User talk:Alalch E.

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.

Deletion review for User:Kaustabc/Guwahati Sports Association

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:Kaustabc/Guwahati Sports Association. 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. Legend of 14 (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Deletion review for User:Magnatyrannus/Promylophis

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:Magnatyrannus/Promylophis. 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. Legend of 14 (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Contentious topics alert related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe

You have recently made edits related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe. This is a standard message to inform you that the Balkans or Eastern Europe is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. TylerBurden (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

AARV close

this feels like a WP:SUPERVOTE instead of summarizing what arguments people actually used. I know it's hard to close that discussion (I was looking at it a few days ago and I might have found no consensus to overturn or relist), but I think it would be unfair to the people who have actually discussed the merits of the close in context to tell them, "no, it ultimately doesn't matter because wrong venue". I don't think it was the wrong venue. dbeef [talk] 01:28, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Everything they said matters, but there is not going to be an outcome coming from that forum. It is possible to quote anything that is desired in a discussion that can result in something. —Alalch E. 01:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

It could be overturn or to endorse, or to relist the discussion. These are all options discussed in that discussion. These options shouldn't be dismissed only because of the belief that closing a TBAN discussion isn't in scope for WP:AARV. I disagree. It's a role that to my knowledge usually only admins fulfill, and to me it is preferable to avoid the heat of the likes of WP:AN. AARV is the perfect venue. dbeef [talk] 01:38, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

It can't be to overturn/"not endorse" or to endorse because there's a lack of thing for that process to produce either of those outcomes on, per WP:XRVPURPOSE. The only things it can review is the use of "a tool not available to all confirmed editors", i.e., those administrator actions under WP:MOPRIGHTS which are a use of administrator tools, and analogous actions using advanced permissions. I could not have supervoted because I did not assess consensus. I did not ascribe any weight to any of the comments in the discussion, and did not carefully read procedural objections, and was not influenced by them. I closed exclusively on my own volition, according to my own judgement, to ensure that the process which cannot produce an outcome and has stalled can end. If the discussion had not stalled, I would have suggested that the discussion be copy-pasted elsewhere, or would have done so myself. —Alalch E. 01:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

What you're describing reads like supervoting to me. This is especially compounded by the fact that whether it was the correct venue has actually been discussed and argued. It sounds like you deliberately avoided reading those. dbeef [talk] 01:52, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I did not even purport to be assessing consensus, and the close makes no finding regarding consensus. I simply could not have been supervoting. Whether it was a correct venue is not for the participants in a single instance of the process to decide. The process page itself states what the process is for. It can be changed, but that discussion can't take place among such a small group of editors in a single instance of XRV. It should happen at the talk page, or another broader forum. —Alalch E. 01:55, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

You can't do that when a discussion is done. Assessing consensus is like the only job you can do.

Whether it was a correct venue is not for the participants in a single instance of the process to decide. But you think you, as a single user closing the discussion, get to decide that?

I absolutely dislike the fact that every time someone brings something to AARV, there are people who turn up and say wrong venue. That's less annoying than saying wrong venue after a discussion has ended. You're essentially saying, sorry but all of your arguments hold no weight to me because it's in the wrong page. Closes like that do not benefit our processes, and seems like sticking to a strict interpretation of rules for the sake of it. dbeef [talk] 02:00, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I get to decide that because it's objectively decidable, due to it being spelled out in bold letters and proven in previous instances to mean what it was originally meant to mean, without any doubt that it means technical actions and not closes of discussions. Every single one editor could and should have done the same thing. About the arguments on the merits I said This close does not in any way take away from anything that has been said, but action cannot come from this process. Those arguments cannot change the scope of the venue. Again, if the discussion was still on, I would have put an effort in making sure that the venue is changed and the discussion can continue. But the discussion became dormant, so it would have been inappropriate to move something dormant elsewhere. —Alalch E. 02:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

About your idea for expanding the scope of XRV to be based on a different definition of administrator actions, I tried that boldly, and it didn't stick. That idea is controversial. Please see Special:Diff/1233596535 and Special:Diff/1247822388. The expansion was:

1. an administrator action

   This includes any action that may be deemed functionally equivalent to an administrator action even when it is not technically an administrator action, because it was an action of an administrator asserted by the administrator to have been performed in a capacity exclusive to administrators (usually actions associated with the conventional role of administrators in certain processes, even when they do not require the use of administrative tools).

—Alalch E. 01:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Please revert the close. I explained in my comment why you are wrong (why it is the right venue), and anyway, it's a super vote as explained above. Levivich (talk) 13:33, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

That wouldn't be correct. That is not the venue to generate "endorsed"/"not endorsed" outcomes on discussion closes, and no "explanation" of yours or anyone's can change this. It's not for you to have an opinion here. Not every situation is an opportunity to have and express an opinion. There's nothing to explain. You cannot redefine XRV in one running instance of XRV with your "explanation". Respect process and CONLEVEL. I will not revert the close. —Alalch E. 15:13, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Ok, but I'm probably going to challenge your close at AN then. Only admins can close TBAN discussions, which makes it an admin action, reviewable at XRV. I think it's important enough of a principle (that admin-only actions are reviewable at XRV) to formally establish. One editor shouldn't have the power to shut down the discussion like you did. Levivich (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

That would be short-sighted and a net negative for Wikipedia. I am not usually a winner of popularity contests, and you will get support for your philosophizing about how what I did is undemocratic -- simply based on inertial forces of lack of understanding of a still-new process, on optics of this conversation (in which I'm clearly the baddie), and on social capital. You will harm the system to prove your point. A process for challenging admin actions needs to be tight and definite on matters of process. And it is definite. The language is definite. The RfC was clear. Sufficient practice exists. You want to make it more relaxed and wishy-washy. You should want to keep it definite while broadening it. I agree about broadening it (see my comment above starting with "About your idea"). Instead of a myopic AN review of the XRV close, please start an RfC about a change of scope. Make the venue broader in its definiteness and definitively broader. About the close of the ban discussion: Start a review of the close if you believe that that is still a matter deserving community attention. You can quote the entire XRV discussion (you can copy-paste it). —Alalch E. 16:59, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Uhhh, but you are harming the system by making a bad close and then stonewalling arguments made to refute that close. What you do matters much more to me than what you think, so your belief that the scope should be widened is irrelevant to this discussion.

You chose to believe closing a TBAN discussion as not an administrative action, and ignored people and what people wrote there who were clearly okay with AARV being the right venue. You chose to close that discussion with a supervote.

No, I will not respect processes over respecting people. There's nothing objective about interpreting policy on Wikipedia and I will not engage in maintaining or reinforcing such illusion. Please reconsider. dbeef [talk] 17:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I didn't choose what I believe. I read the RfC, observed the extant practice, and read the very clear language of the instructions, and these external stimuli caused in me a belief I cannot change. The close is fine. —Alalch E. 17:27, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be like this. dbeef [talk] 17:29, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@Extraordinary Writ: I'm getting heat because some people want a different, more "naturalistic" scope of XRV very much along the lines of what I had added to the XRV header and you reverted. Do you have any comment on this disagreement? —Alalch E. 17:35, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I am contesting your close because it is a super vote and the close does nothing helpful. Please don't strawman. I don't think any text on AARV needs to change to allow a better close than what you gave. dbeef [talk] 17:39, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

The close is as helpful as it can be given the wrong venue. Good things were said in the discussion and the end of the process does not detract from the substance. Everything that was said can be used and reused in a forum suitable for reviewing closures of discussions. —Alalch E. 18:02, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

So I understand your view better, please tell me where in this chain of logic you disagree:

1. All actions that require advanced permissions are reviewable at XRV
2. Closing a TBAN discussion requires advanced permissions
3. Therefore, closing a TBAN discussion is reviewable at XRV

Levivich (talk) 17:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

2 is clearly wrong. —Alalch E. 17:54, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Ok, quoting from WP:CBAN, bold added: If the discussion appears to have reached a consensus for a particular sanction, an uninvolved administrator closes the discussion, notifies the subject accordingly, and enacts any blocks called for.

Are you reading those words to mean that a non-admin can close a community ban discussion? Obviously not. So how is it clearly wrong that closing a community ban discussion requires admin privileges?

Additionally, above you wrote I read the RfC, observed the extant practice, and read the very clear language of the instructions... The RFC says XRVs are closed by an uninvolved administrator and the very clear language of the instructions says Reviews can be closed by any uninvolved administrator.

If you are not an admin, please self revert now, for that reason alone. This will save us all from an AN review. Levivich (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I am outside, riding a bicycle and it is difficult for me to write. As I see that you are both eager to bring this to an end and reoly pretty quickly, out of respect for your time, I give you permission to undo my close, and save us all the hassle. You are both wrong and are doing damage, but okay. —Alalch E. 18:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

This is an odd response. I do not want to do something on behalf of someone when they on one hand say that they do not want to do it and doing it is wrong, and on the other give[s] permission for someone to do it.

Perhaps you can take more time to think through what Levivich has written once you get to a more comfortable device, and see if you would reconsider?

But maybe this is a way of saying you don't want to spend more time on this. So an AN thread might actually be useful for better accountability here? dbeef [talk] 18:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

He's right about everything and non-admins cannot close XRV discussions. Admin ist admin. —Alalch E. 18:54, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Since I was pinged above, I think a much better closure would have been "several editors expressed procedural concerns, and this discussion shouldn't be taken as 'precedent' on those issues (not that we do 'precedent' anyway), but in the interest of wrapping up a three-week discussion without further bureaucracy, there is [consensus/no consensus]." My own view is that closure appeals should go to AN because that's the "dedicated review process" for them, just like deletions go only to DRV and requested moves go only to MRV. (We have enough forum-shopping issues with closures already.) That's the main reason why I made the revert Alalch linked above, even though my edit summary did go down the (possibly unhelpful) "technical tool use" rabbit hole.

(Someday it might be good to move closure appeals out of AN, as various people have argued over the years. But I think there should be one place for them.)

Alalch, as a recovering process hawk myself, I do have sympathy for you, especially since my revert seems to have been part of the problem. But you really have to be more accommodating when it comes to procedure. If AARV is a consistent flash point for this kind of thing (as it has been going back to the 2022 block), maybe you should just take it off your watchlist. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I made the mistake of closing that discussion (at all). Whatever thoughts I might have about the XRV header, I will leave them for later. —Alalch E. 11:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

You may have missed these

Please review the following: Wikipedia:Civility; Wikipedia:Edit warring; and WP:3RR. Also, WP:1Q may be helpful. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

None of those are currently helpful to me. What would be helpful is for you not to ignore serious and specific concerns of other editors with a vapid "improving Wikipedia" spiel, to respect the editing policy and not to edit war back in content that was disputed, and not to complain that you are harrassed when I bring up your behavior with other editors. —Alalch E. 13:34, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

You made a wrong turn when you got to believe that you are right, I am wrong, that what I am telling you does not matter, and the only thing that matters is that you are "improving Wikipedia". You were not listening and were trying to enforce your version of the page while accusing me of ownership. Now that that didn't work, you are bullshitting about harrassment. You are unable to cope with having made the fundamental error of not editing collaboratively, and all the problems are coming from that. Stop with the vapid "Does it make Wikipedia better or not" mantra and start engaging on the specifics to reach a Wikipedia:Consensus. Read what I wrote you on BLPN:

No, it is not pointless. This thread was started as a response to your edits at the article and the talk page. I decided to invite other editors to look at our dispute and assess my concern regarding your adding the image, repeatedly, in spite of my reservations.

Having a gallery of unusual (bizarre, terrible, comical) things, and putting next to them a thing that is, at a glance, anything but unusual, engenders the question of "what is really unusual about this thing?" When said thing is an image of a living person, and when people do not find anything unusual about the image at the layer of the medium (it's a normal low quality photo of the type that we are all used to seeing, as editors have now explained to you on the talk page), they will ask what is unusual about the appearance of the subject on the image, i.e., about the person. And nothing is unusual. But, viewers might still be left with an afterthought that there was something unusual but they couldn't "figure it out"; or they might get idiosyncratic ideas about how something not unusual is "unusual". It's the suggestiveness of the setup which isn't appropriate. If we label the images as unusual, they must immediately appear unusual, so that there is no question as to why they're on the page.

We don't have other pages like this essay, and need to figure out what works best on the go. There is no formula. We need to listen to each other. I told you about my concern, and you did not care, answering how you are improving images across Wikipedia and making Wikipedia better. In fact, you even accused me of ownership. The best I can tell, the image is not included because I decided to alert BLPN about the issue, otherwise you would have continued readding it.

—Alalch E. 13:48, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of Twosday for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Twosday, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twosday until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

2017 edition of the Samsung Galaxy A series

Hi

Per Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_189#h-Do_we_really_need_over_600_articles_on_individual_Samsung_products?-20240115225900, should we do the same for and create articles from 2015 edition of the Samsung Galaxy A series to 2025 edition of the Samsung Galaxy A series? Panam2014 (talk) 08:44, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

@Panam2014: Hi. Yes, that should be done. It's great that you're interested in picking this up. —Alalch E. 10:29, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I plan to do it. If you could help me. And join the discussion. Panam2014 (talk) 11:15, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

@Panam2014 Feel free to review and mainspace User:Alalch E./sandbox/2016 edition of the Samsung Galaxy A series —Alalch E. 11:19, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Page approvals.

Hello. I just noticed that you approved my article for the 1987 Kentucky lieutenant gubernatorial election. Could you also approve the one for this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:1958_Connecticut_lieutenant_gubernatorial_election

Thanks you for your time. Emfri1188 (talk) 04:51, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

@Emfri1188 Probably yes, but on principle, I'm not going to grant your request, because AfC is supposed to work by drafts potentially sitting there a bit until someone gets to them. There are various ways how AfC submissions get eventually seen and processed. So, you should simply create the drafts you want to create and steadily submit them one by one (without necessarily waiting for the last one to be accepted), and you will see them get accepted one by one each with some delay, but it won't really matter. You don't need to postpone your work on these topics that you're interested in by waiting to see if the currently submitted draft will be accepted, then move onto a new one, etc. Basically, your creations appear to be okay, and relatively soon you should move on to creating articles directly in mainspace. Sincerely, (I might still accept your submission on a random basis, but someone else will probably get to it before me) —Alalch E. 21:22, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Emfri1188 (talk) 01:02, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

WP:BADNAC at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genderism

Hey there, please revert your WP:BADNAC at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genderism - this is a contentious topic and as you see from my comment, I bolded procedural close, as this was not an outright withdrawal, so the close is not eligible for a s You will also see that the AFD was never about deletion, but about BLAR (for which AFD is the forum for) and following the points brought, the scope has changed from BLAR to RM about DAB redirect on primary. Please revert and redo, or let someone else close it if you don’t want to do the RM listing per wrong venue instructions. Raladic (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

You withdrew, everyone supported keeping, so that's a "keep", and it's "speedy" because it's an early close. It's a keep on the merits, with speedily reached community consensus that the dab page is to be kept. RM and AfD can even run concurrently and deal with separate questions. It's very unlikely for AfD to have been the wrong venue for an issue for which RM is the right venue. A "wrong venue" close in your intended sense would have meant that your nomination was about renaming, but it was about redirecting which is procedurally an equivalent of deleting, not moving (quoting from your nomination: Since AFD is the preferred venue for a BLAR following reversion, bringing it here with the ask for this to be redirected to Anti-gender movement#Terminology ...). You can't choose how the AfD will be closed after you withdraw. Your withdrawal was properly unconditional and actionable (So with that, I'm going to withdraw the nomination here as an AFD—that is sufficiently unequivocal and definitive), and your opinion added on the side that a procedural close was in order is not binding on the closer. My close was correct and your interpretation of the deletion process is not correct. In spite of the page having to do with a CTOP, in light of the nominator withdrawal and lack of contention in the AfD itself, I don't agree that my close was a BADNAC and I stand by it. I'd say that you should simply start an RM. —Alalch E. 20:54, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm going to concur with the closer. Once the nom is withdrawn, nominator's every preference is not binding on the closer. Further I find no policy-based reason why in this case a procedural close (and speedy keep) is measurably different from Raladic's withdrawn nom and the speedy keep applied by Alalch E. We end up with the same result and the same options. As an aside, per WP:DABNAME, when a disambiguation page exists at the ambiguous term, there should also be a redirect to it from the "(disambiguation)" title; in other words, if "Term ABC" is a disambiguation page, a redirect from "Term ABC (disambiguation)" should be created if it does not already exist. I see zero reasons why the closer MUST create the RM and zero reasons why Raladic couldn't create the RM themself. If Raladic wanted to advertise the RM in the normal places, nobody would gainsay them, regardless of the CT. If this went to DRV, I'd be flabbergasted if this speedy keep close was adjusted to speedy keep per wrong venue. Am I missing some finer point? BusterD (talk) 00:01, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

@BusterD - Am I missing some finer point? Yes, please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Genderism#c-Raladic-20250729002800-Genderism.

The Deletion Policy Wikipedia:Deletion process#Nomination errors and issues - "In certain situations, a deletion discussion may require correcting, moving elsewhere, or a null outcome ("procedural close"), due to issues with the deletion nomination rather than the merits of the page itself." is very clear on "Venue inappropriate" that the close is a bold "procedural close", followed by the obligation for the closer to re-list it at the right venue: List the topic at the correct venue, notify the nominator, and close the discussion providing a link to the new discussion. Never close a discussion as a wrong venue without opening a discussion at an appropriate one.

And I would have done all of that in line with the written policy myself under NACD (since no delete votes were made at the time), however I uncovered that WP:SK is in contradiction of WP:NACD, which is why I ask for a policy clarification at the talk page: Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#WP:NACD and procedural closure due to Wrong venue? before I'd execute it myself and hence I requested that another editor performs the procedure as outline at the Deletion Process Policy, so that no one comes screaming at me for doing it myself (since NACD right now only explicitly lists bolded "speedy keep" as executable by the nominator, however it also links to WP:SK and SK considers procedural close a sub-set of speedy keep, so I would read that as - yes I could have done it, but out of an abundance of caution I didn't just do it right away.

It's not that the procedural closure doesn't (temporarily) result in the same outcome of the page not being redirected yet, but, and that's why I came here, it doesn't say there was an affirmative consensus for keeping it (or else, in the immediate following RM, someone is gonna go pull the the "You can't just ask for an RM if this was just speedy kept" card that sometimes gets pulled - which would taint the process. Hence the Deletion process has the policy to null the AfD procedurally and relist it correctly. In this case as RM on the talk page on the different basis. The AfD was raised purely as WP:BLAR (since BLAR says AfD is the venue for that) as I made the GFA that we don't need the DAB page at all since the other terms that are explained there are already explained at the target - hence AFD after an IP SOCK that has been hounding me reverted my bold BLAR, so I followed BLAR and raised the BLAR point as an AFD.
However after Roxy's reply, I realized that it's fair that it's not entirely unnecessary due to the other historic older use of the term, but instead the DAB page content should go to Genderism (disambiguation) (of if it's 2DAB we'd just point to the other) and the Genderism redirect as primary redirect to the Anti-gender movement#Terminology with hat note there to point to the (disambiguation) paranthentical DAB page - this is obviously a whole different framed scope now, hence the "Venue inappropriate" error applying as I pointed out at the AfD and the discussion having to be moved to the appropriate venue, being a formal WP:RM at the talk page to do the RM discussion, without tainting the process on the merit of the page. If I hadn't thought that BLAR was the right course of action (and BLAR specifically saying that AFD is the venue, not RM), but instead the latter, then I would have raised the discussion as an RM to begin with. Raladic (talk) 01:02, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

It might be that Alalch actually just misunderstood the point, re-reading their closure, they mention something about how the page should be named - "and the venue chosen was not a wrong venue—instead, the venue was correct but the proposal was "wrong", i.e., the opposite of the proposal was decided by consensus. The issue, then, of how the page should be named is a separate matter." - I don't know what they're trying to say with that, but there was no renaming of the page anywhere in this.

The original proposal was a change in redirect target (In the form of being a BLAR discussion, which belongs at AFD).

But now, we have a multi-page RM with redirects instead:

{{subst:requested move | current1 = Genderism | new1 = Genderism (disambiguation) | reason = Move [[Genderism]] to [[Genderism (disambiguation)]] so that [[Genderism]] can be redirected (as a tagged non-neutral term redirect, note that [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Genderism&limit=100|there are no incoming links]] to [[Genderism]] already, given its non-neutral nature to begin with and only serves as a search term) to [[Anti-gender movement#Terminology]] as a [[WP:PTOPIC]] primary redirect for most commonly used application of the term, that is predominantly used as a pejorative used by the Anti-gender movement, alongside "[[gender ideology]]" and other dog-whistle terms. I will note that currently [[Sexism]], which is the 3rd term listed at the DAB page, has a hatnote for "distinguish from", so it is a bit of a contradiction for the DAB page to then point back to right there, so unless we maybe move it to a "not to be confused with" portion inside the DAB page instead, we may otherwise have a [[WP:2DAB]], and would just have a hat note at the new redirect target point to the second older historic use of the term. (...additional sources for the PTOPIC argument...) }}

This is what the point of the procedural close is - the venue of AfD is entirely incorrect for a PTOPIC discussion. (edit) - I raised the RM myself now, since whether the closure is currently mis-marked as SK instead of procedural close makes no difference to the next step being the RM, and it just being a technicality for correct preservation of the history of the article. Raladic (talk) 01:40, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Your above presentation of quoting the part of my sentence that fits your interpretation and cutting off the rest is honestly puzzling.

@BusterD - the sentence that @Alalch E. quoted above where they said: Your withdrawal was properly unconditional and actionable ("So with that, I'm going to withdraw the nomination here as an AFD" —that is sufficiently unequivocal and definitive) is an egregious factual misreprentation of what I stated in the AFD: "So with that, I'm going to withdraw the nomination here as an AFD and request a procedural closure (since I am not sure I can execute that myself under WP:NACD and will raise it as a WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY RM move discussion instead (or the closer can do so and I'll add my 2c as needed), to determine whether we'll have a primary redirect with dab page or redirect and adding a hat-note for the other remaining term per WP:2DAB.".

There is absolutely ZERO way how you can consider my sentence as an unconditional withdrawal if you read the sentence, unless of course you stop reading the sentence where it fits you, which isn't how we do things. Hence I came here to request you please revert the closure and follow the correct policy procedure. Raladic (talk) 01:17, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

No, I refuse. —Alalch E. 01:46, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I will wait for @BusterD's response, else I guess this goes to DRV.

It might really just be a misunderstanding on your part as I pointed out above on why the venue was now inappropriate as that discussion of the page move of the DAB page and changing the redirect of the freed up page has to go to RM. I do know my RM policies, given that I actively clerk at RM and RM/TR. In which case, it's fine, no harm done, mistakes happen, just undo it and we move on. Raladic (talk) 02:00, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I have no further comment. —Alalch E. 02:03, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I am on wikibreak for a week. Back next Monday. BusterD (talk) 07:13, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Markdown and Curly Quotes

Thank you for pointing out the use of curly quotes. In this case, it was making the curly quotes on purpose with a markdown command. Ugh.

Is there more information about recognizing Markdown? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:30, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon You're welcome. Please see: https://www.markdownguide.org/basic-syntax/. All of that is seen in chatbot-generated content on Wikipedia. ## Heading instead of == Heading ==, using asterisks for bolding, and hyphens for bulleted lists are typical things. If you tell a chatbot to generate the source code of a Wikipedia article it might output a non-functional mix of MW wikitext and Markdown, because it isn't proficient in wikitext.

Chatbots have a massive proclivity to output Markdown and the source code of its own outputs is Markdown. When you tell them to "output/generate/create code" in a certain coding or markup language, and you specify that language as "wikitext", then they will put code in a Markdown "fenced code block" starting with ```wikitext -- and we even have a currently live example of that at Special:Permalink/1297827841. —Alalch E. 00:13, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

This is a good one: Draft:Factor ELD. It contains: Would you like me to add a section about the **company background**, **user reception**, or **technical specifications**? Or turn this into actual Wikipedia markup format (`wikitext`)?

So, in that conversation if you were to tell it "yes", it would "turn" the content into "actual Wikipedia markup format (`wikitext`)", and it would do a really bad job at it, mixing some basic wikitext features (it manages to format headings) with Markdown.—Alalch E. 00:33, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I thought of sending it to MFD, but will let it self-destruct in six months if no one diddles with it. If anyone diddles with it, we will probably have G15 by then. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:00, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

By "This is a good one", you either meant "good" sarcastically, or you meant a good example of what was being discussed. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:00, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I meant good example. I think G15 is going to be okay. I still haven't voted on it. —Alalch E. 14:30, 3 August 2025 (UTC)