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

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

Hi Alalch. Did you use a template for this edit? I want to adjust the wording. – Joe (talk) 10:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe: Hi. I did not. —Alalch E. 10:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 23 November 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article StoneToss, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that X's rules were changed when StoneToss sought help from Elon Musk after an anti-fascist group published materials claiming to have revealed their identity? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/StoneToss. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, StoneToss), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have removed source references from the article Femke without good reason, which I consider to be vandalism. Please stop doing so and do not turn this into an edit war. – Editør (talk) 02:36, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have accused me of vandalism. Prior to your leaving this message on my talk page, we have already been discussing this at Talk:Femke#References for each person. It's an editorial judgement call. I oppose your edit. Please find support for your idea. You can not enforce this through edit warring. —Alalch E. 04:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your edits are intentionally disruptive, please stop. – Editør (talk) 10:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your concern, but now that other editors have been invited to review the practice of not having citations in anthroponymy lists (which is the existing practice), I find that it would be best to let the discussion unfold. Useful conclusions of a broader scope can be gained. I respect that you stand behind your edit, but I also stand behind my edit, and have a vision of what is an improvement in this regard that is different than yours. You are trying to make your position seem absolutely justified because you are adding references. Merely adding references, and the question here is where and for what purpose, does not invalidate other editors' views and does not make your idea of a change immediately enforceable. Please refer again to the Wikipedia:Editing policy. —Alalch E. 11:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. – Editør (talk) 11:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Editør: Regarding Special:Diff/1261868624, please see WP:OWNTALK (this is my talk page) and WP:SECTIONHEADINGOWN. —Alalch E. 11:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience link: Special:PermanentLink/1262419488#Citations in anthroponymy lists —Alalch E. 09:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 9 December 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Thomas Sewell (neo-Nazi), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Thomas Sewell attempted to recruit Brenton Tarrant, the perpetrator of the 2019 Christchurch mosque shootings, into the Lads Society? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas Sewell (neo-Nazi). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Thomas Sewell (neo-Nazi)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi (again). How is Draft:Luigi Mangione duplicated by Killing of Brian Thompson? The draft is about the (supposed) killer himself, and last time I checked, a Luigi Mangione article doesn't exist and is just a section in an article, not meeting a fail for that reason. I'm even going to go ahead and say that you improperly used rollback as using it on an edit that wasn't vandalism/could be discussed, but oh well. E_F⁵ 13:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The contents duplicate the statements in Killing of Brian Thompson and the draft is predominantly about the event, which is typical for WP:BLP1E biographies. Even though it is titled after the biographical subject it isn't really a biography and does not cover a distinct subject from an existing article.—Alalch E. 13:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Policy says otherwise. Sometimes new editors create a submission without checking to see if the subject already has a Wikipedia article. Do a quick search for the title of the suggested article, as well as any alternative names that come to mind. If you find an article on the same subject, decline the article. Consider making a redirect if the contributed name is useful. (excerpt from Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions). I see no guideline that says drafts can be declined because they duplicate an existing section. E_F⁵ 13:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I left an AFC comment on the draft to state the reason more precisely. I don't agree that a "policy" says otherwise and stand by my decline. —Alalch E. 14:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I don't agree with the decline reason. I wouldn't mind bringing up the "section" question on WT:AFC, just to see if drafts can be declined for duplicating an existing section. E_F⁵ 14:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to do that, and you are welcome to, but I don't think that it would be a good use of anyone's time. —Alalch E. 23:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm proud today looking at how you're helping at Draft:Luigi Mangione and associated discussions. Nice managing of the deep muck around this sort of subject. It gets worse. Your BOLD is our friend here. Ask for help if you need it. Friendly advice: don't let yourself become part of the story. BusterD (talk) 15:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic to share a cup with you. It's coffee on my end though, as I did just finish making coffee. Thank you for the kind words and the advice. I'm always happy when we're active on the same pages. —Alalch E. 15:39, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Always preferred tea. I went through a coffee phase when I was in college. Coffee always smells better than it tastes... These days I prefer a Builder's brew, something with a strong mouth. BusterD (talk) 15:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still a coffee and beer guy over here (edit: and kombucha, however). Not much fun in the drinks department. Definitely need to branch out. —Alalch E. 16:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to work up a new draft that could pass muster. Dylan Roof's page was put up and accepted the day after the Charleston Church Shooting. I think Luigi Mangione should have a separate page. How can I pause the redirect so I can create a page? ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 07:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ProfessorKaiFlai: You can create the new article directly in mainspace, over the redirect. Alternatively, you can edit the draft at Draft:Luigi Mangione until you're satisfied and submit it via AfC (currently, a version has been submitted, pending review). You can also create a wholly new draft in your userspace. You do not have to use AfC to move a draft to mainspace. You can not technically perform the move of the draft over the current redirect, but you can request an adminstrator or page mover to do it (which they might decline and point you toward AfC, but they might also accept, completely disregarding AfC, based on their independent editorial judgement); note that you can't request this at WP:RM/TR, as such requests are declined there. —Alalch E. 10:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About "pausing the redirect" in general: "To edit a page that is already a redirect (or to view its history, talk page, etc.), follow the redirect to the target page, then click on the link in the "(Redirected from ...)" notice at the top of the page. This takes you to the redirect page itself. (The URL for accessing a redirect page without following the redirect contains the query parameter redirect=no.)" (copied from Help:Redirect) —Alalch E. 12:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 16:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 16:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 January 2025, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Each article review will earn 1 point, while each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Streak awards will be given out based on consistently hitting point thresholds for each week of the drive. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping out and restructuring the article. It reads a lot cleaner now. I'd like to get your opinion, though: do you think that I should more heavily weight the reliable sources for statements in the article that can be cited with multiple sources? And what do you think of the new sources overall that I posted in the talk page? Is there any concern it could be sent back to AfD? GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 11:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and thank you for the correct initiative and very nice effort in recreating the article. Let's say you have three sources and three statements. Statement A is supported by refs 1, 2, and 3, statement B by 1 and 2 (3 doesn't say anything about B), and statement C by 1 and 3 (2 doesn't say anything about C). Statement 1 is reliable for the statements A, B, and C individually. What editors should do is remove sources 2 and 3 from the article entirely and cite only 1 at the end of a paragraph or at an appropriate place so that all of the preceding content is suppported. Leaving 2 and 3 in is useless for the reader. They don't make the article better or more authoritative. But if 2 was more reliable (let's say it's an article in a peer-reviewed journal) than 1 (an online news article) for B, then it should be cited instead of 1 for B only (so A is supported by 1, B by 2, and C again by 1; see WP:TSI). As few sources should be cited as possible and only the most reliable ones (but maybe not all editors would agree with me on this). The only exception to this is WP:EXCEPTIONAL: Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. But the vast majority of claims on Wikipedia are not exceptional claims. Such exceptional claims are very rare. —Alalch E. 12:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see, that makes sense. Thanks again for your help. I'll make sure to continue improving the article with your comments in mind. Have a great day! GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 12:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional cases when it's necessary to cite multiple sources for certain types of statements are covered in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. There are probably a few more recommendations to cite "multiple reliable sources" (or similar wording) next to certain statements that might seem questionable or trivial in the PAG, but that's less important, and all those would be niche cases. About AfD, it's hard to predict whether the article will be nominated again, but that shouldn't concern you. Thanks for reaching out, and thanks -- you too! —Alalch E. 12:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]