Jump to content

User talk:Alalch E.

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from User:Twsabin)

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.

Prime

[edit]

Via link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prime_(drink)&diff=next&oldid=1284364275&diffonly=1

WHAT THE HELL DO YOU MEAN SCHOOL-AGE KIDS DOSEN’T MEAN 6-7 YEAR OLDS?! Are you saying that they’re not school-age? Of course they are! After all, they’re not preschoolers/kindergarteners anymore. Plus, again, know in my mind that teenagers are ages 13 to 18, while both 8-9 year olds and preteens (age 10-12) are, well still children, not teens!

Wiki-Ikiw (talk) 13:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wiki-Ikiw Hello. The phrase "school-age children" means people within the typical age range for primary and secondary education, generally spanning from around 6 years old to 17 or 18. This includes teenagers up to the age of high school graduation. The use of the word "children" is a generalization here, as otherwise we would have to say "school-age children, preadolescents, and adolescents", which is cumbersome and unnatural. The intended meaning is not that teenagers are children. —Alalch E. 17:08, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol May 2025 Backlog drive

[edit]
May 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
  • On 1 May 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Pages Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Each review will earn 1 point.
  • 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) 15:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for 2025 Belgrade stampede

[edit]

On 6 May 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2025 Belgrade stampede, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that people caught in the 2025 Belgrade stampede experienced a frightening aural sensation, leading to an accusation that the government used a sonic weapon against them? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2025 Belgrade stampede. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 2025 Belgrade stampede), 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.

Cielquiparle (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hook update
Your hook reached 16,908 views (704.5 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of May 2025 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Downball (wall and ball game)

[edit]

Hello, Alalch E.. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Downball".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one 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 read this, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions here. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 05:23, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your close of RFC on consistent styles and capitalization of titles

[edit]

Hey Alach,

I disagree with your close at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#RFC_on_consistent_styles_and_capitalization_of_titles, and I think it sets a precedence that only two citation styles are allowed. I don't think it's a proper interpretation of the consensus, which was close to split down the middle, with both sides making solid arguments. I intend to challenge the close for the betterment of Wikipedia, as this is the type of forced MoS seriously hurts editor's ability to contribute.

In addition, based on your close, titles of works would also need their capitalization changed, which you didn't address in your close. The application situations of this close leave so many questions, and the language doesn't clear any of it up. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple "yes" !votes stated that keeping the title in its original form, capitalization-wise, as pulled by a tool, or the form resulting from copying manually is a normal practice, something that is just done, etc., without arguing that this is a discrete variation of style. The idea that copying from disparate sources and therefore introducing inconsistency of capitalization is a consistent and discrete style is a novel idea. The practice is not novel but the construction that nurturing the inherited inconsistency is a consistency, and that this property of an article's references, seen together, is protected under CITEVAR (meaning that someone can't boldly edit the titles to make the capitalization uniform -- a prior discussion is needed) is novel. Editors didn't accept the novel idea. They simply, predominantly, didn't express belief that this is apt to be recognized as a discrete style. So it can't benefit from CITEVAR. That doesn't mean that it isn't normal. It is what it is, but it isn't a consistent style. The burden wasn't met to proclaim it as such. —Alalch E. 23:24, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Saw the above discussion on Discord, so I won't chime in around your interpretation of the status quo ante or other elements of substance. What I would like to request is for you to think about how you make a close. Not everybody on Wikipedia can digest such difficult prose, or has the time to digest such difficult prose. For instance, even at times my long COVID brain fog is mild, I cannot understand this text, never mind when I'm in a proper crash. As this close might be cited at WP:FAR and WP:FLRC, it would be good if it's rewritten in plain English. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 06:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Consistently using the capitalization used by sources (except for all-caps titles),
which is typically "done" passively, in a deferential manner, by simply not changing away from what comes up in a tool or from what you get by copying (often from a web page), and
which may (almost guaranteed) introduce inconsistency of capitalization (but the result might accidentally be consistent as well),
does not qualify as (is not apt to be considered) a discrete reference formatting style, that is subject to the requirement that to change from one style to the other editors should seek consensus for the change.
But it is not deserving of condemnation to be passive in this way. The result is a spontaneous (as-found) state that results from normal editing while not consciously adhering to any established scheme of capitalization of titles of works across the entire notes and references section.
Editor A is not required to stare at the notes and references section so that some ostensible prevailing (or, very rarely, consistent) pattern of capitalization may be revealed to them in order to conform with that each time they come to a random article and add a citation, and editor B can arrive at one of those articles and perform their desired stylistic conformity pass to, for the first time, make the capitalization across titles all nice and tidy,
which editor A can dispute by explaining why it makes the article worse (in the given instance, so on a case-by-case basis) but they (A) aren't licensed to "get consensus"-revert. Editor A doesn't get the style stonewalling license afforded by CITEVAR for something that the community wasn't convinced about being a style. It could have been convinced, perhaps, but it wasn't.
Closing by assuming that it was convinced (in the absence of solid evidence) would have been pretty experimental, because CITEVAR is there really to ensure that pointless fights over style are disabled and how will they be disabled if it becomes extra unclear if a given revision exhibits a particular style in the first place.
Let's say I create an article, it has five citations, four have titles in sentence case, fifth in title case. Someone comes along and changes that last one to sentence case. I revert saying: "You know, that was a consistent style, you just changed from one style to the other, so get consensus on the talk page, and if you don't believe me open each of the five sources to see that it's indeed the original capitalization". They open the five sources to examine the evidence but it turns out that one of the four "sentence case" titles exclusively exists in all caps and say "A-ha, you consciously used sentence case yourself and ruined the spontaneity thereby breaking the consistency of the 'as-found style'", and I say: "Doesn't count because it was in all caps so I could have picked any style and the 'as-found style' would have still been consistent. Joker!". The community could have supported scenarios like this but it didn't.
I agree that the close have been written using clearer language for most people, and thank you for the feedback. I will work harder to avoid difficult prose. —Alalch E. 09:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Improper closures on MfD

[edit]

You closed discussions before 7 days on MfD.

You sight WP:SNOW. However, there were legitimate policy agruments made as to why these pages should and should notnot be deleted. Reopen the discussions, or I got to WP:Deletion review. Legend of 14 (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Legend of 14: I have seriously considered your request and, unfortunately, I decline to undo these closes as it would be irresponsible of me to return things to wasting people's time with pointless process. A deletion review should be okay; I'd risk saying that a single deletion review is going to be more useful than these three reopened MfDs —Alalch E. 15:36, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Something is wrong here. User:Legend of 14 is listing the sports association twice. Only two of the four MFDs were snow closed. One of them appears to be withdrawn, and one of them is still open. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: Yes, four were open, and I closed two, not three. I was reading and closing one by one and didn't get to the remaining two in time to potentially also close them (before the complaint here). —Alalch E. 10:24, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for User:Kaustabc/Guwahati Sports Association

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:Kaustabc/Guwahati Sports Association. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Legend of 14 (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for User:Magnatyrannus/Promylophis

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:Magnatyrannus/Promylophis. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Legend of 14 (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Information icon You have recently made edits related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe. This is a standard message to inform you that the Balkans or Eastern Europe is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. TylerBurden (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AARV close

[edit]

this feels like a WP:SUPERVOTE instead of summarizing what arguments people actually used. I know it's hard to close that discussion (I was looking at it a few days ago and I might have found no consensus to overturn or relist), but I think it would be unfair to the people who have actually discussed the merits of the close in context to tell them, "no, it ultimately doesn't matter because wrong venue". I don't think it was the wrong venue. dbeef [talk] 01:28, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Everything they said matters, but there is not going to be an outcome coming from that forum. It is possible to quote anything that is desired in a discussion that can result in something. —Alalch E. 01:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It could be overturn or to endorse, or to relist the discussion. These are all options discussed in that discussion. These options shouldn't be dismissed only because of the belief that closing a TBAN discussion isn't in scope for WP:AARV. I disagree. It's a role that to my knowledge usually only admins fulfill, and to me it is preferable to avoid the heat of the likes of WP:AN. AARV is the perfect venue. dbeef [talk] 01:38, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It can't be to overturn/"not endorse" or to endorse because there's a lack of thing for that process to produce either of those outcomes on, per WP:XRVPURPOSE. The only things it can review is the use of "a tool not available to all confirmed editors", i.e., those administrator actions under WP:MOPRIGHTS which are a use of administrator tools, and analogous actions using advanced permissions. I could not have supervoted because I did not assess consensus. I did not ascribe any weight to any of the comments in the discussion, and did not carefully read procedural objections, and was not influenced by them. I closed exclusively on my own volition, according to my own judgement, to ensure that the process which cannot produce an outcome and has stalled can end. If the discussion had not stalled, I would have suggested that the discussion be copy-pasted elsewhere, or would have done so myself. —Alalch E. 01:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What you're describing reads like supervoting to me. This is especially compounded by the fact that whether it was the correct venue has actually been discussed and argued. It sounds like you deliberately avoided reading those. dbeef [talk] 01:52, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not even purport to be assessing consensus, and the close makes no finding regarding consensus. I simply could not have been supervoting. Whether it was a correct venue is not for the participants in a single instance of the process to decide. The process page itself states what the process is for. It can be changed, but that discussion can't take place among such a small group of editors in a single instance of XRV. It should happen at the talk page, or another broader forum. —Alalch E. 01:55, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can't do that when a discussion is done. Assessing consensus is like the only job you can do.
Whether it was a correct venue is not for the participants in a single instance of the process to decide. But you think you, as a single user closing the discussion, get to decide that?
I absolutely dislike the fact that every time someone brings something to AARV, there are people who turn up and say wrong venue. That's less annoying than saying wrong venue after a discussion has ended. You're essentially saying, sorry but all of your arguments hold no weight to me because it's in the wrong page. Closes like that do not benefit our processes, and seems like sticking to a strict interpretation of rules for the sake of it. dbeef [talk] 02:00, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I get to decide that because it's objectively decidable, due to it being spelled out in bold letters and proven in previous instances to mean what it was originally meant to mean, without any doubt that it means technical actions and not closes of discussions. Every single one editor could and should have done the same thing. About the arguments on the merits I said This close does not in any way take away from anything that has been said, but action cannot come from this process. Those arguments cannot change the scope of the venue. Again, if the discussion was still on, I would have put an effort in making sure that the venue is changed and the discussion can continue. But the discussion became dormant, so it would have been inappropriate to move something dormant elsewhere. —Alalch E. 02:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
About your idea for expanding the scope of XRV to be based on a different definition of administrator actions, I tried that boldly, and it didn't stick. That idea is controversial. Please see Special:Diff/1233596535 and Special:Diff/1247822388. The expansion was:
  1. an administrator action
    This includes any action that may be deemed functionally equivalent to an administrator action even when it is not technically an administrator action, because it was an action of an administrator asserted by the administrator to have been performed in a capacity exclusive to administrators (usually actions associated with the conventional role of administrators in certain processes, even when they do not require the use of administrative tools).
—Alalch E. 01:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please revert the close. I explained in my comment why you are wrong (why it is the right venue), and anyway, it's a super vote as explained above. Levivich (talk) 13:33, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That wouldn't be correct. That is not the venue to generate "endorsed"/"not endorsed" outcomes on discussion closes, and no "explanation" of yours or anyone's can change this. It's not for you to have an opinion here. Not every situation is an opportunity to have and express an opinion. There's nothing to explain. You cannot redefine XRV in one running instance of XRV with your "explanation". Respect process and CONLEVEL. I will not revert the close. —Alalch E. 15:13, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but I'm probably going to challenge your close at AN then. Only admins can close TBAN discussions, which makes it an admin action, reviewable at XRV. I think it's important enough of a principle (that admin-only actions are reviewable at XRV) to formally establish. One editor shouldn't have the power to shut down the discussion like you did. Levivich (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would be short-sighted and a net negative for Wikipedia. I am not usually a winner of popularity contests, and you will get support for your philosophizing about how what I did is undemocratic -- simply based on inertial forces of lack of understanding of a still-new process, on optics of this conversation (in which I'm clearly the baddie), and on social capital. You will harm the system to prove your point. A process for challenging admin actions needs to be tight and definite on matters of process. And it is definite. The language is definite. The RfC was clear. Sufficient practice exists. You want to make it more relaxed and wishy-washy. You should want to keep it definite while broadening it. I agree about broadening it (see my comment above starting with "About your idea"). Instead of a myopic AN review of the XRV close, please start an RfC about a change of scope. Make the venue broader in its definiteness and definitively broader. About the close of the ban discussion: Start a review of the close if you believe that that is still a matter deserving community attention. You can quote the entire XRV discussion (you can copy-paste it). —Alalch E. 16:59, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Uhhh, but you are harming the system by making a bad close and then stonewalling arguments made to refute that close. What you do matters much more to me than what you think, so your belief that the scope should be widened is irrelevant to this discussion.
You chose to believe closing a TBAN discussion as not an administrative action, and ignored people and what people wrote there who were clearly okay with AARV being the right venue. You chose to close that discussion with a supervote.
No, I will not respect processes over respecting people. There's nothing objective about interpreting policy on Wikipedia and I will not engage in maintaining or reinforcing such illusion. Please reconsider. dbeef [talk] 17:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't choose what I believe. I read the RfC, observed the extant practice, and read the very clear language of the instructions, and these external stimuli caused in me a belief I cannot change. The close is fine. —Alalch E. 17:27, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have to be like this. dbeef [talk] 17:29, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Extraordinary Writ: I'm getting heat because some people want a different, more "naturalistic" scope of XRV very much along the lines of what I had added to the XRV header and you reverted. Do you have any comment on this disagreement? —Alalch E. 17:35, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am contesting your close because it is a super vote and the close does nothing helpful. Please don't strawman. I don't think any text on AARV needs to change to allow a better close than what you gave. dbeef [talk] 17:39, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The close is as helpful as it can be given the wrong venue. Good things were said in the discussion and the end of the process does not detract from the substance. Everything that was said can be used and reused in a forum suitable for reviewing closures of discussions. —Alalch E. 18:02, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So I understand your view better, please tell me where in this chain of logic you disagree:
  1. All actions that require advanced permissions are reviewable at XRV
  2. Closing a TBAN discussion requires advanced permissions
  3. Therefore, closing a TBAN discussion is reviewable at XRV
Levivich (talk) 17:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2 is clearly wrong. —Alalch E. 17:54, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, quoting from WP:CBAN, bold added: If the discussion appears to have reached a consensus for a particular sanction, an uninvolved administrator closes the discussion, notifies the subject accordingly, and enacts any blocks called for.
Are you reading those words to mean that a non-admin can close a community ban discussion? Obviously not. So how is it clearly wrong that closing a community ban discussion requires admin privileges?
Additionally, above you wrote I read the RfC, observed the extant practice, and read the very clear language of the instructions... The RFC says XRVs are closed by an uninvolved administrator and the very clear language of the instructions says Reviews can be closed by any uninvolved administrator.
If you are not an admin, please self revert now, for that reason alone. This will save us all from an AN review. Levivich (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am outside, riding a bicycle and it is difficult for me to write. As I see that you are both eager to bring this to an end and reoly pretty quickly, out of respect for your time, I give you permission to undo my close, and save us all the hassle. You are both wrong and are doing damage, but okay. —Alalch E. 18:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is an odd response. I do not want to do something on behalf of someone when they on one hand say that they do not want to do it and doing it is wrong, and on the other give[s] permission for someone to do it.
Perhaps you can take more time to think through what Levivich has written once you get to a more comfortable device, and see if you would reconsider?
But maybe this is a way of saying you don't want to spend more time on this. So an AN thread might actually be useful for better accountability here? dbeef [talk] 18:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He's right about everything and non-admins cannot close XRV discussions. Admin ist admin. —Alalch E. 18:54, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since I was pinged above, I think a much better closure would have been "several editors expressed procedural concerns, and this discussion shouldn't be taken as 'precedent' on those issues (not that we do 'precedent' anyway), but in the interest of wrapping up a three-week discussion without further bureaucracy, there is [consensus/no consensus]." My own view is that closure appeals should go to AN because that's the "dedicated review process" for them, just like deletions go only to DRV and requested moves go only to MRV. (We have enough forum-shopping issues with closures already.) That's the main reason why I made the revert Alalch linked above, even though my edit summary did go down the (possibly unhelpful) "technical tool use" rabbit hole.
(Someday it might be good to move closure appeals out of AN, as various people have argued over the years. But I think there should be one place for them.)
Alalch, as a recovering process hawk myself, I do have sympathy for you, especially since my revert seems to have been part of the problem. But you really have to be more accommodating when it comes to procedure. If AARV is a consistent flash point for this kind of thing (as it has been going back to the 2022 block), maybe you should just take it off your watchlist. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alalch_E.&oldid=1294471303"