User talk:Alalch E./Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
New page patrol May 2024 Backlog drive
| New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive |  |
| |
| 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) 16:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Barnstar for you
|
The Editor's Barnstar | |
| For your attention to detail, bold edits and re-structuring of April 2024 Israel–Hamas war protests on university campuses in the United States. Others might not agree, but I do! CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC) |
- Oh great, thank you! Glad you agree. Thanks for your nice actual content work there.—Alalch E. 23:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- You're welcome. It's also for this edit that I really didn't want to to do! CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 23:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi Alalch E. In my opinion, this was a bad close.
Firstly, I don't believe that it's fair towards the nominator or the participants in that discussion for the (reasonably well-attended) MfD to have been procedurally closed based on a move that occurred some time after the discussion had started (indeed, I would question whether it's appropriate to move a draft currently at MfD to mainspace at all). This is especially true due to the fact that, regardless of whether the draft is under discussion at MfD or AfD, the same rationale for deletion - WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE - would apply in this case.
Secondly, given the split of the opinions expressed by editors in the discussion, I believe that this was a WP:BADNAC - i.e., that [t]he outcome [was] a close call...or likely to be controversial
, and so the MfD should therefore have been closed by an administrator.
Thirdly, as you are involved with regards to the page in question, having edited the draft & accepted it/moved it to mainspace, I believe that your closure of this discussion was also inappropriate in that regard.
I would ask that you consider undoing your close, and moving the page back to draftspace pending the outcome of the MfD. All the best, —a smart kitten[meow] 08:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- I understand what you're saying. However, it does not matter that I am involved with the page because the close is of a procedural type. There is nothing to do in an MfD in the absence of a draft, and I just recorded the objective fact of the MfD becoming moot. Drafts can be mainspaced during MfD, negating the MfD, which is related to the nature of drafting as an optional mechanism. There was a pending submission and I accepted it in my capacity as an AfC reviewer. MfD does not suspend that process. What the subject wants is there not to be an article, and deleting the draft does not realistically prevent that. Someone can simply create the article down the line. An editor thinks that there should be an article, as they have submitted, and the submission is good enough from the usual standpoint of AfC. Therefore, this dispute is for AfD to settle. I recommend starting an AfD. The arguments in the MfD can be quoted in the AfD. I think it would be more expedient if you would not start a deletion review, but that is also a possibility. I am not going to undo the close. Kind regards —Alalch E. 09:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Deletion review for Draft:Kashana Cauley
I have asked for a deletion review of Draft:Kashana Cauley. 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. All the best, —a smart kitten[meow] 11:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
A few days into the DRV
@Jclemens, SportingFlyer, and Star Mississippi: With respect to how DRV is not a user conduct review forum
, would you kindly comment on the conduct side of things here? (I think that pinging three people is probably more than enough, but I welcome anyone's comments). I promise that I will listen and answer questions and not be defensive.—Alalch E. 13:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- In short? DRV is about un-screwing-up mistakes, not about flaying the people who made them. Some of the things long-term participants see are clearly understandable mistakes--the P&Gs are pretty arcane at times, and I just saw an AfD discussion that essentially reinvented WP:PAYWALL without anyone, including some participants I would have expected to know about it, referencing it. Getting the self-selected deletion process geeks all looking at a problematic (or, stated as problematic) close is best done without any expectation of punishment, even when some of the things we all see are clearly disruptive and it strains credulity to find good faith. So if someone is going to get sanctioned for conduct in deletion discussions, it's not going to be at DRV, although some of their conduct and the associated discussions there may be referenced later at AN, ANI, XRV, or some other relevant forums. Does that make sense? Jclemens (talk) 20:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes it does. Thank you. —Alalch E. 22:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'll be honest, I haven't followed the discussion too thoroughly.
- You made a closure decision I personally disagreed with, but I don't see that as a conduct issue so much as an opinion one, and I'm currently in the minority. As editors, we're all going to disagree on how best to handle an article (for simplicity, know it stemmed from a draft). I see nothing that's remotely warning or drama board worthy Star Mississippi 01:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think I was attempting to review user conduct with my post. What happened in this instance occurs incredibly rarely, I think there was a mistake made by both accepting and closing the MfD as moot, and if this happened more frequently I'd push for some sort of policy or guideline that articles at MfD shouldn't be moved to mainspace until the MfD is closed. I don't agree with what happened here, but I don't think it's user-specific conduct and more of a policy grey area. SportingFlyer T·C 03:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi! I'm just wondering why you tagged Draft:Hungary-Croatia as G3. I am not saying that it is not a hoax, but I am not sure whether it is blatant enough for G3. QwertyForest (talk) 20:20, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Invented countries are too easily spottable as hoaxes, because countries, expecially in the modern era, are things which are so widely documented that it's completely obvious which ones are real and which ones are inventions. The history of the Austrian Empire is well documented. It is a very well-known country. To anyone with even a superficial knowledge of its history, a "Hungary-Croatia ... that existed from 1846 to 1848" is an immediately recognizable hoax. Hoaxes of this genre come from the motivation to imagine alternative histories, which is a well-known internet pastime. The content was also obviously WP:LLM-generated, which is most easily discerned from the fictitous references, making this an especially lowly, low-effort hoax. —Alalch E. 20:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
"Sangerpedia" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Sangerpedia has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 31 § Sangerpedia until a consensus is reached. (Notification being sent to all who participated in the DRV.) Cheers, Daniel (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Are you sure this was meant to be accepted? I think this should have been declined, as almost all sources are primary. Regards 48JCL 23:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, I think that this article should exist and that the content speaks for itself, as it is sufficiently compliant with the core content policies, despite the sourcing not being of the type which we prefer. If you think it shouldn't exist, and think that a consensus to delete it could form (an earlier version of it was deleted once), you may want to nominate it for deletion. Regards —Alalch E. 10:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Please try again
I reverted your revert on Samuel Alito, not to edit war, but you also reverted the addition of citations added to quotations that were uncited in several places as well as the addition of citation requests and notation of a failed verification. Surely you can fix the content of a single section without reverting every subsequent edit! Please target you change better without side effect. I don't intend to edit war over it. Skyerise (talk) 11:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, you are right, and essentially I apologize for not doing it the most correct way which is making sure all of the intermediate edits are kept while restoring the major thing from a past revision, but I can do it on the go and am doing it right now in real time. I have some technical challenges currently which is the cause for the suboptimal technique, so apologies for that. —Alalch E. 11:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)