User talk:Alalch Emis: Difference between revisions

Hello, Alalch Emis, and Welcome to Wikipedia!   

You know to sign posts with four tildes (~), ~~~~, or the signature button on the edit toolbar above, right? 220 of ^ßorg 04:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

yes, thanks Alalch Emis (talk) 04:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome.220 of ^ßorg 04:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user is a WikiCat.

Not an 'ASCII cat', but a {{WikiCat}}. --220 of ^ßorg 04:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. — Newslinger talk 06:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z33

In the future, when you make a page move request, please try to make it shorter. If you haven't seen it the page describing the process is WP:RM. Although I couldn't find any guideline about length, I've never seen a requested move that was as verbose as yours. To get a sense of what a typical move looks like, please see the current move discussions here: WP:RMCD. This is in reference to:

• Talk:2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol#Requested_move_16_January_2021 (permalink)

Also, you might check the essay WP:BLUDGEON. I'm not suggesting you are doing that, but it's something that new editors often do that is to be avoided.

All that said, thank you for having the courage to request such a move on a very controversial topic. You'll no doubt learn a lot about the Wikipedia process of decision-making from this request. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Alalch Emis (talk) 09:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Alalch Emis, I just wanted to tell you that I really liked the nomination opening statement and I appreciate the effort you put into writing that. The conclusion was like a crescendo. Walrus Ji (talk) 13:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Walrus Ji Thanks! After the last RM where hundreds (?) of people participated, I felt like this one needed something extra, and I'm really happy with the reactions and the discussion so far. — Alalch Emis (talk) 13:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job with the highly contested nomination. Wow! Looks like consensus on insurrection is not possible. Going to have to try riot next time. Great learning experience going on. Thank you. JaredHWood💬 03:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jared.h.wood: Thanks! Nice, you started the "Riot" move, fun times all around! — Alalch Emis 00:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jared.h.wood: Hope you don't mind another ping – your RM has mutated! I recommend that you take a look at the RM which the table method originates from and add the same message to your request: To the RM closer, please refer to the table below for proposed and discussed titles for the article, along with consensus for each proposed title. Thanks for considering it. — Alalch Emis 01:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FANCY!!!! I did it. Thanks for the heads up! JaredHWood💬 02:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! — Alalch Emis 02:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is unbelievable. JaredHWood💬 04:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not sure how to say this... It's great that you're putting in a lot of work on Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol, but I think you should shift down a gear. You must always remember that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. You've moved around and even removed comments, which violates WP:TPO. You've posted comments without a signature, which makes them look like there's consensus on certain procedures, but there is no such consensus. I don't want to get into an edit war, but please don't remove any comments anymore. There are rules and processes, and they are based on years of experience. — Chrisahn (talk) 11:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Several admins have viewed the table, some have probably even entered their name in it and they didn't close it or find a need to add a "clarification" such as the one you added. There is/was a serious discussion below the table based on WP:NOTAVOTE concerns but you don't want to partake in it - you insist on posting comments in the table section, on top of the table. Comments are not to be posted there full stop. Included there from the get go was a simple one sentence instruction (not put there by me, it's a part of the "template"). I reformulated your otherwise disruptive comment by addressing your concern in the form of expanded instructions, yet you complain about this, and add another comment on top, only causing more people to pile on. This shows that you are intent on eroding the trust in the process and making the table look suspect instead of making the table as good as it can be for it's intended purpose. Allegations of my violating WP:TPO are laughable. Everyone can move someone else's comment that was posted in the wrong section, and reply to it in the correct section. Eventually if your obstruction continues will bring it to WP:AN. — Alalch Emis 18:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alalch Emis! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, How to reply to suspicions of sockpuppeting and COI, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have put my edits under a collapse section in a talk page, in violation of the talk page guidelines. The basic rule, with exceptions outlined below, is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission. Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Hiding other's editor text is tantamount as correcting it. And you should always get their permission before, not asking them to follow your actions and then correct them. Most people have not the time to check what you are doing. In my case, I lost hours to guess where my edits where gone. I gave you no permission to do whatever of my edits in talk pages. I ask you to stop, remove any actions you have done, and collapse only your edits in talk pages. --Robertiki (talk) 03:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That section is only hidden as a technical improvisation to save space. It isn't truly hidden as people are posting there actively and know it's purpose. I repudiate your criticism as unfounded. It is fine to move people's comments from off-topic sections to on-topic sections and especially subsections and reply to them there. This won't be an issue on that talk page soon, as the problematic area inviting a specific kind of soft vandalism and piling up of text where there shouldn't be text will soon be closed for comments. — Alalch Emis 03:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing - I didn't come up with the idea of collapsing the subsections. I don't think it was even me who moved someone else's comment there first. Even if I thought you were in the right, there is really nothing I can do remove the actions I have taken. All the posts I've moved are:

1. RM comments moved from underneath the table (doh) to the discussion
2. comments in the problematic space above the table regarding the table itself to the table meta-discussion subsection
3. maybe one RM comment from the same space also to the discussion

This is basic stuff and highly permissible. Don't post in off-topic sections in the future, what can I say. — Alalch Emis (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to thank you, for restoring visibility of my edit, but that last sentence ? Which off-topic section ? --Robertiki (talk) 06:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant guideline: WP:TALKOFFTOPIC | Robertiki The offtopic section I refer to is the base-level section made for a techical purpose – the table, with the intent of linking to it from the RM opener. This section is conceptually not open for any discussion, and discussion on the table itself (on the process that is a discussion, so it's a meta-discussion, which is abnormal in itself, but such is life) was immediately after some initial disagreement about the table started below, as a subsection. That is the topical area for debating the table and it was reasonably active initially, but ended on a relatively conclusive note (that the table won't be shut down) so someone apparently hid it (not me), probably thinking it's a waste of everyone's time reading that (actually isn't as it turns out). The structure of the discussion is evident from the talk page Contents. It is as an extension to this original discussion that I added subsequent posts, posted atop the table, which posts were essentially addressing the same issue anew, with the people posting them not being aware of the original discussion (edit: I presume some weren't, it's relative; looks like you weren't). — Alalch Emis (talk) 06:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear I didn't design this. This is how it came "prepackaged" to that RM. The section-not-a-section affair certainly isn't optimal but people were showing an understanding of what's going on until someone resorted to a certain tactic to undermine the table with alarmist messaging, without engaging in a discussion — Alalch Emis (talk) 08:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't clerk discussions on article talk pages, most especially ones that fall under WP:ACDS. You have neither the authority, nor for that matter, the experience in which to do so. Any further nonsense on that page will be met with swift sanctions. Please remember that you are a participant like any other. You are accorded no special allowances of any kind, for any reason (whatsoever). Thank you. El_C 16:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My increased activity on that page had culminated and already ended with the post on the AN. I have enough knowledge of how things work and insight to see the ramifications of my actions in the past few days in their totality, and it is not nonsense. I see both the good and the bad, and expect you to see it too. I understand the gist of your caution, and will carry myself accordingly, avoiding the unconventional pattern, to avoid any off-putting perceptions. Thanks. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alalch Emis, I didn't mean "nonsense" from you necessarily, but in general, from anyone — like, for example, that quasi-RM RfC that you, yourself, correctly reported and which I then quickly shutdown. I guess what I'm getting at is that I'm ready to lay down the law to keep matters orderly for that pivotal page. Sorry if I failed to clearly articulate that. Anyway, good luck! El_C 22:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, I appreciate your efforts and insightfulness very much. — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is unacceptable. The personal attacks were bad, reverting redaction by a remarkably impartial and respected editor was much worse. If you carry on like that you may be blocked or restricted from this topic. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You removed my first warning about rudeness.[1] Good; that means you read it. This is your last warning about the same thing: stop sniping at people, as with this revert or you will be blocked. Bishonen | tålk 18:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I'd also note that you have already had a "discretionary sanctions" alert. Bishonen could have blocked you or topic-banned you there and then as a disruptive single-purpose account. I recommend you find another topic to edit. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As for your edit summary here, I don't care what you think; that's your business. I only care how you talk. You have been blocked for 48 hours for violations of the civility policy. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | tålk 18:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]