User talk:Reach4stars

Welcome!

Hi Reach4stars! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! I dream of horses ^{(Contribs) (Talk)} 19:13, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @I dream of horses. Reach4stars (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ecomare for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ecomare 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/Ecomare until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

MarioGom (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying me. I actually visited the place once a while back with my family, and was a bit surprised at the time that there was no Wikipedia article for the museum. So I thought it would make sense to have an article for English speakers. That said, as you mention, I did have a hard time finding reliable sources in English, which are not the official museum website or Texel related sites.

Looking forward to seeing what other editors with more experience than me think about this. Reach4stars (talk) 19:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reach4stars (talk) 10:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Reach4stars (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

blocking administrator

Accept reason:

Hey, I left a reply yesterday, but for some reason it looks like it never got posted. Anyways, I saw your reason for blocking me and the investigation. Not sure what I can say to prove that this is the only account that I have, and I'm not related to all those other accounts - if it were so, I probably wouldn't name myself similar to another account that was previously blocked like you mentioned (which I have to admit is kind of weird looking). I also don't understand why you think that my Ecomare article is spam, but maybe I should have consulted first before creating it. Anyways, I hope you reconsider, I enjoyed my time here so far, and actually put quite a lot of effort into it. Reach4stars (talk) 11:28 am, 8 August 2023, last Tuesday (7 days ago) (UTC−5)

Reach4stars (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave this for another admin to consider, because there isn't anything new for me to reevaluate; but I'll ping Reaper Eternal, who ran the CU request, in case there was exculpatory evidence there. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At best, technical evidence puts him as Possible or Unlikely. I certainly wouldn't be willing to block over technical evidence. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I've looked again at the behavior, and I can't be certain I didn't make a mistake, but it still feels like a strong connection. I'm reluctant to unblock but will not stand in the way of an unblock. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Poor sources

Please be much, much more discriminating with sources you add to articles. Avoid predatory journals, blogs, corporate PR peices, and unreliable outlets which may republish through Yahoo, for example. Review WP:RS carefully. You may also find WP:RSP informative. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this feedback. Would you be so kind as to give me some examples of such sources I have used, so I can avoid them in the future? Sometimes I find myself scrambling for sources trying to help with a specific aricle. In my want to help here, I might have used improper sources.I would appreciate some examples so I know what to avoid. Reach4stars (talk) 09:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, since you asked, here are some examples. I know it's a lot, but the important thing is to slow down and make sure sources have a positive reputation for accuracy, which usually coincides with clear editorial oversight and a history of fact-checking and corrections.

As I said, please be aware of predatory journals. For this edit you added a cite to something called the International Journal of Advanced Research, but this is not a reputable academic work, it's a predatory journal, and it appears to be an especially scammy one.

For this edit, you added a Yahoo! link as a source, but Yahoo merely republished this story from another outlet, which in this case was CoinDesk. CoinDesk is not reliable on Wikipedia, per WP:COINDESK. I had already removed that source once previously a few weeks ago.

For this edit to Axie Infinity, you added a different cryptocurrency news outlet. Functionally all crypto news sites are unusable, as they lack a positive reputation for accuracy and fact-checking and are infested with conflict-of-interest problems. You also added a WP:PRIMARY court document which is usable, but only with a reliable WP:SECONDARY source for context because we, as editors, cannot interpret sources directly (per WP:OR).

It also appears you have added links to TechTarget to articles, but this is a commercial marketing firm, not a reputable news outlet or academic publisher. Wikipedia isn't a platform for marketing, so these kinds of corporate blogspam are not reliable.

As I said, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources is a useful starting point. I hope that helps. Grayfell (talk) 09:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I genueinely didn't realize that. I will be more careful with sources moving forward. Reach4stars (talk) 09:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]