Jump to content

User talk:Alalch E./Archives/ 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


A message from Mahirkilic

Dear sir,

I am writing in releation to your request to delete the wiki page of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celil_Layiktez

I've added cites and book links for the person who wrote 11 books. I'm so new at wikipedia. I just would like to now that if all ok now? Regards, Mahir

Mahirkilic (talk) 08:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Dear Mahirkilic, thanks for your inquiry, and sorry for the delay. I'm afraid that the references you added are not adequate for me to change my mind that the article, at this state, should not be a part of Wikipedia. This is because the sources you added are not WP:SECONDARY—they are all primary sources (the website bearing the name of the author), and while a small quantity of primary sources can be acceptable in some circumstances, primary sources alone, without there also being sufficient secondary sourcing, can not demonstrate WP:NOTABILITY. When it appears that the subject of an article isn't notable, the article is deleted. It's the basic standard for Wikipedia to choose what content it will include, as has been agreed by many editors for years. while Wikipedia includes many things, it simply can't include everything. I hope that my answer doesn't disappoint you. Regards, twsabin 01:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Twosday has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Twosday. Thanks! -Liancetalk/contribs 02:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Twosday has been accepted

Twosday, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

– Pbrks (t • c) 20:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

To any interested administrator

In connection to Special:Diff/1073988773, where I removed a warning from this page:

I am using my talk page to link to a discussion about conduct, in which I have defended myself from an accusation that I have been edit warring, and have explained why I have removed the warning, considering it to be baseless. The discussion is located here: User talk:Maleschreiber#Spurious warning twsabin 20:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

February 2022

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 if it contains information that must be private.
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.
-- ferret (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Sup

@Joe Roe and Beeblebrox: Alalch Emis here. I hope you're both doing great, and enjoying a nice summer. About six months ago I participated in discussions about XRV. I wanted to contribute something to what I saw at first as a collective effort to get the board running. I stubled upon the page, without having participated in the broader process surrounding RfA, and just knowing a few basic things about it. I unquestioningly accepted the premise that XRV has been adopted to improve RfA. My interest in XRV was not centered on RfA, but on the -RV aspect, i.e. I was attracted to something new and more advanced being set up, to supplement or replace something old, kind of rough, and not very good (another premise I accepted unquestioningly)—as a good-in-itself. This was my idea of progress.

I deeply misunderstood many of the objectors and critics seeing them as people who needed a little bit of convincing and explaining to. I didn't know who's who, in terms of which prior positions and which stakes in the RfA deliberations everyone had... I actively did not even want to know (or, to an extent, have unlearned) who's who because of my "rationalist" conception of what a reasoned debate is based on (doesn't matter who's saying it, it matters what's being said). I did not appreciate that the consensus building process is not an intellectual exercise, this particular one the least so. I could say that I was naive, but it's more like willfully myopic and arrogant. I thought that the critics are only accustomed to the AN/I way of solving problems, because of how heavily trafficked these pages are, and that the DRV/MR way is something a majority of editors don't have a good feel for, as being qualitatively different. I saw someone supporting XRV as "getting it" (such as editors who I've known from DRV), and someone opposing it as "not quite getting it". My being supposedly accustomed to DRV (having participated there for several months) and "getting" what the formal review, formatted discussion, etc. thing is about, I acted as if I understood the idea better than someone with infinitely more hands on experience with absolutely everything Wikipedia. The only person who was truly not getting it was me.

Extending from this approach, my attempts to do something good were an unmitigated disaster and caused significant irritation to many people, causing them to, how I see it, assume a defensive position, to become less willing to compromise, to band up and seek drastic steps to dismantle the whole page, as an illegitimate, inauthentic, overwrought affair. I can clearly identify that the moment when I got involved is when the atmosphere worsened. Could that be a coincidence? Hardly. Ultimately, as perhaps the worst reverbration of the discordance caused by the noise I made, these essential stake-holders (someone has to do the job, and that someone wants to be very aware of what implications it will have for them) and opinion-havers (not the professional ones) were probably influenced in a bad way, to see the situation as more unsustainable than it is, causing them to do things that are in normal circumstances, at a glance, not unquestionably wholesome (an apparently POINTy policy edit; starting RfCs in short succession). This only deepens the rift between "sides" when no sides needed to exist to begin with. Maybe even worse! – I possibly negatively affected the willingness of some people to engage at all—I mean the people who would have lent more organic and believable support to setting things up in a reasonable manner, based on the RfC (which I hadn't even participated in). If I hadn't involved myself at all, it's probably safe to assume that that space would have been occupied by other editors who would have given a much better input to the post-RfC consensuses around specific questions and concerns.

Instead of seeing the signs and refraining from further involvement, I hammered on. This culminated when I reported a particular XRV thread on AN, which was recognized as massively unwanted and unhelpful clerking. This was the last drop in the bucket and I was duly blocked. Instead of appealing I proceeded to do fabulously stupid things that can't but make me look like a bad actor, if I hadn't already been seen as a bad actor. Well...

Almost as soon as I registered in Jan. 2020, at least two people asked me about previous accounts. I didn't have any. Then, at the time of my indef an observer asked "Who the fuck is Alalch Emis". Okay, fair. However, six months later, individuals are still asking the same question: "Who the fuck was Alalch Emis, by the look of it." Based on this, I am worried that my reckless actions have caused a perception that the integrity of the community's processes can be assailed by a rando sock bullshiter with a little bit of wonk-superficies. It appears that there are concerns that I have been some sort of a malefactor, i.e. someone who was there to either or all: induce dysfunction in order to frustrate and troll the community, to cause stress among specific editors or group thereof, to drive a premeditated agenda, to make some overarching point about the project's governance, to create a work of absurd comedy at the expense of others etc. This is exacerbated by my subsequent socking, which I deeply regret.

I am worried that in the future someone relatively new who's at 10% of my level of misguidedness but gets up steam much better in terms of how to collaborate in these areas without causing friction will be viewed with an undue level of apprehension. I still think I can do a tiny bit of good (I know, I know): I can give some evidence as to how my disruption was just a blip, a more or less singular occurence, and how it should not influence anything:

I have followed Wikipedia since 2003, but I registered in 2020. Apart from being a normal reader, I was interested in the whole machinery behind the massive project. I would, on many occasions throughout this period, read talk and project pages, policy pages, and would basically lurk the behind-the-scenes. I was reluctant to register because I was afraid that getting actively involved would become too big of a preoccupation, and I wanted not to edit as an IP for reasons of privacy. But I was sure I would become an editor one day, and that day did come at some point.

Well I couldn't pick up the culture after 18 years. After a forming a wrong mental picture by viewing things from the outside, passively, in combination with my particular limitations as a human, I was hilariously incapacitated when the time came for me to interact based on actual watching-and-learning, without odd biases and malformed preconceptions. Going further: When I registered, I didn't have any pre-formed negative views about any aspect of the project. I was either neutral or enthusiastic/agnostic or somewhere in between about all of it's workings. I am hugely enthusiastic about Wikipedia in totality. I began editing to be an editor. I was not-NOTHERE in the classic sense. Most disruptors are genuinely not here to build an encyclopedia, or they were here and have accumulated various grievances. Very few people are here to really improve articles, and display an okay degree of competence in article-space, aren't transparent holders of grievances, but are so anti-clued when it comes to the project administration side of things, that they literally and materially manage to hinder progress. Am I a special fruitcake / tragic antihero? Is this a WP:HIGHMAINT tirade? Am I attaining unseen levels of wasting-volunteer-time-with-TLDR-craft? I mean I'm not a complete root vegetable plant. I can use a computer. The aforesaid combination of factors, which produced this abortive Wikipedia editor is not statistically likely to happen again.

So yeah, just do you, and be happy. Don't fight. Don't have doubts about one another. Trust each others' judgement, and complement each other more. Don't send each other mail. Duke it out constructively in the open. Make things better than they ever were. Don't be protective/conservative. There's no need. twsabin 22:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

QAnon GA matter

@Etriusus:@CactiStaccingCrane:@Psychloppos: Hello. As I have received mail about being pinged, I think I should say something. I will preface by saying that I still have talk page access, and that I consider this a valid use of my talk page per policy.

I am editor Alalch Emis who used this block-evading sock account to make good faith edits. My desire to contribute to this specific GAN only came out from a desire for that article to be improved, after it had degraded a bit. I have edited the QAnon page under my original account as well (not very much), and my knowledge of the history of the article is why I was able to help with resolving the missing-lead problem. This account is not contemporaneous with my only other account (Alalch Emis), and I don't have any connections whatsoever to other editors who were involved in the GAN. I did not edit QAnon with an illegitimate account in order to create an illusion of support or to compromise the integrity of the review process; I edited said article with an illegitimate account, because at the time I was generally using that account to evade my indef block. The intent and quality of my edits was the same, regardless of which account I used (edit: I'm noting here that I was not blocked for anything I did in mainspace). I acted short-sightedly and did not think about the longer-term effects of the decision to get involved. I am very sorry about concerns being raised, and I respect them; this is what is caused by socking, even when good faith contributions are involved. Regards twsabin 17:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

You might be well served to appeal your block : this "sock" controversy seems to be needlessly time-consuming for everyone. Psychloppos (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, I'm considering it. twsabin 17:37, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, as far as I can tell you're not a vandal or anything so this could be a case of "excessive penalty". It might be better for you to appeal this block rather than waste your energy in sockpuppetry. Psychloppos (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Criminal charges table

@NewsAndEventsGuy: I am blocked, but very few people (if any, apart from myself) would be able to give a detailed answer to your question of "why?", so I'll go ahead. Disclaimer: the following not express my position on any future edits to the table/article, I just think it's useful for you to understand the original idea, as you appear to be actively contributing in this topic area.

I am mainly responsible for the table in it's current form, because I formatted it, and integrated then-existing (quite disorganized) content with it, after someone had simply dumped the raw data. You can understand beter what was done by reading this discussion (I am Alalch Emis). Entries that were just members of the large raw data set, with no content written for them yet, were commented out in the process (in the spirit of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and also, perhaps, with WP:BLPCRIME in mind); they were not removed so that they may act as placeholders, to help retain the alphabetical order, and they contained the charges in the official language, and some needed information about the proceedings. My idea was for any one of those rows to be uncommented-out only when something encyclopedic is written—such as a "human-readable" paragraph in the Notes column—based on new or existing case-specific sources. My expectation was that there would be no desire to expand entries for individuals who don't stand out, and aren't covered as much, like mainly those only charged with misdemeanors. My expectation was also that the table would gain increased focus as sentences are being handed out: already visible entries that would seem like they could be based on WP:RECENTISM would be pruned, and at some (much?) later date, after the table would have gained a mostly-finished form, the hidden rows could simply be removed. I was worried about the table, and suspected that there would not be much interest in keeping it up to date. For many editors the markup is probably hard to understand, but it seemed necessary. I wanted to pin a short guide on the talk page explaining what the markup means, why there are hidden rows, and how to add new content (i.e. by first searching if the name is already included). Regards twsabin 23:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I was just passing by that article for categorization purposes, and was curious. Don't plan to really work on it.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Twsabin unblocked

Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, Twsabin (talk · contribs) is unblocked. Twsabin is indefinitely topic banned from post-1992 American politics, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed after 6 months have elapsed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Izno (talk) 00:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Twsabin unblocked

Username

My username change request was accepted today; it was changed from Twsabin to Alalch E. —Alalch E. 03:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Rupdia railway station

I recently saw you propose to delete this station but It is a notable station . You may Google it for better information. Stud.asif (talk) 14:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@Stud.asif: That is certainly possible! The station was opened in 1882, which means that's it's been a well known thing for many generations in the surrounding area. I am completely convinced that this is an important train station. However, that does not mean that it needs a separate entry in an encyclopedia. For Wikipedia to be able have a reasonable article about this subject, there needs to be significant coverage in approximately WP:THREE sources, all of which deal specifically with this station, and not, say, just with the whole stretch of rail that the station lies on, upgrades and renovations of the regional railway etc. This is the standard of notability. It's how we determine if a topic is suitable for encyclopedic coverage – or if it is not, i.e. does covering this bring advantage to Wikipedia? As things stand based on the sources that I am able to find, I am certain that it does not. Per WP:NTRAINSTATION, train stations don't have inherent notability. WP:GEOFEAT simply points to WP:GNG (in-depth coverage in reliable sources). Based on everything, the optimal outcome, I believe, is for the article to be deleted. Regards —Alalch E. 17:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Relief

 – —Alalch E. 20:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diplomacy
A barnstar to say thank you for the advice and for the rational discourse earlier today. Bruxton (talk) 01:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

?

Pardon me if I'm wrong, but here [1] I'm pretty sure you meant to change the first occurrence of the word "delete", not the second one. I wouldn't normally bother mentioning it, but the discussion's such a joke already, we can't afford any more confusion than we already have. EEng 05:29, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

@EEng: This is what I thought I had written at the time when I posted it: ... All of the delete !votes were centered on this argument and translate to a cohesive collective will that the article be deleted, while the minority keep arguments are more fragmented, comprising various unresolved objections, or are attempts to gloss over the key problem that is SIGCOV... I had made a lapsus calami by substituting "minority keep arguments" (the arguments of the keep !voters, who were in a minority) with "minority delete arguments". Is the syntax of the above sentence bad? —Alalch E. 17:09, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays
Hello, I wish you the very best during the holidays. And I hope you have a very happy 2023! Bruxton (talk) 17:38, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! Same to you :) —Alalch E. 17:43, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Happy holidays Alalch E. Good to see you back around! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, feels great! I wish you a prosperous and cheerful 2023! —Alalch E. 16:39, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Whiskey in the Jar

 – —Alalch E. 13:34, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Christine Bieselin Clark has been accepted

Christine Bieselin Clark, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

echidnaLives - talk - edits 02:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia (1917–1921)

 – —Alalch E. 23:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Spaces behind reference tags

 – —Alalch E. 08:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

No proof / lack of neutrality 2A01:CB05:647:E00:75CC:1647:AB85:15E2 (talk) 12:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi! Which article does this concern? —Alalch E. 12:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Olympian loquere 09:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Luciano Mecacci has been accepted

Luciano Mecacci, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 21:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Your post at Talk:Nonfiction

I've boldly reformatted your last post there, as I think you meant it as an "Oppose", and it was somewhat hidden by being a several-levels-indented reply. I hope I've achieved your purpose, but of course please revert or improve if not! PamD 13:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@PamD: I prefer that it stays as an indented reply to your comment (so I'll revert, but no problem), because if I gather correctly you suggested that the page be moved back to the "pre-status-quo" so that we could discuss a move from Non-fiction to Nonfiction in a formal process. Did I understand that correctly? Sincerely—Alalch E. 13:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
To follow-up: I removed that reply because, after rereading, I think I misunderstood a part of your comment. —Alalch E. 13:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Padre Pio

Hi, we collaborated well the other day on the Miracle of Lanciano article. It was about massive influence and distortion of content by religious POV. I would like to bring to your attention a slanted discussion: I reported a religious user and the editors see it as a violation of Wikipedia rules on my page. Maybe you can participate in the relevant discussion. Greetings

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Rafaelosornio_reverting_permanently_my_secular_editing_of_the_article_on_Padre_Pio

Mr. bobby (talk) 09:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I have made some style changes to the Padre Pio article, but I'm not sure if I have something of value to contribute to the ANI discussion at this moment; if I come up with something, I'll write there, thanks for notifying me. Still, please consider the WP:CANVASS guideline, because a perception may arise that you're seeking my support because of how, during our collaboration on an article in the same topic area that also had a similar content dispute, we may have been on the "same side", which makes me a "partisan audience". I want to declare here to anyone interested that I see myself as very impartial, and sympathetic to both sides. —Alalch E. 15:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Arbitration case Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 opened

Hello Alalch E.,

You had recently been mentioned in a request for arbitration (without being a party to the case). The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3/Evidence. If you would like to add evidence to the case, please add your evidence by February 10, 2023, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! —Alalch E. 21:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

N. Chandrababu Naidu

 – —Alalch E. 16:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi Alalch E.. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or RedWarn.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 update: Parties added, evidence phase extended

Hello Alalch E.,

Three parties have been added to the Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 arbitration case. The evidence phase has been extended and will close on February 21, 2023.

Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 21, 2023, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Immovable Cultural Heritage of Exceptional Importance (Serbia)

Your recent edits of Immovable Cultural Heritage of Exceptional Importance (Serbia), in particular your edit of 00:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC) and the one after that, introduced a lot of <section begin .../> and <section end .../> tags in a table that generated a Fostered content lint error. If these tags are not needed, please remove them. If they are needed, you can unfoster the content perhaps by moving them to table cells, i.e. markup lines beginning with a pipe (|). —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris: Thanks, I will move them to the cells. These rows are selectively transcluded in other lists such as this one and this one. —Alalch E. 09:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 Done—Alalch E. 09:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Too much images , Serbia

 – —Alalch E. 02:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your comment on the "Reflist by default" discussion. It helped me understand the scope better. Born25121642 (talk) 06:33, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome! —Alalch E. 11:14, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your gracious acceptance of my critique

No mere puffy words are necessary between us. I regard you as hyper-competent, hyper-bold, hyper-motivated wikipedian. I am delighted you are still with us, and I have high expectations from you in the future. Just please avoid stepping into any obvious rakes. I am not the only editor who looks forward to your "rehabilitation" (such as it is). We are better with you. BusterD (talk) 17:24, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

BTW, my specific issues with use of archive top and archive bottom are 1) I'm not sure how the bot will deal with the "closed" section, 2) it has already proven misleading, and 3) I actually want to know how this should be done, because it's bound to come up again. Of course we could always clean it up, but as I mentioned and as the discussion has proven, there's plenty of controversial actions and strong beliefs here for one MfD without adding distraction of even the most minor sort. BusterD (talk) 04:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
@BusterD: 1) The actual closing of MfDs is done by substituting a special template that is completely different from templates such as {{hat}} or {{atop}}/{{atopg}}, which are essentially interchangable, the biggest differences being that some collapse, some don't, and the color. The bot doesn't really archive anything, it removes transclusion links and only cares about the former; an example of an MfD with a hatted thread. 2) using a non-collapsed version made it a bit harder to see what the proper place to put a new comment is. 3) probably a collapsing template. —Alalch E. 19:26, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
I believe you. When we get deep into the merits, we reveal our positions. The viewpoints of wikipedians not "born in the usa" are essential to helping us out of (what I read as) this predicament. Your assertion in particular, insightful and appreciated. BusterD (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! —Alalch E. 11:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
This was an unexpected and full-throated defense of my position, and I appreciate your trying to elucidate it to someone clearly still in denial. I was honestly hoping for a self-recognition and self-accounting but I'm disappointed at this point. I went through this privately with an admin candidate a few years ago. "Say the word" I demanded. "I made a..." "You can say it," I encouraged. "...mistake" they admitted. I was so proud of them, and our friendship. Nobody on Wikipedia will respect you if you can't admit your mistakes and make meaningful amends afterwards. Some folks never get it. Wikipedians are human and we don't extend our trust lightly. BusterD (talk) 00:32, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
By putting so much effort into trying to lead someone to understand something in the face of denial we are setting ourselves up for disappointment. Denial is an incredibly powerful impulse. I read in a picture book about Vikings that they performed death rites before a battle, in order to enter it as "already dead" (probably a myth or an exaggeration). Struggling to wake someone up from a state of denial means you're "already dead". The battle is going to be lost almost certainly but maybe the sacrifice will produce a change over time. Maybe much time. It's the mere possibility of eventual success that should warm our hearts, steering our outlook away from dark and absolute judgements. Numerous people will respect and love this editor for who he is even if he is not adhering to the most mainstream code of communal ethics; some have already signaled this much. If at one point he reads this, or senses this anyhow, he should remember not to draw a sense of validity simply from being accepted by some, but from finding the most thoughtful ways to do what's the best for all, i.e. for the project. —Alalch E. 01:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Interim Government of Ambazonia

While I appreciate the extensive clean-up work that you've done, I think you were a bit quick on the trigger with this one particular redirect. By merging with Ambazonia, the intrigues within the Interim Government now take up almost half of that article. I think it would be better if the article was reinstated with the necessary changes to underline the context. The merged content is notable enough, as the events described have had physical effects on the ground in the war zone and elsewhere. Regards, Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 17:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn: Maybe you're right. My thinking was that this "Ambazonian politics" content follows chronologically the protests and conflict content. Basically it's what has been happening after the declaration of independence, and in a sense it's a single story. I believed that much better context is provided by having this story presented together. I was then interested in going over the merged content and seeing if there are necessary changes to be done (exactly as you said), but fewer changes would be needed as the context is provided by the surrounding prose. Probably what is needed is trimming, which would mean that the content isn't as long, which is one of your concerns now. That said, I am not opposed to your undoing of the merger. Sincerely—Alalch E. 18:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Alright, I have restored the original article with some minor changes. It was missing a proper background section, so I'll see if I can find time to write one. This section should probably include how the IG originated from SCACUF, as well as the wider historical context, albeit in brief terms. Regards, Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alalch_E./Archives/_1&oldid=1150194573"