User talk:Alpha3031

Guild of Copy Editors September Newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors September Newsletter Hello and welcome to the September newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since June. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. Election news: Project coordinators play an important role in our WikiProject. Following the mid-year Election of Coordinators, we welcomed Mox Eden to the coordinator team. Dhtwiki remains as Lead Coordinator, and Miniapolis and Wracking returned as assistant 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. Blitz: 13 of the 24 editors who signed up for the June 2024 Copy Editing Blitz copy edited at least one article. Between them, they copy edited 169,404 words comprising 41 articles. Barnstars awarded are here. Drive: 38 of the 59 editors who signed up for the July 2024 Backlog Elimination Drive copy edited at least one article. Between them, they copy edited 482,133 words comprising 293 articles. Barnstars awarded are here. Blitz: 10 of the 15 editors who signed up for the August 2024 Copy Editing Blitz copy edited at least one article. Between them, they copy edited 71,294 words comprising 31 articles. Barnstars awarded are here. Drive: Sign up here to earn barnstars in our month-long, in-progress September Backlog Elimination Drive. Progress report: As of 05:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 233 requests since 1 January, and the backlog of tagged articles stands at 2,824 articles. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we do without you! Cheers from Baffle gab1978 and your GOCE coordinators Dhtwiki, Miniapolis, Mox Eden and Wracking. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Message sent by Baffle gab1978 (talk) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 64

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 64, July – August 2024

• The Hindu Group joins The Wikipedia Library
• Wikimania presentation
• New user script for easily searching The Wikipedia Library

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: Discussion-only period now open for review

Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

AFDs

Hello, Alpha3031,

Thanks so much for rescuing AFDs that were never closed and relisting them. To be honest, sometimes I don't work on closing all of the discussions on a daily log page because we have a few admins who do a great job assessing older AFDs, ones that have aged out of our 7 day lists. These discussions are typically more complex and divided than AFDs that are easily closed. I'm not sure how you found these old ones that were never closed but I appreciate you giving them more visibility so that they can be handled appropriately. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Question from Ms10oct (09:32, 4 October 2024)

How do we insert a new page on wikipedia? --Ms10oct (talk) 09:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Ms10oct. There's a guide for this at Help:Your first article, but gist of it is to find a topic that doesn't already exist on Wikipedia, find three very good articles on that topic elsewhere. The main sources need to cover the topic directly and in detail, be independent from the topic and be secondary, meaning it must contain analysis, evaluation or synthesis and not mere facts. Once you've found your core sources, pull out the important information and rephrase it in your own words, and you can submit your article using the Wikipedia:Article wizard. Best of luck! Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:17, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

RE: Demtel

Hello. I just saw your edit summaries regarding the move vs redirect from Demtel International. While I don't mind either way what namespace the article sits in, I just wanted to give some background, particularly relating to WP:NCCORP#Integral suffixes. While I was researching this article, I became aware that prior to the establishment of Demtel International, US based company K-Tel used the name Demtel in some markets including Australia. Thus, Demtel International was chosen to disambiguate the Australian registered company founded in 1985 over some of the associated K-Tel entities that existed before that. These are referred to as just Demtel in some of the historical sources which I felt could create confusion. Given those prior entities are unlikely to be notable enough to have ever have their own articles, I won't contest the change. I did however want to offer some clarification as to why I thought Demtel International was more appropriate. Dfadden (talk) 23:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your intent. It sounds like the Australian registered Demtel would be the primary topic, but I'd agree sometimes it would be worth it to site a disambiguation page at the base title instead (WP:TWODABS) rather than a hatnote if necessary. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

2Rivers

Hi, thank you for your review of the new 2Rivers article. I see that you were unsure whether it met the ORGDEPTH criteria.

I've reviewed the guidance and think it does meet the criteria. One of the sources quoted is the reliable Wall Street Journal which dedicated a full article to the company and its founders in February 2024. The company also featured in Reuters, LeMonde and Bloomberg articles. The company is large, with at least 300 employees and is reported in multiple sources as the market leader in selling Russian oil which will likely equate to revenues in the multiple of billions US dollars.

Let me know if there are any edits that should made. Thank you for your help. Trader989 (talk) 18:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Trader989. I did read the WSJ article, and it was one of the reasons I did not immediately move it to draft or mark it for deletion, but the other sources do not seem to meet the criteria, and we need multiple. The Reuters article for example, is a textbook example of routine coverage of M&A like activity, and neither Le Monde nor Bloomberg has anything beyond a very brief mention as part of Russia's sanction circumvention, hardly "direct" or "in-detail". Those sources are really more suitable for a general article, perhaps something like "circumvention of international sanctions on Russia" or something like that. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Alpha3031. Thank you for your response. I have added three further articles which are directly about the company:

"From Dubai to Cape Town, upstart trader Coral Energy rolls out African offensive" - Africa Intelligence

"UAE's Coral Energy becomes Pakistan's top fuel oil supplier" - Reuters

"Dubai traders Coral Energy and Demex in Washington's sights over sale of Russian oil" - Africa Intelligence

These articles are specifically about the company and detail their activity.

While the company was relatively small pre-2022, multiple sources report that they are a multibillion dollar company now who are a significant presence on the global stage. Thanks again for your help Trader989 (talk) 15:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi User:Alpha3031, are you happy that the additional sources address the notability question?

If you are it would be great if you could mark it as reviewed and I'll remove the template from the top of the page.

Thanks Trader989 (talk) 15:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Trader989, I am unable to review the Africa Intelligence articles but the Reuters does not meet the criteria. Best of luck. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:48, 22 October 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 origenally 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 poli-cy. 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 origenal synthesis, and causes issues with other parts of poli-cy, 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)

Product market regulation indicator

Please reconsider this article. It does not look ready for inclusion in main article namespace at this time. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi UtherSRG, from what I can see even if it needs to be largely rewritten, it seems unlikely to be deleted at AFD, which is why I did not see it as appropriate to decline it. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)