This user has created a global account. Alalch E.'s main account is on Meta. This user has changed the username of this account. It used to be Twsabin. This user previously used another account: Alalch Emis. This user has new page reviewer rights on the English Wikipedia. (verify) This user contributes using Notepad++.

Welcome to my talk page!

I like to keep things compact, and don't have any great ideas for my user page yet, so my signature directs here.

I was a long-time reader and lurker (since 2003). I appreciate the Five pillars and the idea of open knowledge, and want to give something back; this is why I began editing in 2021. I'd like to receive your feedback on anything I've done. Expect a reply! :)

By the way:

• I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you start a new talk topic here, I will respond on this same page, as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there, using the ping template like this: {{ping|Alalch E.}}. If you want to initiate a conversation with me anywhere else, simply ping me there—no need to notify me here.
• If a discussion here is about a specific article, I may move the discussion to that article's talk page. Were one to disagree I would tell them to treat it as my removing comments on my talk page and my quoting them on the target page. The Moved discussion to/from templates are useful here.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 30.5 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 10 sections are present.

The redirect Tamzin Hadasa Kelly has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 1 § Tamzin Hadasa Kelly until a consensus is reached. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you participated in an RFD discussion for Tamzin Hadasa Kelly, which redirects to the encyclopedia article Wikipedia administrators#Requests for adminship. However, several people (including me) misinterpreted it as a redirect to projectspace, it seemed like we couldn't have an accurate discussion, so I've closed the discussion and renominated it at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 2#Tamzin Hadasa Kelly. Please go there to participate again, and if your opinion at the first RFD still applies, please feel free to copy/paste your rationale from before. Nyttend (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect MAGA civil war has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 3 § MAGA civil war until a consensus is reached. Rusalkii (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alalch E.. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Quentin James, 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) 12:07, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, IDC. Thanks for letting me know though. Steel1943 (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. —Alalch E. 23:42, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please, achieve a consensus on the Talk page before making further edits. This edit is not correct and is inconsistent with what is already stated in the lead. I believe you are misreading "version of oneself" which does not imply that the version is actually oneself. Caleb Stanford (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Caleb Stanford: What is the meaning of "not correct" when the plot as written does not describe the things which happen in the film and there is no source for the plot point? I'll just go and look for a source.

About "inconsistent with what is already stated in the lead", please see Wikipedia:Writing better articles#"Lead follows body"—Alalch E. 00:16, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying you should update the lead then, too, if that's your position. Let's take this discussion to the talk page, I'll post there. Thanks, Caleb Stanford (talk) 01:18, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to see that you posted on the talk page, but I am little disappointed that in the first posting there you foresaw that further discussion will not be constructive. Sincerely, —Alalch E. 10:59, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also you are the one who violated 1RR, not me. Astropulse (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a warning on your talk page. I need to warn you about approaching 1RR to be able to file a valid report against you. I did not tell you that you breached 1RR but are at the threshold. I agree that we need to discuss things on the talk page. Sincerely —Alalch E. 15:36, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You edited my user page. Not talk. Please be mindful and do not edit user page for this. Astropulse (talk) 15:38, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am absolutely entitled to communicate to you on your talk page, unless you have asked me not to ever post on your talk page. You are obligated to receive feedback on your talkpage from other editors. I repeat, I only ever posted a single message on your talk page, a 1RR warning, which I am procedurally required to do to be able to file a valid report against you. Giving you a fair warning not to repeat behavior which may lead to a block is being mindful. I did not tell you that you breached 1RR but are at the threshold. I have also posted on the talk page subsequently. Sincerely —Alalch E. 15:51, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to understand. User page and talk page are different. You edited my user page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Astropulse&diff=prev&oldid=1277176379

I'm asking you to use talk page instead https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Astropulse

I think you should have open mind and assume good faith WP:FAITH when you edit on wiki Astropulse (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have never doubted your good faith. You should understand that you need to be willing to accept feedback on your user page. You are also in no position to lecture me on the differences between different kinds of pages. Try to be less annoying please. You are complaining inordinately about my posting a message on your talk page which I did precisely because it is mindful and, on top of that, it is a requirement in anticipation of a potential 1RR breach, if you want to report someone. And I do want to report you: If you revert again, I will report you. And the fact that I gave you advance notice means that my report will be actionable and that you will be blocked. That is how we keep each other in check, and direct our energy to discussing and resolving the issue precisely on article talk, as we both seem intent on doing. Sincerely —Alalch E. 16:30, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: While looking at my contributions, I noticed that I actually edited your user (not user talk) page, and that this is what you were notifying me of. I was completely unaware of that when I posted the above replies, as my intent was to post on your user talk, and did not notice that I posted on your user page instead. I also understood your "User page and talk page are different" as "user talk page and (article) talk page are different". Apologies —Alalch E. 00:20, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You know me; I try to be nice. I actually wondered what a dedicated disrupter might find on my behavior. I'm quite disappointed; I'm sure I've done stupider things than mere stridency. Who knows, they might be that kind of jerk. As always, I appreciate your eyes. BusterD (talk) 23:12, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem ;) —Alalch E. 17:59, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

... just to clarify (about this: ANI diff): I hadn't removed it completely (here: ANI diff) because Conyo had mentioned it in their reply, and removing it entirely would have removed context. You've already done it now and conversation has already gone on for many hours, so I guess it no longer matters. – 2804:F1...3E:8A14 (::/32) (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When the thread was started, the starter incorrectly inserted the IP into the markup for Template:Void, probably believing that that's how userlinks are formatted (my theory). Thanks for the extra context. —Alalch E. 17:51, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment at AN. Even that "never an infobox" argument was countered: "Um, @SchroCat, I don't think that's true. It looks like an infobox was in this article continuously from May 2010 until August 2019, when it was boldly removed by an editor "per Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Style guidelines#Biographical infoboxes" (an unenforceable WikiProject advice page). It has since been re-added in (that I could easily find in the history) May 2020, May 2024, and February 2025, and re-removed as many times. WhatamIdoing ... 02:49, 28 February 2025" -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:21, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes. IMV it doesn't matter if the premise was factually disproven because the appeal to status quo is inherently a non-functional argument. —Alalch E. 11:26, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So you think ;) - I found quite entertaining how the same admired editor countered the bolded oppose. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:33, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... I am sympathetic to all the opposes, but they put on a bad show. Some of their arguments veered into unintentional parody territory, as in: I couldn't have come up with a more counterproductive !vote if I were trying my hardest to troll. There were reasonable ones, like "infobox is not a link-o-box" (I like that) and "The sample infobox tells us that Satie was born in the Second French Empire and died in the Third French Republic" (PamD, who !voted include, agreed). Should have stuck to Tim riley's opinion that the proposed infobox fails to summarize and instead repeats facts in a non-summarizing way, and emphasizes details that are not key facts. None of the opposes cited MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, even though they could have ... as if they treat this part of MoS as a foreign entity (as if it were "policy of the other side"). The supports optically came out as the sole policy-adhering faction through the use of shortcuts. If more participants had simply restated the "doesn't summarize" viewpoint and connected it to MoS, this could have easily been a good no-consensus close. ... BTW, I'm an oppose :) I decided not to !vote after the signature was brought up, but I still lean oppose. For me, User:Fortuna imperatrix mundi's closure is close to being justified. We should apply Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion to it and ignore the "strength in shortcuts" as well. But even then it can never come close enough, because how poorly the oppose case was argued overall. —Alalch E. 15:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you not sympathetic to the oppose as a user's 6th edit ;) - I wish we could edit infoboxes by simple WP:BRD and not think a battle that seems to have been hot in the 2000s (before I even joined) should go on and on, - I noticed in 2012, Samuel Barber). Are you familiar with the Mozart RfC? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the Mozart RfC recently while looking at other composer pages. I recognize the impetus for consistency, and understand the belief that readers have a better experience if they are provided a consistent experience (I don't actually think that that's a bad argument, Dronebogus). I'm just a bit skeptical of the general consistency tendency, because I think that there's a lot of bias involved, as in the desire to impose order on a superficial level. —Alalch E. 17:36, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]