Hi Alas2022! 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

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! ---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:26, 6 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi and welcome! You're already doing such an amazing job creating new articles. I am only concerned by Plaisance of Gibelet because she does not appear to be notable; nothing is known about her other than the names of her family. Unless something can be said about her actions, we should probably not have a standalone article about her. What do you think? Surtsicna (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Surtsicna: There is an article about Princesses of Antioch, including her, so I suggest to keep it. Alas2022 (talk) 12:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think that's enough; please see WP:GNG for the criteria. Surtsicna (talk) 22:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Surtsicna: She has her own article in other languages. However, you can apply the same argument regarding notability to all spouses of modern-day leaders. I do not think that keeping it would harm anyone, as her name was mentioned in multiple articles, so why should her article be redirected to something else?! Alas2022 (talk) 06:44, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because she has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. The source that says the most about her is the one that says she's obscure. Therefore she fails WP's inclusion guideline. WP should not have articles on people just because they are married to someone. Whether reliable sources discuss them is what matters. Surtsicna (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed your crusades-related articles, and I am very impressed. Kudos for the research.

el.ziade (talkallam) 12:10, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article makes for a great DYK, why don't you nominate it before it's too late? el.ziade (talkallam) 12:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Elias Ziade: It is a pleasure to meet you, Levantine brother! Alas2022 (talk) 13:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm Mattythewhite. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Son Heung-min, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mattythewhite: The category means that he played 100 international matches, so the source is the article itself. Alas2022 (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where in the article is it stated that he has 100 caps? Mattythewhite (talk) 00:19, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mattythewhite: He played 98 matches as of 2021 + 2 matches in 2022, according to RSSSF source. Alas2022 (talk) 00:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That isn't used as a source in the article, but in any case the South Korean FA website list him with 98 caps, including the 2022 appearances. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mattythewhite: Why is RSSSF considered a main source in other articles, but not here? However, I would care less regarding sports articles. Alas2022 (talk) 00:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alas, hi. I see you are new on enWiki. As such, please do make yourself familiar with procedures around here before you go ahead and take bold moves. More than anything though: please do try to thoroughly understand the existing material before making any modifications, especially substantial ones.

At the current state of research, these are the basic facts:

1. Qasr Bardawil is a Bronze-Age fort, NOT a Crusader castle.
2. Nobody has been able to prove beyond doubt that a Crusader "al-Al Castle" has really existed.
3. The Crusader al-Al Castle is certainly NOT identical with the Bronze-Age site of Qasr Bardawil.

Unless you can bring new archaeological sources disproving, or at least contesting the above, which is the scientific consensus at this time, you cannot create articles and rewrite existing ones pushing opposing opinions. This is elementary.

Thank you in advance for your understanding. I am looking forward to see these changes removed and to cooperating with you, based on sound logical and academic principles, in the future. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 02:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Alas2022, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. However, you should consider adding relevant wikiproject talk-page templates, stub-tags and categories to new articles that you create if you aren't already in the habit of doing so, since your articles will no longer be systematically checked by other editors (User:Evad37/rater and User:SD0001/StubSorter.js are useful scripts which can help). Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! – Joe (talk) 15:24, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there - Wikipedia relies on reliable sources to verify information, especially about living people. You didn't provide a source for your changes to the Henk Temming article, and I couldn't find one either. If you have a reliable source please let me know and we can change the article. Please let me know if you have any questions. GiantSnowman 18:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Tiaret, 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. M.Bitton (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Dani Ceballos, you may be blocked from editing. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:23, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mattythewhite: Oh yeah Really! How about you read about his honours on the Real Madrid official site, source, instead of throwing threats and reverting edits left and right! Alas2022 (talk) 00:26, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Their site lists one European Cup, not two. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mattythewhite: It has not been updated yet obviously! duh! In the photos you can see him having his medal for the 2017–18 season. Alas2022 (talk) 00:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for starting the Denys Pringle-article! That was long overdue! Two small point:

• When we use author-link in the Bibliography-section; then we only use the first-name initial; not the whole name. So "first=D.|last=Pringle|author-link=Denys Pringle", not "first=Denys|last=Pringle|author-link=Denys Pringle". This so all the author-names look alike. (Some of the authors in the area have impossibly long "official" wiki-names, like Herbert Kitchener, 1st Earl Kitchener or Charles Simon Clermont-Ganneau) (We normally only use the whole name when there is no wiki article about the author).
• I don't know why the "Family tree" is there? Unless there are more of his ancestors who have their own wiki-articles? At least it could possibly be "hidden" (like is done with the Tristram-quote under Al-Bassa#Ottoman_Empire)?

Anyway, thanks again for starting this article; I have used Pringle-sources a lot (see User:Huldra/Sources#Pringle_links:), cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Huldra: Thank you for your feedback. I have added the hidden template to the family tree section, as you recommended. Cheers. Alas2022 (talk) 21:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Maraqiya 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/Maraqiya 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.

Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Alas2022

Thank you for creating Reda Al Solh.

User:Semsûrî, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

The page Reda Al Solh has been reviewed. Thank you for your contributions.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with ((Re|Semsûrî)). Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Semsûrî (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: ((unblock|Your reason here ~~~~)). Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots}

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Alas2022 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I wonder why I do not deserve a chance to enjoy my hobby of writing articles here. I have had this account for several months, and I did not do anything wrong, yet you prevent me from writing here. I do not know what to do until I can have an account without getting blocked for linking to another account from five years ago. Even real-life criminals have another chance to redeem themselves, meanwhile, I cannot write here because you keep blocking me. I really hope that you consider the quality of the articles that I write and give me a chance to keep this account, if I do anything wrong with this account, you can then block me indefinitely and I will retire for good. Just give me one last chance! Alas2022 (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Decline reason:

"I did not do anything wrong", nonsense. What about WP:SOCK? What about WP:EVADE? What about the warnings you received here for inappropriate editing? You are clearly demonstrating you are unwilling to follow our policies and guidelines. Yamla (talk) 18:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Alas2022 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

@Yamla: As I wrote earlier, I am asking for a chance to keep this account, but you referred to sock or evade issues. I contributed with more than 3,500 edits, some other users sent some notifications regarding certain edits which might happen compared to the lots of edits, but they were not that fatal such as personal attacks. You answered my plea by mocking that "I did not do anything wrong", by writing nonsense! How polite! You wrote yourself only 2 articles! How great! Then you come here to decline my appeal to have another chance to redeem myself after more than 150 new articles. You mentioned "our policies and guidelines", the only policy here that you block me for having a new start! So I am not allowed to ever write anything on Wikipedia until I die! I do not think this is fair at all! Just imagine all the time and efforts I need to write a new article with all the references. I only asked to assess my behaviour on this account, and stop mentioning my old account five years ago. It is like I have to stay in jail forever, and not having another chance ever. I wrote the Arbitration Committee, hoping to find a solution to these repeated excuses of yours to keep blocking me. I am only asking to have this account, and as mentioned earlier, I promise to retire if I cause trouble with this account, when given another chance. Alas2022 (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Decline reason:

Any unblock request that fails to address the reason for the block, namely evasion, will be unsuccessful. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

---

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Hello Alas2022,

I've just read your edits and want to thank you about them.

I was wondering if I can contact you per E-mail regarding future collaboration.

If yes please leave me you address and don't forget to delete it late for your privacy.

Regards AAANDA (talk) 06:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Alas2022. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Qasr Bardawil, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Alas2022. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Qasr Bardawil".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the ((db-afc)), ((db-draft)), or ((db-g13)) code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Hey man im josh (talk) 14:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]