User talk:Alexander Davronov/Archives/2022/January

Essay
Hi, I recently read your essay and I love it! I've been the victim of some of my articles deleted by deletionists. I don't understand the pride they have for deleting content from Wikipedia. Today, I stumbled across deletionism's opposite, inclusionism, and I 100% believe in this "wikideology" (I made that word up). Anyway, I just wanted to stop by and say hello. Happy January! Dswitz10734 (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm glad to hear that mate! I'd say that the deletionits abuse their privilege to remove (un)sourced materials because they simply can. Essays don't work and fundamental rules are loose. Wikipedia fools many of us into wasting our valuable time, but doesn't explicitly tell that there is little guarantee material survives. Given all that, like many did before (e.g. ) I will consider to dial down my activity here in the near future and will probably retire completely later. I would advise you to do so as well. It's horrible that such a huge project which basically monopolized the internet, didn't hardwire the rules in such a way that nobody can bend them. Thank you and Happy New Year! AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 10:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


 * It's funny we just talked, because the deletionists are after me again. I'm going to take your advice and enter unofficial semi-retirement. I got a lot of fire after I said that Wikipedia was biased, I got a lot of fire after I made pro-neutrality edits, and here we are with the deletionists after another of my pages. I haven't stopped a single speedy-deletion; and at this point the AfD is just full of pro-deletion editors. Dswitz10734 (talk) 14:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Please be aware of WP:CANVASS if you are still not. Secondly, I would suggest you to follow procedures specified by WP:DEPROD. Even though this won't prevent someone from making an WP:AFDHOWTO-based proposal in the future, for now it may be helpful. I would suggest however to bring more WP:RS into Candace (show) if you can to support its notability. Otherwise it isn't worth pursuing it to keep. My best. AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 17:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Piping format
Hey, I noticed you tend to add tags when "link ing" something, which is a nonstandard means of affixing. Standard is just linking. You also have piped links in accidentally deceptive ways, such as a usage of asphyxiation on Fur farming, which WP:SURPRISE-ingly points away from the actual asphyxiation page. Just a heads up, you may want to avoid those issues, all of which are summarized on WP:PIPELINK--Cerebral726 (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's not me. See: VisualEditor/Known problems. This happens when I insert a link to a part of a plural word. E.g.:
 * engines ← Plural of the engine
 * engines ← Link engine
 * engine&lt;nowiki/&gt;s ← Editor automatically inserts tag after braces. AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 19:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info! Good to know. Hopefully the point about piping (i.e. asphyxiation) is still taken with the helpful tone I intended. --Cerebral726 (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Even thouh I welcome some improvements you made to Visitor pattern I don't think that it is good idea to watch my contributions and come into articles that I have just edited without prior involvement (e.g. [Jan 27, 2022, 17:49][Jan 27, 2022, 17:46][Jan 27, 2022, 13:52][Jan 27, 2022, 13:50][Jan 27, 2022, 13:35]). Be aware of WP:HOUND. AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 19:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I actually was just reading that today. Your name came up again on my watchlist for something I was already following (Ryazan), and I noticed you were re-adding in frames after previous removing them. I wanted to see if you had performed those actions elsewhere and how other editors had reacted, because I had never seen frameless and it seemed unusual. However, I didn't want to be hounding you so I read through that. The part of that I found most relevant to our situation is "The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or disruption to the project generally, for no overridingly constructive reason. Even if the individual edits themselves are not disruptive per se, "following another user around", if done to cause distress, or if accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions." (stress my own). On all the diffs you linked, you'll noticed I was fixing some layout issues or some fairly egregious errors in grammar or formatting. I will not be regularly checking up on your edits or anything like that, but I felt that the fixes I made today were for constructive reasons, not done to cause distress, and included no personal attacks or other disruptive behavior. --Cerebral726 (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries, just saying. Regards. AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 20:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)