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.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 30.5 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 10 sections are present.

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Because you helped me so much the day I started Wikipedia. Amoxicillin on a Boat (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to make an article together? Amoxicillin on a Boat (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar :)

What do you have in mind for an article? —Alalch E. 22:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should make one about hot air tubs! Amoxicillin on a Boat (talk) 22:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reliable sources on those, that are independent of the subject, and contain significant coverage on the topic? —Alalch E. 22:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no... I don't! Should we make another article instead/ Amoxicillin on a Boat (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, let's. Got some other topic to write about? —Alalch E. 05:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We could write a humorous essay. Amoxicillin on a Boat (talk) 12:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got an idea how a humorous play on a Wikipedia convention or trope or common misconception could help someone form a clearer picture about Wikipedia beyond what is accomplished via serious projectspace writings? —Alalch E. 13:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we can also go to a funny article to get some ideas, like the article Wikipedia:Don't stuff beans up your nose. Amoxicillin on a Boat (talk) 14:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that we have a ready idea for that yet. Let's revisit that later. But I got an idea for a new article and made one just now: Radar (news magazine). What do you think about it? —Alalch E. 14:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neat! Let's do it! Also, it's my birthday! Amoxicillin on a Boat (talk) 14:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy birthday! So want to deorphan that article? —Alalch E. 14:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Amoxicillin on a Boat (talk) 14:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll help you do it: You can check if it's still an orphan by using the "What links here" tool for that article. See Help:What links here for what that is. When you've figured it out, please tell me if the page is still truly an orphan or not. —Alalch E. 14:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has only 2 links; what should I do? Amoxicillin on a Boat (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The types of pages that are included in the list matter. One of the links is the article itself. The other link is this very talk page, because I made a link to that article in my comment here, a little above, causing my talk page to show up in "What links here". So based on this: Is the article still an orphan? —Alalch E. 14:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is Amoxicillin on a Boat (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. An article being an orphan is a problem that needs to be fixed asap, by finding at least one appropriate other article for which it makes sense to include a link to the new article, and then creating that link. Can you do this yourself? (Hint: one or more of the articles linked in the article that we are discussing could be good candidates) —Alalch E. 15:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I added Swarajya (magazine) from Related articles. Amoxicillin on a Boat (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's the other way around. You need to add a link to the Radar article to another, relevant, article. Try again please. —Alalch E. 15:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just did that. What next? Amoxicillin on a Boat (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, at indentation level 19 (the number of colons before the last comment), this thread can definitely benefit from an WP:OUTDENT, so I did that using {{outdent|19}}.—Alalch E. 15:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I am about to edit it. Amoxicillin on a Boat (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you identified the article which should contain the link to the Radar article? (Hint: How Radar came to be, the background of the founding of the magazine.) —Alalch E. 19:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did it! I got on NIN (magazine) and I added the link to Radar (news magazine)! You are gonna have to scroll down, though. Amoxicillin on a Boat (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Good job. Doing great. Now there's an unsourced statement however, and we need a reference and a citation. I'll tell you more about that tomorrow. —Alalch E. 20:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK! Amoxicillin on a Boat (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ready! Amoxicillin on a Boat (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so you wrote this: The editorial staff created a new magazine, Radar (news magazine). But... how do you know that NIN's editorial staff created a new magazine, Radar? —Alalch E. 17:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found it out on the Radar article Amoxicillin on a Boat (talk) 18:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. And how can you trust that the Radar article is accurate on this? —Alalch E. 18:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Um..by checking the history Amoxicillin on a Boat (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By checking the cited source (the reference). You and I know where the information comes from in the NIN article, but the reader of the NIN article doesn't. And we must enable the reader to know how we, the editors, come up with the statements that we include. Because it's all about the reader. So we need to copy the reference from the Radar article into the NIN article thus making this statement equally supported by a source in both articles. Can you figure out how to do this yourself? See Wikipedia:Citing sources. —Alalch E. 21:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Because you have good ideas! Amoxicillin on a Boat (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! You're certainly a quick learner when it comes to finding appropriate barnstars!—Alalch E. 14:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep Xeno User : Amoxicillin on a Boat 18:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amoxicillin on a Boat (talk • contribs) [reply]

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. El_C 16:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. —Alalch E. 16:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I've elevated my caution to you (diff) into a warning (diff) following your response (diff) which I again found lacking (a warning, though, that at this time remains un-logged). You may respond here instead of at the AfD, if you so wish. To be clear, the transparency of the process of you recreating the page a day after I deleted it—after two AfDs (in 2023 and, prior to that, in 2021) that twice resulted in that page's deletion—is what concerns me. El_C 18:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll copy your last AfD reply here:

Upon deletion, I pointed to WP:AFC approval, specifically so that there is a record of such a review—a summary—on a page involving a living person that was twice deleted in procedures such as this (diff). But you have ignored and circumvented that, making that timeline challenging to parse. Do I need to log this caution at WP:AEL to get that point across? I didn't think I needed to, but your response above gives me pause. El_C 17:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I did not have the mens rea of ignoring and circumventing. I did not take your directive to pursue AfC for a title that is protected at an EC-level as something that applies to longstanding editors. I honestly misunderstood. My thinking was colored by my general view that editing is permitted, that restrictions on editing are implemented on a technical level, that AfC, which is not implemented on a technical level is optional (it is commonly held that it is optional) and that administrators don't have special control over content. This is why I did not think that you would find it strange if someone who doesn't need to go throuh AfC to create this specific article simply created the article.

But I accept what you are saying, and knowing what you meant now, I would not have moved the draft to article space, but would have simply edited the draft without moving to article space. —Alalch E. 18:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How I "operate"[edit]

@El C: In the AfD you said something about being upfront how I operate. I sometimes edit drafts on marginal topics out of fun, exploring whether they can be understood to be notable in the very process of editing them. One such example is Draft:Platinum Moon which I researched and edited quite a bit and did not ultimately move to mainspace, determining that, despite my efforts, the topic is not notable. There are other examples, some probably G13'd by now. One example is Thai Boon Roong Twin Tower World Trade Center, a seemingly questionable subject that was feared to be a hoax. I didn't know if it's notable when I started editing that draft, and I also painstakingly researched that topic, and unlike the previous example, I determined that notability is present here, and so I moved. Another example is The Violent, which was a five-time declined draft taken to MfD. I took over that draft and mainspaced it because in the process of editing it I came to understand that: (1) the content is useful for someone who wants to learn about this band; (2) if this had been an article and if someone were to AfD it, the chance for a delete outcome is low (singles have charted leading to an WP:BAND pass). Another example: Hiroshi Nagai. This is how I sometimes operate (one of the things that I do on Wikipedia), and this is absolutely the same approach I have taken to the recent topic, but I was extra careful here and applied a special level of scrutiny to the sources. I operate objectively and self-critically.—Alalch E. 18:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You accept, you don't accept? What are you asking of me? I'm not gonna repeat the circumstances here, except to note again: twice deleted in recent AfDs, with you recreating a day after I delete (3rd time), without AfC or any kind of a summary that one could reference. I'm not gonna go through these examples and I'm not sure why you'd expect me to, when I don't know if they bear relation to this case or not. But you need to decide, again, are you accepting or are you challenging. Because I need you to be straight-forward rather than say one thing, than another. El_C 19:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, I accept. I was explaining how I operate, meaning that I have a modus operandi that was exhibited here, and should not have been exhibited because of special circumstances, that I failed to properly evaluate, but the modus operandi is not nefarious. I am not challenging. —Alalch E. 19:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? Because this is what I had written and would be submitted had it not been for the edit conflict caused by your latest reply:

Upon further thought, I'm just gonna log a warning at WP:AEL as I find your follow-up answers have fallen short. In light of your replies, I just don't think that I'm getting [through] to you. Unlike your spartan keep at the AfD, which I also criticized, now you write at length, when I am after a concise and pointed response. Mainly assurances, which I thought I had, but apparently not?

So are we clear now? Multiple recent AfDs? Contacting a deleting admin when recreating a page 1 day after (3rd) deletion? WP:BLP, WP:ARBBLP? El_C 19:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am sure. When there has been a recent deletion in a contentious area, I will contact the last deleting administrator about recreating the page with a concise summary about how there is a basis for recreation, and if I or editors in general are directed to use AfC by an administrator to create a page in such an area, I will pursue AfC. —Alalch E. 19:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, we can leave it at that, then. Take care. El_C 19:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You too. —Alalch E. 19:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, regarding this edit, you must never copy the |rfcid= from another RfC, they must be unique - you should always let Legobot assign its own. By copying the |rfcid=, this caused the listing entries to become corrupted.

No corrective action is required in this instance because this removal by Nemov (talk · contribs) has triggered Legobot to repair the listing entry. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. —Alalch E. 14:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Killing of Shani Louk you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Killing of Shani Louk for comments about the article, and Talk:Killing of Shani Louk/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 Irruptive Creditor -- Irruptive Creditor (talk) 07:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Where is Kate? is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 11:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but it isn't needed to notify me in this way as I am not a creator and not a major editor of that page. —Alalch E. 11:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been notifying editors who participated in any of the associated discussions. I'm sorry if you didn't want this notification! IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 11:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! —Alalch E. 12:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is your Email? I made a project...a WIKI project...and wanted to share it with you.

P.S. It is on Google Sites. Amoxicillin on a Boat (talk) 03:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boccacini Wiki is the name of it. Amoxicillin on a Boat (talk) 03:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Alalch E.,

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting but annoying. The portal isn't finished. In my opinion, it isn't worth finishing, but I am recommending that the closer wait until the originator comes off block to see if they have any comments. If it were finished, it would still be inferior to the deleted portal. Since it isn't substantially identical, you are correct that it isn't a G4, but it won't be as good as the deleted portal, which still wasn't worth keeping.

Do new portals appear in the New Page feed? Is that how you saw that this portal had been recreated? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: It would be nice to see what the creator thinks, but they haven't talked yet. Page Curation doesn't include portals, and I saw this while patrolling recent changes (the oldschool way). —Alalch E. 08:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The portal creator hasn't talked yet because they have been blocked for one week for disruptive editing. That is why I suggested that the closer wait until the page creator comes off block. I will still favor deletion of any new portal that uses subpages, but other editors should be able to hear from the originator. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They haven't talked in the sense of never having talked at all (despite having multiple opportunities to show willingness to respond to feedback).—Alalch E. 08:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of WP:NOTBROKEN is that we're not supposed to go around "fixing" the use of redirects that are not broken. I don't see any functional difference between that and what I observed in those edits - the edits changed from linking the text "xyz" to the river article under that same name, to linking the text "xyz" to the river article under another name. Whoever would follow that link would not even get the redirected from <that name> caption, they'd just find themselves in the river article which has been renamed and so you just ended up creating a WP:EASTEREGG. It's a pointless activity that has no value to readers or editors, please don't do that. --Joy (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joy: The redirect links are not to be considered broken when the name of the redirect page fits naturally in the prose, but in piped links, the link should not be a redirect link, but the direct link. The reader does get a message that they have been redirected when arriving on the destination page via the piped link that uses a redirect link instead of a direct link, and that is the functional difference. —Alalch E. 17:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This does not follow from any Wikipedia editing practice I've ever been aware of. In fact, we have converse examples of e.g. MOS:DABREDIR where we intentionally link topical redirects. I don't quite understand what you mean by the last sentence. Let's just look at what happens: right now, when a reader reads e.g. History of Montenegro, and they click the linked text "Bojana", they arrive at the heading Buna (Adriatic Sea) with a subheading of "(Redirected from Bojana (river))". If you use Buna (Adriatic Sea) in the pipe link, the reader gets no notification about the redirect and instead finds themselves at a place that doesn't match the text they saw before and they have to read further into the lead section to understand why they are there. With a redirect, there's less of a chance of astonishment as we make the action of changing where they were going explicit, they'll be more likely to more quickly recognize that as an intentional action, not as a possible mistake. --Joy (talk) 17:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, in an example case of [[Bojana (river)|Buna]] (at this time Bojana (river) is a redirect to Buna (Adriatic Sea)), the reader who clicks on "Buna" will arrive at Buna (Adriatic Sea) and will get a notification that they have been redirected through Bojana (river) which is not desirable, and fixing this is not a pointless activity that is discouraged. —Alalch E. 17:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's the issue - in these two cases, the reader did not click on "Buna". They clicked on "Bojana". --Joy (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But the reader was not genuinely redirected, they followed the pipe term "Bojana" to get to the piped name "Buna (Adriatic Sea)". That gives them all the information they need. The start of the Buna article explains that its a river named Bojana and Buna. Telling them in addition that they have been redirected from "Bojana (river)" is completely useless to them and is just a distraction. It's a useless extra step. —Alalch E. 18:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about you, but I've actually been in this sort of a situation myself, where I'd follow the links through to new topics using a lot of strange new words, and would find myself at a place where I didn't even realize I clicked. Being told I am redirected is a very helpful feature. --Joy (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, we never pipe through redirects. This is never correct. Piped links should always only work as piped links, and redirect links as redirect links, but mixing the two is never the desired state and can always be fixed by rectifying the link in the pipe, and this is categorically never a pointless activity. —Alalch E. 18:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to see a citation for such strong language :) I don't quite see any hints of what you just said at e.g. WP:PIPE and MOS:PIPE. --Joy (talk) 18:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Piped links through redirects —Alalch E. 23:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(BTW I'm not 'she', rather 'he'. Sorry for the confusing name, it's a relic of a different time, a time of joy and happiness, when I wasn't aware it was a feminine name in the English-speaking world. :) --Joy (talk) 11:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Noted, apologies :-) —Alalch E. 11:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is also trying to coatrack entheogens and religion into the {{Alcohol and health}} template, then spam that template onto multiple religion articles, FYI. Skyerise (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. —Alalch E. 19:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... for this edit. This was obviously one of the rare occasions when changing another editor's post was the right thing to do.👍 JBW (talk) 13:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. —Alalch E. 13:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, i am Alex Brad Casanas, mostly known on YouTube and Reddit by my alias MISTER MANTICORE. I appreciate your work in The Monument Mythos article but as you can see i left a message to my fans and the article editors, as my therapist recommended me to ask you all to stop the work on the article and to delete it for my mental sanity keep. If you don't know about me, i did horrible things in the past and i had to seek for mental help after it, and that article only makes me feel grief and damage slowly my mental sanity as it reminds me of the bad things i did. Thanks for taking your time and reading my message.

Yours faithfully,

Alex Brad Casanas (MISTER MANTICORE) Alex Brad Casanas (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Alex, what about Analog horror#The Monument Mythos? There is already content about your webseries published on Wikipedia. What is your comment on that? —Alalch E. 16:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know the existance of that article and it's content. If it's possible, can that section be deleted too? My therapist requested me as an exercise to delete and stop working on all the Monument Mythos related media, including the consequence of having to either make all the Monument Mythos videos private or to delete my own YouTube channel and give the adminship of my Reddit server to my friend Eliana. If it's possible i would like to request the deletion of both the Monument Mythos draft and the Analog Horror article section that references my works too, please. Thanks for taking your time for reading my messages and to answer me.

Yours faithfully,

Alex Brad Casanas (MISTER MANTICORE) Alex Brad Casanas (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make this dialogue efficient so I will write short replies and sometimes phrase them as questions with the aim of producing certain intermediate conclusions which may help clear things up. Please answer: Do you agree that a general-purpose online encyclopedia should cover the topic of analog horror in a standalone entry so that readers' can search for the term "analog horror" and are led to the entry titled "Analog horror" providing comprehesive coverage of this topic? —Alalch E. 16:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that yes, people should have access to the Analog Horror article. But i think that your point is that you will try to make me answer to you in a manner so you refuse to delete the required information by missibterpreting my answers. I know that Wikipedia is an expanding encyclopedia but administrators shoukd have up in mind the mental care and health statuses of the people they are writing about. I already had to ask Eliana to take control of my Reddit and Patreon accounts, i had to delete my new series for all my mental feeling storms i am having, and my mental sanity is again fading and worsening after this new crisis. If you wish to ask me more questions i will be glad to answer them but please, consider my mental health and my therapy when you do them, thanks.

Yours faithfully,

Alex Brad Casanas (MISTER MANTICORE) Alex Brad Casanas (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since readers should be able to read an article about analog horror on this encyclopedia, and as analog horror is a certain genre of media exemplified by certain works, just as any genre is exemplified by certain works, and seeing how your work is one of the prominent examples known for its particular direction insofar as it is based on alternate history settings, helping explain the breadth and pliability of the analog horror genre, which broadens our readers understanding of the subject matter, and as reputable journalistic outlets have written about your webseries, precisely citing it as one of the most noteworthy examples of the genre,^[1][2][3] it is a part of Wikipedia's mission to include content about The Monument Mythos, and if this is Wikipedia's mission, and suitable content can be, and already has been, written about this, which content meets the requirements in our core content policies (check, content is fine) and the policy about how to treat topics involving living persons (check, content is also fine, sensitive, and respectful in this regard), there is no force in the world which can remove this content from Wikipedia. The question if there should be a standalone article about The Monument Mythos is more of a technical matter of content organization. Right now there isn't a standalone article. The draft that exists is not an article. It's not in the encyclopedia (imagine a printed encyclopedia and a piece of paper lying next to it; that's what a draft is). If it isn't incorporated in the encyclopedia and if six months pass before anyone has edited it again, it will be deleted.—Alalch E. 18:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, my own mental sanity is no reason for Wikipedia to remove an article, i see. Well, then if my mental health worsens and somethimg happens to me as Wikipedia refuses to remove the content, it's my fault or it's Wikipedia's fault that my mental health worsens because someone has to recopilate data at the expense of the health status of others? Some people even dared to include the infamous Google Doc file with the incident i protagonized and apologized and your admins decides to keep it at the cost of my own sanity!

As i see that Wikipedia is a dictatorship and doesn't care about the healthcare of other people, I will have to communicate to all my followers to boycott Wikipedia, apart of making the story of a new series on YouTube about Wikipedia's malevolent intentions. And yes, you will be included as one of the antagonists. Grief can make you a monster.

Alex Brad Casanas (MISTER MANTICORE) Alex Brad Casanas (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The content treats your work fairly and duly, focuses not on you but on your work, and does no disservice to you as an individual. We pursue a mission of building an encyclopedia to disseminate free knowledge to the world. When knowledge is added we safeguard it and don't let it be lost. Our mission is to educate about analog horror which entails educating readers about your webseries as a prominent example of analog horror just as our mission is to educate about the atom. If there was something negative about you that isn't supported with high-quality sources, something contentious and dubious, too much unnecessary detail or private information etc., it would have been another matter. There is nothing that can be done about this content with respect to removal, both at the draft and in the article, because the content is good. It is educational content worthy of inclusion. Share this conversation with your followers and let them make their own judgement. Best wishes —Alalch E. 19:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yapsville needs you back as their mayor Dellvell (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Working on it! —Alalch E. 22:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

good jobloh Dellvell (talk) 13:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Speaking from extensive past experience at Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine, in my opinion talk page discussion would be a much better way to effect infobox changes.

I had to use a Twinkle restore as it wasn’t practical to do a manual reversion, so I cordially invite you to redo the source rescues.

Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 09:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. The rescues were solely related to the infobox change, so there is no need to reconstruct the intermediate edits. —Alalch E. 09:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you often do recent major news events? If not, you should consider doing more of them, your emphasis on procedure and no-nonsense is ideal for it Alexanderkowal (talk) 22:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. Not quite often perhaps. I worked on Wagner Group rebellion last year, and most recently, I successfully nominated Killing of Shani Louk for GA. It's true that my immediate motivation to join Wikipedia was to edit an suggest changes to a particular current event article (I took a few lessons with me from that period...). I believe that a specific quality of Wikipedia is to provide comprehensive coverage of current events in a way that provides greater utility to an average person than what they, as an average consumer of media, could obtain from reading a few news articles or watching a typical TV program. It's indicative that, when asked "What is Wikipedia?", the first thing that Brooke Vibber said was: Wikipedia, as a sort of the idea of it, is to be very open to accepting contributions, to the point that a lot of material can be put together very quickly, and it can be updated immediately when events change. For instance, when something important happens in current events, we have an article on it right away. If you would like to collaborate with me on a specific current event article, start a new current event article and seek my input etc., I'd be very glad to participate. —Alalch E. 23:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s great, yeah just do what interests you. The neutral POV is what I imagine people crave regarding recent events. I don’t think I’ll be doing much recent events in the future, it’s not really where my skills lie, but it’s really great Wikipedia supports them. All the best for the future Alexanderkowal (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, same to you. —Alalch E. 23:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]