User talk:Alalch E.

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.

Disambiguation link notification for September 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Voyageurs Area Council, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cass Lake and Island Lake.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

InCUBATORiranje

 Note: This is about the HBS Wikivoyage test wiki and is not enwiki related

Hej vidim da si ostao još samo ovdje aktivan. Ja sam isto spustio aktivnost skoro svugdje.

Jel ima šanse da se raktiviraš na HBS Wy Inkubatoru u sezoni 2024-2025?

Htio bi da pođemo javno prije godišnjice u proljeće 2025. za CEE Spring  ;-) Zblace (talk) 09:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Zblace: Ima šanse. Reaktiviraću se. Razmišljao sam malo ovih dana, i imam neke ideje šta bi trebalo učiniti, vjerovatno pokoja policy stranica i iščistiti ako ima zaostalog sadržaja na engleskom. Stvarno ne znam sad oko onog listing šablona, tu se moram sjetiti dokle se stiglo, ako se uopšte imam čega sjetiti. Vidimo se tamo uskoro.—Alalch E. 17:15, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of StoneToss

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article StoneToss you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Lazman321 -- Lazman321 (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of StoneToss

The article StoneToss you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:StoneToss and Talk:StoneToss/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Lazman321 -- Lazman321 (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Stop changing what I'm doing.

I'm not comfortable with making an account or talking on here i just wanna put correct info and stuff on here thanks to EmperorTigerstar's video on Yugoslavia is all. 2601:243:1A00:4510:4964:50C6:E4B6:CDFA (talk) 16:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

What is your reasoning to do what you did when I said I'm not comfortable making my own account on here and people like you telling me what to do? 2601:243:1A00:4510:4964:50C6:E4B6:CDFA (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about what you want and are comfortable with. The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide useful articles for readers. This website attracts free labor from interested individuals who want to help other people gain access to free knowledge. To recruit such people, Wikipedia advertises itself as an "encyclopedia that anyone can edit", grants editing privileges to most people on the planet, such as you, and tells them to wp:be bold in their pursuits. They have an opportunity to donate their time and energy, but they don't have a right to ask anything from Wikipedia. It's a one-way street. If someone just does things they want to do and their desires are not converting into meaningful contributions, their editing privileges get revoked. This could happen to you. So far, you have been doing things that you want to do but have not been making valid contributions.

"Anyone can edit" is not "everyone can make the changes they want and prevent others from undoing those changes". The most fundamental principles of Wikipedia are the wp:five pillars. The third pillar says that editors need to seek wp:consensus; should conflicts arise, they need to discuss on the appropriate talk page; they need to follow wp:dispute resolution. From these fundamental principles issue other, also important principles, elaborated into policies. They are sets of codified best practices with wide acceptance among editors, and they describe standards all users should normally follow, including you.

Whether you have or will make an account is irrelevant. All of this is the same for all editors. Not having an account is normal. You can participate on talk pages and participate in dispute resolution without an account. Not having an account restricts you from some things, but it does not exclude you from following the principles of Wikipedia. Preventative action can be taken to cause you to become unable to do what you have been doing even if you do not have an account.

Among the policies is (the rather essential-sounding) wp:Editing policy. If your desired change has proven controversial and you want to prevail in the dispute, you need to to make a make a proposal on the talk page. Again, no one cares what you're comfortable with. It isn't about you. Bold editing does not excuse edits against existing consensus or edits in violation of the wp:core content policies. If someone indicates disagreement with your bold edit by reverting it or contesting it in a talk page discussion, you need to consider your options and respond appropriately. The go-to option is called the wp:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. If your edit has been reverted, but you want it to stick, and a discussion has not been started, you need to start it.

Repeatedly overriding each other's contributions is called wp:edit warring. It is forbidden.

That's the reasoning. This is not just my opinion. It's how it is on Wikipedia, so consider yourself informed. Sincerely —Alalch E. 01:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karin Van Der Laag (2nd nomination)

Thank you for your detailed and thoughtful analysis of the relevant notability criteria with special regard to this article. I appreciate your involvement. I feel I cannot contribute more than a neutral stance to this discussion, becuase of my involvement with helping the creating editor. You have improved my understanding of the points you have analysed, and I will use that to inform my own thought processes better in the future.

I will watch the outcome of the discussion with interest. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome. I was very close to entering a neutral !vote myself. —Alalch E. 21:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Killing of Yahya Sinwar

I simply aded a second citation to the details of his injuries prior to death. That second citation is quite valid and should stand. --15:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC) Giacomo1968 (talk) 15:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

There's no point in accumulating citations for information that is already supported by a reference, in this case, a very solid BBC source. That doesn't help the reader verify information. —Alalch E. 15:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Multiple citations beyond 2 are over-citations. Adding a second citation is valid because one validates the other. --15:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC) Giacomo1968 (talk) 15:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

No, one does not validate the other, where did you get this from? The point is to enable the reader to see the source of the information. This is not contentious information. —Alalch E. 15:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

What you edited it to — putting the second citation deeper in the text — is fair and valid. Thank you! --16:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC) Giacomo1968 (talk) 16:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks for reaching out. I also summarized the content in the lead to avoid repetition of the exact same phrasing in the lead and the body. —Alalch E. 16:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of StoneToss

The article StoneToss you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:StoneToss for comments about the article, and Talk:StoneToss/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Lazman321 -- Lazman321 (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Sermonizing in formal closes

Hi Alalch. You are mostly doing mostly very good closes. However, recently you are increasingly sermonizing in your closes, too much. Eg1, Eg2. A closing statement should be a summary of the consensus of the discussion. A little bit of spin is ok, but you are going too far. In the first example, you even extend on you own !vote, making the close an involved Supervote. Please be more conservative in your closing statements. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

You're completely right about the text of those closing statements. I've been having some difficulty thinking recently because of outside factors (a bad cold mainly), and I should have stayed away from closing and commenting in discussions much. I'll be more conservative. In the DRV the nom withdrew and everyone !voted on one side, so there's no lingering disagreement at lest, but, yeah, could have and should have been closer to something like three words. Thanks —Alalch E. 01:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

StoneToss

Hi,
Were you intending on nominating the article for DYK now that it's received GA status? Your comment in the topic above indicate that you may be a bit under the weather and probably not a priority for you at present. If you aren't, let me know and I'd be happy to nominate it.
Regards, TarnishedPath^talk 03:47, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it'd be the best if you would nominate it. I wasn't planning to do it. —Alalch E. 03:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

No worries. I'll think about some hooks later tonight when the children are in bed. TarnishedPath^talk 04:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Done. You can see the nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/StoneToss. TarnishedPath^talk 23:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Lark & Berry

Hi, I wondered if I could ask a question about the COIN thread for Lark & Berry. As per my comments there, I agree that the article is basically promotional in intent. However, if it's a UPE job then it's a pretty subtle one, as it lacks any of the basic mistakes that an unskilled UPE would make which would give the situation away (and which are seen at COIN on a very regular basis).

But what particularly interested me was that the user said that the gaming of the system was achieved after I read how to create an article the guideline says 10 edits and 4 days.

I don't think I see such advice on WP either here [1] or here [2], although the user would have located the 10/4 figures had they checked the autoconfirmed requirements. Clearly, however, there is nowhere on WP where it is inferred that one should game the system with gnome-like edits over a few minutes to allow oneself to push an article into mainspace. It's possible of course that they had read some advice off-wiki rather than on-wiki.

My impression therefore is that although the content and obviously non-independent sourcing of the article don't suggest a particularly advanced piece of UPE work, the background to the article creation clearly does (with the assumption that the user perhaps creates a separate account each time they create a new article to hide their tracks - as this article was highly unlikely to have been the user's first rodeo).

I just wondered if the above was broadly in line with your own opinion. Also, do you see any other indications of UPE here? I see a lot of blatant UPE work at COIN, often by users who (in fairness to them) genuinely don't know the rules around COI and thus edit under their real names etc. This case, however, I find interesting and would be grateful for the benefit of your thoughts.

On further point, I think the user's contribution at COIN demonstrates that English is not their first language, which suggests to me perhaps that they were hired to write the article at one of several sites that apparently exist. The likelihood that a non-first language speaker would naturally have alighted upon this subject to create their first article seems exceptionally low.

Any thoughts that you can provide around this case would be much appreciated as I'm keen to learn more about identifying UPE work.

Kind regards, Axad12 (talk) 02:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

"exclusively uses lab-grown diamonds" = "It's toasted"

Your thinking aligns with mine.

About the user knowing how to game autoconfirmed: IP users, when they try to create an aticle, get a system message that shows {{No article text|nopermission=yes}}, which says among other things You need to ... be autoconfirmed to create new articles. Ostensibly, that link is where prospective editors who specifically want to create an article would get the idea to WP:PGAME autoconfirmed and get to know what the requirements are. Presumably, guided only by the desire to create an article, they would essentially innocently make edits which seem harmless to them, but may be undesirable edits (of the sort often seen in PGAME editing, such as unwanted cosmetic edits, bad copyedits, overlinking, changing spelling for the worse etc.).

But, while a plausible scenario, it isn't something that happens from my observation. It takes an extra dose of motivation to behave this way, and the question arises: Where does the extra motivation come from? Given a PGAMEing SPA who created a very promotional article about a company (I actually think that this is very promotional: Special:PermanentLink/1252062458, because it very exactly relates the brand values and identity of this company), it's acceptable to presume that the extra motivation comes from being paid. Another pointer is that the references are not a natural sampling of links found on the Internet and are basically all sponsored-but-trying-to-seem-legitimate materials (on some of the web pages used, you can even buy the products). People might encounter such web content and interact with it spontaneously on a sporadic basis, but who would actively seek out large quantities of otherwise uninteresting content only to make their article seemingly comply with Wikipedia's verifiability policy? It's an unnatural human activity. —Alalch E. 14:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

And yeah, thanks for responding to the COIN thread and sharing these thoughts with me. —Alalch E. 14:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts here.

Agreed 100%, especially your comment on "brand values and identity" which had not occurred to me before but will be very useful when looking at future similar material.

I've noticed a lot of this sponsored but not clearly sponsored material recently, usually when declared paid editors working for Wiki editing companies include them in their edit requests. Under such circumstances, is it reasonable to assume that the story was planted by the Wiki editing company? I ask because the stories usually seem to date from about a fortnight before the edit request is received.

Examples of the general trend here [3] and here [4]. Axad12 (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Feedback for rewrite of WP:BITE

Hello, I have withdrawn the WP:BITE rewrite RfC since it had been stale for 3 months without any consensus (4 for, 4 against). I appreciate the feedback given there. I tried to incorporate your and SMcCandlish's suggestion to make the guideline include elements of persuasive essays. I would like your thoughts on the new lead, as the emotional aspect was the SMcCandlish's concern as well. Thanks, Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers/rewrite

Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Thomas Sewell (neo-Nazi)

I've just nominated Thomas Sewell (neo-Nazi) for a GA. I've never done this before and I've noted that you have so I'd appreciate any guidance during the process. TarnishedPath^talk 16:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Great. I'll add it to my watchlist and see if I might be able to help during the process. And before that, if I get any ideas for how to improve the article, I'll consult you. —Alalch E. 16:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Ivy Wolk

Hi Alalch E., hope all's well. Not long ago you closed the DRV for Ivy Wolk. I'm wondering whether you think it would be appropriate to reopen a new DRV now that another strong source has come out (The Cut, October 25). I don't want to bother folks at large with repeated attempts, but I'm fairly sure the article would now survive AfD. Thanks, Hameltion (talk | contribs) 03:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hameltion: Hi. Reasonably well here, but should probably be in bed by now. How about you? Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 October 28#Ivy Wolk, and thanks for notifying me. —Alalch E. 02:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again, appreciate your helping move the article along. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 03:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)