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.

New page patrol May 2024 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 May 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page 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) 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)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Kashana Cauley

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)

Draft:Hungary-Croatia

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)

Colourblocks

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)

Down-ball

There is no Down-ball page nor Down-ball (draft) currently and I'm trying to refrain from rebutting new voices arguments. I'm appreciative that you've added your voice and voted and so perhaps we can discuss Down-ball here sometime. Rockycape (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, nice to hear from you. Basically, down-ball is just an alternative spelling of downball, a game which comes in various forms, which game was an informal game until 2020, [when] the first officially recognised Downball organisation, Downball Australia, was created (from downball), as any informal and not strictly-regulated thing, and you are interested in one of those ostensible forms which you believe bears the name of "down-ball". But it also bears the name of "downball". Just as any form of downball can be spelled as "down-ball". There are various forms of downball, a game whose name can be spelled as "downball" or "down-ball"; it also appears to have various other names, which in various ways relate to particular varieties of the game. —Alalch E. 22:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes agreed that down-ball is an alternative spelling of downball. The rationale for doing this is to aid understanding and remove confusion while still being true to the historical naming of a thing. There are many ways that wikipedia pages handle this including:

01. a single wikipedia page - that describes variations of the same thing

02. a page for each unique thing - if they share the same name this can be handled by:

(a) altering the name slightly by adding punctuation e.g. down-ball

(b) altering the page name by adding brackets and additional description e.g. downball (game played on squares court) AND downball (game played against downball wall)

(c) disambiguation page - pointing to down-ball and downball

(d) adding additional description at the beginning of the name. e.g. Canadian football AND American football

Because the evidence shows that these two things are distinct from each other I prefer to to handle the problem via 02. but am open to suggestions. Rockycape (talk) 00:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that lucid breakdown. I'll try to properly reply tomorrow when I'm more rested. Regards. —Alalch E. 00:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

ok, no worries. I propose to continue the discussion by compartmentalising various parts as replies. Rockycape (talk) 00:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Downball (game played against downball wall) is different in rules and play in that once the player hits the ball it must bounce once before next bouncing of the wall. It is a foul if the ball hits the wall on the full. Compared to other similar games played against a wall - there does not seem to be another game where this is a fundamental rule of the game. For all other similar games played against a wall the rule is that the ball once hit must strike the wall on the full.

The downward push of the ball so that it bounces before hitting the ball is where the "down" part of the name comes from.

For players of Downball (game played against downball wall) - the bounce after being hit causes a unique flight of the ball which is a curve up and back off the wall. The bounce then wall deflection after being hit changes the game markedly as compared to games where the ball hits the wall on the full:

(a) there is more time to get in position and take a shot

(b) much larger groups of players are very workable

I would contend that players enjoy playing this unique game because of it's unique characteristics. Rockycape (talk) 03:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@shirt58 - you mentioned in passing you've played downball before. I don't know whether you played downball (game played on squares court) OR downball (game played against downball wall) Can I invite you to join this conversation perhaps? Rockycape (talk) 04:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Here's what I think about those options:

1. That's the default option, and is suggested by the guideline WP:PAGEDECIDE: a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page ... several related topics, each of them similarly notable, can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page ... (See also the introduction to WP:N: [A presumption of notability] is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page.)
2. Given that PAGEDECIDE probably applies, we'd need a reason to cover the version you're talking about separately. If we imagine that reason to exist (some of those are described at WP:WHENSPLIT, which can also be used as a guide to figure out how to organize content across multiple articles in advance), and preconditions for a separate article to be met (the topic is notable), we could be ending up with two articles:
    • a more general article and its WP:SPINOUT
    • no general-specific relationship as both would equally cover only their respective variant, or, indeed a distinct game, if the differences are such that we can't even say that we're discussing variants, despite the name of both things being the same; this is suggested by WP:SAMENAME.
   Your naming and disambiguation options:
   1. Not acceptable. Articles must be easy to find, must figure as good responses to a reader's query, and must harmoniously coexist. Slight alterations produce ambiguity, and are not one of the WP:TITLEDAB options; a reader who wants to find out what downball is and types 'downball' or 'down-ball' into search will be led to a separate article about one or the other thing, which will give them only a part of the information relevant to their search, and if they are told that there's another downball article, they might think that the articles are in conflict as both could be perceived to be about same thing under the same name (the hyphen is non-essential) but describe the thing in different terms, possibly leading the reader to believe that one article is right and the other one wrong; alternatively, the reader could erroneously conclude that the hypen is essential, and that the name of the variant covered in "Down-ball" is always spelled 'down-ball', and that whenever 'down-ball' is discussed, that's always that thing and not the other one, which would be misleading.
   2. Yes, that's valid, and is called parenthetical disambiguation (WP:NC()). One of the variants or the game understood as comprising all of its variants could be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and the title of the article covering it would then not need to be disambiguated. So it's possible that, given that we are discussing two articles, they could be named "X (A)" and "X (B)", but they could also be named "X" (no disambiguator) and "X (B)"; it depends on whether there is or is not a primary topic.
   3. For our purposes here, a disambiguation page would be needed if there is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and in the former example we have "X (A)" and "X (B)", meaning that there is no article under the title "X" (the disambiguation page would occupy "X"). It's also possible to have an "X (disambiguation)" page, but that doesn't seem relevant here (could be, however; something to keep thinking about).
   4. That is WP:NATURAL disambiguation—also valid and actually preferable to parenthetical disambiguation, but the names must not be invented; they must still meet the naming WP:CRITERIA. Let's hypothesize that there's a wall-based variant of downball and that its convenient to call it "wall downball" (I don't really think it's a good idea, this is just a thought experiment): If reliable sources discussing a "wall downball", using this exact term, do not actually exist (at least several of them), we could never use this term, as that would not be natural disambiguation. It would be "unnatural disambiguation" i.e. constructed, invented, disambiguation, and that's forbidden.

—Alalch E. 13:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@Shirt58: Hi, Rockycape tried to ping you above. —Alalch E. 13:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Alalch E., thank you for your considered and comprehensive reply. I will hit the hay for now and be back tomorrow. (Thanks also for fixing my attempted ping) Rockycape (talk) 14:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Alalch E, I’m confident that finding new sources and references will support the creation of a separate page. I also believe that having separate pages will enhance understanding for both topics.

For naming, I prefer the parenthetical disambiguation approach, like "Downball (game bouncing ball at wall)."

As for renaming the current downball page, it can either stay as it is or be changed to "Downball (game played on squares court)." I don't have a strong preference either way. Thank you for your considered and comprehensive assistance, regards,

Rockycape (talk) 04:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome, glad to help. Regards—Alalch E. 10:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Further Reading - Primary sources

Hi Alalch E, in the history section I am wanting to include folklore about the 80s. Following is a link to the archive of the information which would be a quote from the primary source. https://web.archive.org/web/20171009223334/http://squarefour.org/node/755#:~:text=Back%20in%20the%2080,the%20entirety%2C%20remaining%20undefeated

"Back in the 80's, when the great popular game was the wall game, we, in Melbourne, established the Victorian Downball-Veeball Association, and ran formal State titles every year and some local titles during the year."

Folklore about the 80s includes brief details about proponents of Downball (wall and ball game) organising competition events in Melbourne including a yearly final event.

Is is ok to use a primary source for the history section? I'm seeking your input/advice about potentially using this primary source in any capacity on wikipedia please?

Thanks, Rockycape (Happy to move this discussion to the draft if you like too.)

Rockycape (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

As simply a primary source, had the statements been of unobjectionable provenance, maybe something could be done with it, but apart from being a primary source, it is a self-published source, that is, a post on what is really an internet forum, and as such it is not an acceptable source under Wikipedia policy. —Alalch E. 23:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes ok - I guess that this is part of the responsibility that comes with the ability to edit anything on wikipedia. And it demonstrates how wikipedia and other encyclopaedia are different.

At this stage I've added Further Reading - Primary Sources section but won't utilise it as I don't want to rock the wikipedia boat.

. . . "unobjectionable provenance" - I like that turn of phrase. I've never heard that before and had to look up its meaning. Thanks for your help. Rockycape (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I note that Further Reading - Primary Sources section is allowed here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomis#Further_reading

Perhaps this is a fair balance as the article has good references/sources AND has the primary sources listed for those who want to did deeper? Also the article appears to adhere to wikipedia rules.Rockycape (talk) 00:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your work on 2024 shooting at a Donald Trump rally, fixing sources, rearranging sections, and generally being a stand-up editor. Thank you! Catalyzzt (talk) 04:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! —Alalch E. 04:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

What is trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources on wikipedia?

Hi Alalch E. , what is trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources on wikipedia? I am finding new references and want to pass the threshold in regards to notability for the wikipedia page. I was going to have a conversation with AI and thought better of it.

Thanks, Rockycape (talk) 23:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Helianthus devernii

Thanks for your work on Helianthus devernii and for getting it to DYK. —  AjaxSmack  05:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)