User talk:Alalch E.: Difference between revisions

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.

Hi Twsabin, thanks for your contributions. I noticed that when notifying users, you sometimes left messages for them on the user page instead of the user talk page. E.g. in this case here, or here. Please only leave these messages on the user talk page. Thanks! – NJD-DE (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Njd-de: Oh wow, thanks, I'll make sure not to repeat that. tw^sabin 21:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. Btw your ping didn't work. I'm too lazy to explain in my own words right now, so copied the following from Template:Ping fix:

Unfortunately, that method does not work. The notifications system only informs a user when you link their username in the same saved edit as you successfully sign your post. A ping cannot be fixed in a later edit by adding your signature or fixing a botched username. Instead, reference the user by adding [[User:Example]] to an edit summary, or use one of the other methods at Help:Fixing failed pings.

Let me know if you have any questions, and happy editing! – NJD-DE (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Njd-de: Thanks for that too, very enlightening! tw^sabin 22:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Talk:Battle of Grozny (1994–1995)

 – tw^sabin 22:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – (link) tw^sabin 22:33, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see question about the birth year of Holly Williams, journalist.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For dutifully and quickly resolving the mess at Talk:QAnon/GA1. It is already a contentious article and all the help we can get is greatly appreciated. Cheers, Etriusus 05:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to User talk:Statistics.India § February 2022

 – tw^sabin 21:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...with regard to removing in-text notes, but other editors have routinely thanked me for them. Often, when editing, one is in the markup, a diversion to Talk is inconvenient, and the note can be removed after the issue is resolved. (Such notes therefore make tags the fewer.)

I wish at least you would consider pausing, and discussing, rather than doing such a deletion, in a venue where academic quality work has been going on for days. Cheers. 2601:246:C700:558:2116:D61F:ECC0:1821 (talk) 23:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)No, Twsabin was correct to remove that. Your long comment was inappropriate. The article is not the place to leave working notes. No-one will see them unless they actually edit the section, whereas on the talk page they would be visible to anyone, and would serve as a history of why things were changed. And once you have been undone you should have followed WP:BRD rather than restoring it. Meters (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And the point is just that—to aid editors taking the time to go into the section to work, giving them relevant information that will aid in improving the section. And while in-text notes (the markup technology for which, from what I understand, exists for such use) are easily targetable to the very point where attention is needed, attempting to likewise target in Talk is much more cumbersome (and is very often ignored).

I never object to removal of a note by those coming in to edit, and addressing problems. I do object to drive-by reversions where no other constructive work is done. Otherwise no comment re WP:BRD, because there is literally no end to discussions that focus on guidelines with which other's are imperfectly complying. Cheers. 2601:246:C700:558:2116:D61F:ECC0:1821 (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You used hidden text to add something which looks very much like a start of a talk page discussion. WP:HIDDEN says that Using [hidden text] as a talk page is an inappropriate use thereof. I appreciate that your intentions are good, and the issue isn't with what you wrote, just where. Maybe next time make a shorter hidden text note such as "X information still missing", and also start a talk section (don't see it as a an unnecessary diversion please, talk pages are very important), to make other editors aware that something needs work, and to enable them to give feedback. How would someone now respond to your hidden text notice? ...it would have to be on the talk page regardless. tw^sabin 07:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Australian Auto Sport Alliance, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! A7V2 (talk) 00:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@A7V2: Thanks for the notice. I'm not going to nominate. The added references are fine. I wasn't able to find such references myself. tw^sabin 00:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for your edits there too. A7V2 (talk) 07:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Talk:Katherine Delmar Burke School § Reworking article

 – tw^sabin 17:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sir,

I am writing in releation to your request to delete the wiki page of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celil_Layiktez

I've added cites and book links for the person who wrote 11 books. I'm so new at wikipedia. I just would like to now that if all ok now? Regards, Mahir

Mahirkilic (talk) 08:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mahirkilic, thanks for your inquiry, and sorry for the delay. I'm afraid that the references you added are not adequate for me to change my mind that the article, at this state, should not be a part of Wikipedia. This is because the sources you added are not WP:SECONDARY—they are all primary sources (the website bearing the name of the author), and while a small quantity of primary sources can be acceptable in some circumstances, primary sources alone, without there also being sufficient secondary sourcing, can not demonstrate WP:NOTABILITY. When it appears that the subject of an article isn't notable, the article is deleted. It's the basic standard for Wikipedia to choose what content it will include, as has been agreed by many editors for years. while Wikipedia includes many things, it simply can't include everything. I hope that my answer doesn't disappoint you. Regards, tw^sabin 01:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Twosday. Thanks! -Liance^{talk/contribs} 02:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Twosday, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

– Pbrks ^(t • c) 20:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Kosovo Liberation Army shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]