User talk:Alexander HK

This is Alexander HK's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of tallest buildings in Puebla (December 30)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Scope creep was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Opening lede has insufficient context. Where is Puebla, and why is it not linked. Article needs additional sources, for not from just a single source.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:List of tallest buildings in Puebla and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:List of tallest buildings in Puebla, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

scope_creep (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Alexander HK, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! scope_creep (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of tallest buildings in Puebla (March 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by David.moreno72 was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the general guideline on notability, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Per WP:LISTN

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:List of tallest buildings in Puebla and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:List of tallest buildings in Puebla, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

David.moreno72 04:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

Hi Alexander HK! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at 2026 FIFA World Cup that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Also, you must source content like this. It's even more important if you expect to be challenged. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:41, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop deleting my contribution to the article "North American World Cup 2026" referring to the criticism section, it has been several days that I am adding this paragraph and you and probably another administrator, are eliminating it, which is completely invalid and reportable, my contribution is completely comprehensive information, real and of interest and logical concordance with the article, you have no right to be a troll and delete it when it fully complies, so much so that said paragraph is in the same wikipedia article in Spanish version, if you have a dash of professionalism, stop playing troll and eliminate the hard work of others when it is correct — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander HK (talk • contribs)

You need to stop adding this without sources. At the minute, it's your point of view. As for your point about it being in the Spanish Wikipedia page, that counts for nothing since these are projects independent of each other. Anyway, the only reason it's on the Spanish Wikipedia page is because you added it there! Sourcing (verificabilidad) is just as important there as here see this link.) Valenciano (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at 2026 FIFA World Cup, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Valenciano (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at 2026 FIFA World Cup. Valenciano (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:40, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please take the time to discuss this on the article's talk page. Failure to do so could result in a block. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

Hello, I'm Liz. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for posting the same cookie-cutter personal attack on any editor's page who tries to explain to you how Wikipedia works. It's tiresome and unnecessary and demonstrates that you have no intention of learning how Wikipedia works. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]