 days is an amazing experience and it is rare to find a wild caterpillar that successfully continues its life cycle.
”
This is an opinion, as this should be written in an encyclopedic tone the article should be free of opinions. Opinions may be stated if they are from a reliable source, but they must be referenced and it must be clear that it is an opinion. I hope that helps. You have a very good start, after the tone is adjusted the article will be a good encyclopedia entry. You have some good references. Alpha Quadranttalk17:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
112th Congress
Me again; the semi-protected senators with pages that need updating are Chuck Grassley, John McCain, and Jim Inhofe; they are now 8th, 16th, and 26th Seniority in the United States Senate. I put change requests on their talk pages awhile back, requesting those 3 be altered to match the other 97, but the only response seemed to be a minor bite / weak I don't like it. Couldn't see anything on your page indicating online status (something I plan to learn how to do to include on my page when that happens). 75.204.42.109 (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Done All three requested changes made. The order has been changed. I noticed your edit request was for something different. Would you like me to make those changes as well? Alpha Quadranttalk20:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! If you think it's reasonable; while I understood the point about the italics, the other changes weren't made either, and those ran about 90/10; putting 3 more in italics seemed easier than going back and changing the other 97, especially since reverting would have undone productive changes. I will be much more careful in the future. 75.204.42.109 (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Bill Posey is s/p and has no oop box; if you would, please paste it below his USHR box;I can't see the problem to know why the others aren't connected.
{{s-prec|usa}}
{{s-bef|before=[[Jared Polis]]<br><small>D-[[Colorado]]}}
{{s-ttl|title=''[[List of current members of the United States House of Representatives by seniority |United States Representatives by seniority]]''|years=329th}}
{{s-aft|after=[[Phil Roe]]<br><small>R-[[Tennessee]]}}
Again, thanks in advance. 75.204.42.109 (talk)
Your most welcome, if you have any questions I would be happy to help. You will be able to edit semi-protected pages in two days when your account becomes auto-confirmed. You may wish to request the reviewer flag. Reviewer allows you to review edits to Pending changes protected pages and also automatically mark your own edits as reviewed. Until a pending change is reviewed it does not appear. Pending change protection is usually applied to biographies that are targets of slander. (Politicians are usually targeted and are often pending change protected or semi-protected.) As you often edit articles on politics that flag would likely be helpful to you. You can request reviewer at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. Best wishes, Alpha Quadranttalk23:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I 'll probably wait at least a little while before requesting reviewer; plenty to do where I've been lately to keep me busy. Dru of Id (talk) 01:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Please see WP:BAND. Topics need to meet the notability guideline to be accepted. To be considered notable they need to have accomplished at least one of the things on the list at WP:BAND. I hope that helps. Best, Alpha Quadranttalk19:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Dear Alpha Quadrant. I have resubmitted this and also kept trying to improve it. Stupidly, however, I set the whole thing up as ANDERTON - it should be ANDERSON. I have corrected where I can but cannot change the title. Can you help, please.
SusanWynneThomson (talk) 10:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Robert Carden, Governor of Antigua 1666
Yesterday I placed the following response on the "articles for review" page - sorry, I now realise I should have put it here - you can see that I am a beginner! Please be so very kind as to suggest how I can make the article less like an essay. Cardenae (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I disagree - I think that if someone wanted to know about Robert Carden, Governor of Antigua, they would find the proposed article extremely interesting and informative. Why not accept it and allow me and others to improve it in due course? I have looked at the guidelines and cannot see how to overcome your objections. None of the many people called Robert Carden to be found elsewhere are connected with, or contemporary with, the subject of my article. No other page with my suggested title "Robert Carden, Governor of Antigua 1666" already exists.Cardenae (talk) 09:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Makeet, Webcams(website)
Dear Alpha Quadrant. I have resubmitted my Wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Webcams_%28Website%29 and i found reliable resources on published books. All my references comes from books written by authors with a huge background in adult industry. I fix all issues from your last review and I come with new sources, but again my article submission was declined. Let me know, more details about section when i must improve my article to be finally accepted by you. Makeet (talk) 15:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Some of the sources you provided are third party, and reliable, however most of them only have small mentions of the company and the company is not the main subject of the sources. I have marked it as pending so another reviewer can review it so a second opinion can be given. Alpha Quadranttalk03:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Alpha Quadrant for this helpful decision. I'll wait until another editor will review my Wikipedia article. Makeet (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
A Shade of Difference closing
Re your closing of the discussion at Talk:A Shade of Difference#Merge proposal, there's no reason to doubt that it was compatible with the primary guidelines for such closings. Nevertheless, IMO its effect is so much of a miscarriage of the intent of the process that you should consider reversing your own decision and extending the discussion, even if doing so would require you to IAR. W/o going here into the merits of the arguments made, please note that you closed just under 36 hours after my extensive rebuttal to the two other discsussant's terse comments. Perhaps you contacted them and determined that they are satisfied to have it closed without their commenting further, but if so i would hope you'd say so in the section. Where the attention devoted to the case for merging is so lopsided, would it not be wise to allow more time for reaching consensus, perhaps giving notice to the identified project? Thanks for your attention. --Jerzy•t22:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Your proposal is to move the article on the first book to the title of the series and rewrite it on the general series. As the books meet the notability guideline for books, and one of them received the Pulitzer Prize, it would be procedurally incorrect to move the current article on the first book and rewrite it on the series the book covers. It would be more appropriate to create a new article for the series. I closed the request for two reasons. One, as I said above it is procedurally incorrect to move an article so it can be rewritten on a different topic. If you believe two or more articles should be combined then you can propose that they be merged instead. As these books have received significant coverage it would be inappropriate to merge all of the books together, the resulting article would be too long. Even though a few of the book articles are stubs now, they have a good potential to be expanded. Two, there was significant opposition and no support to the merger. I hope that answers your question. Alpha Quadranttalk02:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Reverts?
A little trigger happy with the reverts eh? Are you feeling alright? I am tired too, going to bed in fact, you want to see how many typographical mistakes I was making on my sandbox? Check them out: [1]. Hope your taking the stretch your leg breaks that we all need. Happy editing, and hope it's not an endemic problem, Sadads (talk) 02:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I clicked the wrong links on Lupin's tool. Oh the adrenaline rush when I realize "hey wait a minute...why hasn't this reverted yet...gha, I am pressing the wrong button. :) Best, Alpha Quadranttalk03:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
This is the first issue of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program newsletter. Please read it! It has important information about the the current wave of classes, instructions and advice, and other news about the ambassador program.
Did you Know? is the process of nominating facts to be displayed on the Main Page. There are a few requirements. The article has to have been created no more than five days before the nomination (new articles) or the article has been significantly expanded in the past 5 days (example stub to C class). Nominations can be either one's own work, or another editor's work.
Ah, Articles for Creation, personally favorite project. It allows IP addresses to create articles. IP's can create talk pages, but not Articles. IP's can submit articles/redirects/templates/categories to be created via the Wikipedia talk: namespace. AfC members then review the requests and accept requests (move the request to mainspace), decline requests, or put the request on hold if a minor issue needs to be addressed. (hold should not be used excessively however) The AfC process is more strict than New Page Patrol, before accepting an article it should meet the requirements at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions. I hope that helps you. Alpha Quadranttalk18:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 13 February 2011
Hi, AQ. Thanks for closing that monstrosity. Would I be correct in saying that the policies most relevant in deciding the issue were WP:COMMONNAME and WP:POVTITLE? (Just for my own info). Thanks again. --Kenatipospeak!03:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Dear User: Alpha Quadrant
Thank you for taking the time to review the article. I truly appreciate your effort. It was my first article on Wikipedia and to see it get published is truly joyful for me. So I sincerely thank you
regards
abhishek singh 19:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbhisheksinghWIKI (talk • contribs)
The Featured Sound Main Page Proposal Voter Barnstar
I was truly humbled by the overwhelming community support for the recent proposal to place featured sounds on the main page. The proposal closed on Tuesday with 57 people in support and only 2 in opposition.
It should take a few weeks for everything to get coded and tested, and once that is done the community will be presented with a mock up to assess on aesthetic appeal.
Finally, I invite all of you to participate in the featured sounds process itself. Whether you're a performer, an uploader, or just come across a sound file you find top quality, and that meets the featured sound criteria, you can nominate it at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates. Featured sounds is also looking for people to help assess candidates (also at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates.)
I've seen you edit this page a few times recently so I was wondering whether you were aware that there is no point making human edits to this page as it's overwritten by the bot every 15 minutes (as the editnotice states). Dpmuk (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
HPfHR revisions
Hi Alpha Quadrant,
Thanks for your guidance and suggestions regarding my post about HPfHR. I did some major revisions and additions and added more references. Please take a look (Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Healthcare Professionals for Healthcare Reform (HPfHR)), and let me know if you think it is ready for publication. If you do, please let me know how to publish it.
Thanks
Glancast (talk) 03:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Gil
It is no longer written like a advertisement, but it still includes opinions. Articles should only be based on facts. It should avoid speculations and opinions After that is fixed, I believe it can be accepted. Alpha Quadranttalk04:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
AQ, a few weeks ago you made a controversial close that ended up at ANI related to the Pro-Life movement. In that discussion, I think it was generally agreed that your close was sound and proper, but due to the controversy of the subject, should probably have been left to the purview of an admin. You're talk page shows a person who has a lot of trust and respect around the community. In many ways, people seem to think of you as an admin, which IMO is the most important facet of being an admin. (The actual hoops to get the buttons are a formality.)
That being said, when I looked over your edit history, a concern jumped out at me. You seem to work a lot with new users due to your involvement at Articles for Creation. The concern is two fold. 1) Working in the area you do, I was expecting to see a little more in the way of guidance ot new users and 2) when encountering new users with inappropriate user names, I'd expect to see discussion there as well. There were at least 3 articles that I saw where a person had written an article and used an account with the same name--- twice where it was a company and a third time where it was the person written about. Is there a reason you don't talk to people who have inappropriate user names about their names?---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus!21:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Another issue that I have is that you seem willing to adopt users, but once adopted the discussion seems to end. There doesn't seem to be any ongoing correspondence/communications with said users. I will state that from what I see, I do agree with you when you told Giftiger that you probably need a little more experience, but these two issues would be concerns that I might have if/when you ran.---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus!21:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok, those are valid concerns.
I do attempt to guide new editors, and help them as much as possible. I help new users quite often in IRC, as this is the suggested way for submitters to get assistance with their submissions. (See the AfC template: Template:AFC submission) This is primarily where the communication occurs.
AfC often receives requests from people with a COI. We (the AfC team) have discussed this issue several times and decided that AfC is the most logical way to get a COI submission to meet Wikipedia's standards. I do agree that some of these usernames are rather similar to the company that the editor is writing about, but the purpose of the guideline is to prevent spam advertisement usernames. If the user has a username that potentially violates policy I suggest they submit a request at Wikipedia:Changing username, but I do not report them to UAA if they are just editing their submission. If they are a COI writer they leave Wikipedia after their article is in mainspace. Generally that is how all AfC members handle UPOLs. I do understand the username policy, and spam usernames are potentially counterproductive. In my work at ACC I do decline usernames that violate policy.
At present I have four adoptees, two inactive, one semi-active adoptee whom made one edit earlier today replying to my message, and one active adoptee who frequents #wikipedia-en-helpconnect where I speak with him.
As I am reading what I have written I noticed that a large amount of my communication is over IRC, perhaps in the future I should endeavor to make it more transparent by speaking more frequently on the talk pages. I hope that answered your questions. Best, Alpha Quadranttalk22:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
If you decide to run for Adminship down the road, be aware of the issues I raised above. People will want to see on Wiki communications/evidence of knowledge. Stuff you do on IRC will not get you credit except from others who use IRC... hell, there is a small (but vocal) group who will potentially oppose you based upon your response above! There is a growing community of users who do not like IRC/Email and want everything to be transparent on wikipedia. But I definitely think you are on the right path. Like I said, the thing that works HEAVILY in your favor is that people are coming to you seeking your input/advice. I do think a little more experience would serve you well, but I wouldn't put it off too long---two months at the most. If you want a nom at that time, feel free to ping me and I'll take another look. Unless I missed something (via my cursory review) you shouldn't have much problem passing with 1-3 months under your belt.---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus!04:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
HPfHR
Hi AQ. I noticed that you did some editing last night- thanks!
I changed that sentence at the end of the first paragraph regarding prominent members and added a reference link to the HPfHR website. The truth is that some of our members are Congressmen and other government officials that are 'silent members.' They are not published anywhere as members so I cannot list them on the write-up.
Do you think it is ready? If so, how should I proceed?
Gil
Glancast (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I am online at the moment. You do not need to resubmit because I have accepted it. You can find it by typing "Healthcare Professionals for Healthcare Reform" into the search bar. If there are alternate names then you can create redirects. Best wishes, 23:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I have an assignment for my Biology class to create a Wikipedia article, but no one other than the people in my group can make changes to my article. How can I make this clear? I added this, {{Educational assignment}}, at the top so it says it is an educational article.
I do not know what you have done to my article. I think you denied the article, but we are not done writing it. Do you have any suggestions? This is the url:
Hello Swmmr1928, I declined the submission because it was blank. Submitting something to Articles for Creation means you wish for it to be reviewed. You can create a userspace draft and add {{Educational assignment}} to the top. That way no one else will edit it. When you are ready I can move it to article space for you. Alpha Quadranttalk01:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I understand why you declined the submission. I wrote a sentence so it is not blank anymore. I do not want to change my article so no one else can edit it; I have been assigned a group of 7 other wikipedia users that need to be able to edit it. Swmmr1928 (talk) 02:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
If you created a userspace draft other people would be able to edit it, but established editors would know that it is part of a project and would not edit it. I will set the current submission as "under review" so other reviewers do not decline it. However other reviewers may provide feedback as the article progresses. Alpha Quadranttalk02:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok, on this page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DRAFT, it says 'Create a userspace draft - if you're logged in Enter your article name below.' Is this how I should create a draft? It seems like the article's history will be lost. ALso if I do this, should I delete my original article to be reviewed?
Lastly, How can I look at my articles I am working on? I tried to search for the article's title but could not find it. I looked under the my user discussion page and it had a link to my old article to be reviewed. I could only find the latest one after looking under a list of articles to be reviewed.
THankyou for your help.
Swmmr1928 (talk) 03:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I wanted to thank you for all of your help with my situation. As someone just starting out here, it meant so much to have encountered so many kind individuals who took the time to show me the ropes.
(talk page stalker) While a useless edit, it is a minor one. It doesn't change the template at all, so why excactly should it avoided? Only intervening here because "Warning" comes off as pretty rude, and I fail to see an appropriate reason for a 'warning' here. [[CharlieEchoTango]]09:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
But you should not make such edits. Which do not change anything. Especially since the names of templates are spelled with capitals. Debresser (talk) 13:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi! First off, thanks for closing off this discussion. I was wondering though, are you sure that the types of spark in the article in questions are really the main type of spark over electrical types?--Yaksar(let's chat)23:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Hmm I am considering how to best word this. There are several types of sparks. I believe that there should be a general article on sparks located at Spark and more specific articles on individual types of sparks, with Template:Mainarticle if needed. This is generally how similar topics, such as Galaxy classes and subclasses are handled. The suggested article already appears to be somewhat about the general topic. The current article includes information on the main type and the electrical type.
It may be more effective to write the current article completely about the general term, move it to Spark, and write a new article on Spark (fire). There is another option, if the several types of (energy/particle?) sparks do not appear to require separate articles perhaps only one article is needed to cover them. This article could be located at Spark and a disambiguation for the alternate terms. Alpha Quadranttalk04:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Ah, ok. Well if you want to weigh in on moving the article to Spark I'd certainly recommend participating; there are some who are arguing that your close means that all discussion of the title needs to end.--Yaksar(let's chat)08:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I have already thought about merging them. But it is impossible, because :
There are about 17000 ISIRIs.
Even if I want to merge each field of standards into one article ( for instance tractors ) it will be a very huge article having more than 200 references with more than 300 external links. Simply because there are more than 50 standards for tractors which are actually increasing. *** in fact ***( contact )07:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi there. I saw that you gave me a vandalism warning and then reverted it. I just wanted to explain my reasoning for removing that content from Barry Chamish. I am a reviewer and the pending revision was unsourced and seemed dubious. As Mr. Chamish is alive, I removed the stuff about him being a Holocaust denier. It could be totally true for all I know, but as no sources were cited I didn't want to allow it. What do you think about this situation? BurtAlert (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I apologize, I saw the all caps and thought it was vandalism. After reverting I noticed the hidden comment tag so I double checked. I noticed I was in error and reverted myself. The article was negative and unsourced, and you were correct to revert the other editor. I apologize for my mistake in reverting it back. Best, Alpha Quadranttalk18:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
No problem :) I just did a quick search and apparently he has written some conspiracy theory books, but I am still going to wait for other editors to cite their sources before I accept any other revisions. BurtAlert (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello Trevj, there is not really much difference between the two templates, it is more of a matter of style. There is several different reference styles. Both templates will do the same thing, but the reference information may be in a different order. You are free to use whichever citation template you prefer. Alpha Quadranttalk18:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, sorry but I have reverted this edit to the reviewer userbox template. Was there any consensus for this change? I checked the template talk page and the WP:Reviewing talk page but could not see anything. I display this userbox as well and don't like the addition of the review link. Perhaps you could create a personalized version in your userspace if you would like to display that version? Pol430talk to me18:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
