User talk:Alalch E.

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, &zwj;—&zwj; 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, &zwj;—&zwj; a smart kitten [  meow ] 11:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

A few days into the DRV
With respect to how, 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sangerpedia&redirect=no 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  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:—Alalch E. 13:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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!

 * 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)


 * Thanks, I'm happy about that article's progress. It's a nice topic. —Alalch E. 11:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)