User talk:Alalch E./Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

DRV

Thanks for that. I looked, but couldn't find actual directions for closing a DRV as there are for pretty much all other such discussions, so I just copied code from the above DRV and modified it. Perhaps at some point XFDCLOSER could include this functionality. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 22:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox You're welcome. They're in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. XFDcloser working for DRV sounds reasonable even if 'X review' is not 'X for discussion/deletion', agreed. —Alalch E. 23:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Question about the ElevenLabs quote being removed

Hi! I agreed with pretty much all of your edits on the 15.ai article, but I was confused by why the ElevenLabs quote was removed for being promotional. The quote "it became a one-stop shop for voice clones of all your favorite real-life and fictional characters." was referring to 15.ai, not ElevenLabs, so I felt like it was appropriate for the Legacy section. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 05:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

It's still an ad for ElevenLabs because it "subtly" advertises ElevenLabs' ability to do the same. —Alalch E. 05:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Hmm... I see. What about the quote "[15.ai] became the go-to text-to-speech tool for anyone who wanted to create lifelike and realistic AI voices for any reason"? It doesn't refer to "your" so I feel like this one should be better? GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 05:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't speak directly enough to the legacy, like the other quotes in that section do. What that quote says is basically what the article has established up to that point, except that it does it with a promotional twist, so I really think we're better off without it. —Alalch E. 05:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I see, I guess that makes sense. Would truncating Play.Ht's quote to "breakthrough in the field of text-to-speech (TTS) and speech synthesis" be fine? GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 05:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I think we should stick to wiki-notable entities in that section. The quote from the notable company's Speechify website, attributed to a named individual is much much better than Play.ht and Resemble AI quotes. I'd only keep the Speechify quote, honestly. —Alalch E. 05:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree to an extent, but PlayHT is a pretty notable player in the voice AI space. They recently raised over $20M in a seed round, and even though they don't have a Wikipedia page yet, they definitely are one of the major companies working on voice AI alongside Speechify and ElevenLabs. I think including a quote from PlayHT underscores the legacy quite a bit. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 06:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I can live with Speechify and Play.ht, but I'd stop there with the company quotes. —Alalch E. 06:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, got it. I'll also argue for Resemble AI, though, because they were a big player in the open source voice AI space around the same time as 15.ai. They built Resemblyzer ([1]), which was pretty big at the time. But other than those three, I think that should be fine? GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 06:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

That's too much of that stuff for me. Resemble AI is barely mentioned anywhere else on Wikipedia. This could be seen as a plug. Should be avoided. —Alalch E. 06:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

And the same is true for PlayHT ... okay, take your pick: Resemble AI or PlayHT :) —Alalch E. 06:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Done, I removed the Resemble AI quote. Thanks for the discussion! GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 06:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks for reaching out. —Alalch E. 06:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, one last question: would you say the following quote supports the removed statement about 15.ai's legacy on fan communities? "Millions who generated lines for memes, fan productions, or just to hear their favorite characters speak were part of a grand experiment—a preview of an AI future that promises extraordinary creativity alongside serious ethical quandaries." GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 06:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it supports the idea that there's this cultural aspect of the legacy. —Alalch E. 06:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Great, I will re-add the sentence (minus the unsupported part) with the new source. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 06:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Question about the most recent edit

How can I start the discussion? Should I make it on the 15.ai talk page, or would you prefer to discuss it here? I can copy it over if you feel that's more appropriate.

I personally believe that an "In fandom culture" is relevant to the article because it was fundamentally intertwined with fan communities both in its development and impact. The platform's development was directly enabled by fan-created datasets and it subsequently transformed how these communities created content. This was particularly notable in the My Little Pony, Team Fortress 2, Portal, and SpongeBob SquarePants communities, so I believe talking about the specific content that was created as a result of 15.ai is a good thing to have and improves the article per WP:VNOT. It frames the application as a cultural phenomenon that transformed online fan communities, and not just a technological innovation. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 20:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll respond on the article's talk page. Basically, this is tied to the discussion which I had already started about repetition. I'll make a new comment there shortly. —Alalch E. 20:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Got it, thank you. I saw that you were reviewing some of the articles I was creating, so I was wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a look at Procesi bundle, which I just created. It might be a bit too technical for the general audience right now, but I'm not really sure how I can make a topic as abstruse as this more accessible to the layman—any tips would be appreciated! GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 21:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll see if I'm able to do that. You can also ask for feedback on a WikiProject's talk page where there'll be editors with backgrounds in the relevant area. —Alalch E. 21:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I'm not sure if this is the correct barnstar for this, but thank you for being patient with me and helping me become a better editor on Wikipedia. Your feedback means a lot to me. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 22:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate your openness to feedback, and hope to collaborate with you on various other articles in the future. —Alalch E. 02:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Alalch E.. Thank you for your work on Radar (news magazine). Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for writing the article! Have a blessed weekend!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:25, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

"Tamzin Hadasa Kelly" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Tamzin Hadasa Kelly 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 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 1 § Tamzin Hadasa Kelly until a consensus is reached. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Tamzin Hadasa Kelly RFD

Hello, you participated in an RFD discussion for Tamzin Hadasa Kelly, which redirects to the encyclopedia article Wikipedia administrators#Requests for adminship. However, several people (including me) misinterpreted it as a redirect to projectspace, it seemed like we couldn't have an accurate discussion, so I've closed the discussion and renominated it at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 2#Tamzin Hadasa Kelly. Please go there to participate again, and if your opinion at the first RFD still applies, please feel free to copy/paste your rationale from before. Nyttend (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

"MAGA civil war" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect MAGA civil war 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 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 3 § MAGA civil war until a consensus is reached. Rusalkii (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Quentin James

Hello, Alalch E.. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Quentin James, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:07, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Kill Two Birds with One Stone

For the record, IDC. Thanks for letting me know though. Steel1943 (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

You're welcome. —Alalch E. 23:42, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Your opinion at The Substance

Please, achieve a consensus on the Talk page before making further edits. This edit is not correct and is inconsistent with what is already stated in the lead. I believe you are misreading "version of oneself" which does not imply that the version is actually oneself. Caleb Stanford (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

@Caleb Stanford: What is the meaning of "not correct" when the plot as written does not describe the things which happen in the film and there is no source for the plot point? I'll just go and look for a source.

About "inconsistent with what is already stated in the lead", please see Wikipedia:Writing better articles#"Lead follows body"—Alalch E. 00:16, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm saying you should update the lead then, too, if that's your position. Let's take this discussion to the talk page, I'll post there. Thanks, Caleb Stanford (talk) 01:18, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I am glad to see that you posted on the talk page, but I am little disappointed that in the first posting there you foresaw that further discussion will not be constructive. Sincerely, —Alalch E. 10:59, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Please dont edit my user page, instead use talk page

Also you are the one who violated 1RR, not me. Astropulse (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I posted a warning on your talk page. I need to warn you about approaching 1RR to be able to file a valid report against you. I did not tell you that you breached 1RR but are at the threshold. I agree that we need to discuss things on the talk page. Sincerely —Alalch E. 15:36, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

You edited my user page. Not talk. Please be mindful and do not edit user page for this. Astropulse (talk) 15:38, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I am absolutely entitled to communicate to you on your talk page, unless you have asked me not to ever post on your talk page. You are obligated to receive feedback on your talkpage from other editors. I repeat, I only ever posted a single message on your talk page, a 1RR warning, which I am procedurally required to do to be able to file a valid report against you. Giving you a fair warning not to repeat behavior which may lead to a block is being mindful. I did not tell you that you breached 1RR but are at the threshold. I have also posted on the talk page subsequently. Sincerely —Alalch E. 15:51, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Please try to understand. User page and talk page are different. You edited my user page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Astropulse&diff=prev&oldid=1277176379

I'm asking you to use talk page instead https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Astropulse

I think you should have open mind and assume good faith WP:FAITH when you edit on wiki Astropulse (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I have never doubted your good faith. You should understand that you need to be willing to accept feedback on your user page. You are also in no position to lecture me on the differences between different kinds of pages. Try to be less annoying please. You are complaining inordinately about my posting a message on your talk page which I did precisely because it is mindful and, on top of that, it is a requirement in anticipation of a potential 1RR breach, if you want to report someone. And I do want to report you: If you revert again, I will report you. And the fact that I gave you advance notice means that my report will be actionable and that you will be blocked. That is how we keep each other in check, and direct our energy to discussing and resolving the issue precisely on article talk, as we both seem intent on doing. Sincerely —Alalch E. 16:30, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Update: While looking at my contributions, I noticed that I actually edited your user (not user talk) page, and that this is what you were notifying me of. I was completely unaware of that when I posted the above replies, as my intent was to post on your user talk, and did not notice that I posted on your user page instead. I also understood your "User page and talk page are different" as "user talk page and (article) talk page are different". Apologies —Alalch E. 00:20, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Plip!

Best, BusterD (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments at ANI today

You know me; I try to be nice. I actually wondered what a dedicated disrupter might find on my behavior. I'm quite disappointed; I'm sure I've done stupider things than mere stridency. Who knows, they might be that kind of jerk. As always, I appreciate your eyes. BusterD (talk) 23:12, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

No problem ;) —Alalch E. 17:59, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't matter now, but...

... just to clarify (about this: ANI diff): I hadn't removed it completely (here: ANI diff) because Conyo had mentioned it in their reply, and removing it entirely would have removed context. You've already done it now and conversation has already gone on for many hours, so I guess it no longer matters. – 2804:F1...3E:8A14 (::/32) (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

When the thread was started, the starter incorrectly inserted the IP into the markup for Template:Void, probably believing that that's how userlinks are formatted (my theory). Thanks for the extra context. —Alalch E. 17:51, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Satie

Thank you for your comment at AN. Even that "never an infobox" argument was countered: "Um, @SchroCat, I don't think that's true. It looks like an infobox was in this article continuously from May 2010 until August 2019, when it was boldly removed by an editor "per Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Style guidelines#Biographical infoboxes" (an unenforceable WikiProject advice page). It has since been re-added in (that I could easily find in the history) May 2020, May 2024, and February 2025, and re-removed as many times. WhatamIdoing ... 02:49, 28 February 2025" -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:21, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes. IMV it doesn't matter if the premise was factually disproven because the appeal to status quo is inherently a non-functional argument. —Alalch E. 11:26, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

So you think ;) - I found quite entertaining how the same admired editor countered the bolded oppose. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:33, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes... I am sympathetic to all the opposes, but they put on a bad show. Some of their arguments veered into unintentional parody territory, as in: I couldn't have come up with a more counterproductive !vote if I were trying my hardest to troll. There were reasonable ones, like "infobox is not a link-o-box" (I like that) and "The sample infobox tells us that Satie was born in the Second French Empire and died in the Third French Republic" (PamD, who !voted include, agreed). Should have stuck to Tim riley's opinion that the proposed infobox fails to summarize and instead repeats facts in a non-summarizing way, and emphasizes details that are not key facts. None of the opposes cited MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, even though they could have ... as if they treat this part of MoS as a foreign entity (as if it were "policy of the other side"). The supports optically came out as the sole policy-adhering faction through the use of shortcuts. If more participants had simply restated the "doesn't summarize" viewpoint and connected it to MoS, this could have easily been a good no-consensus close. ... BTW, I'm an oppose :) I decided not to !vote after the signature was brought up, but I still lean oppose. For me, User:Fortuna imperatrix mundi's closure is close to being justified. We should apply Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion to it and ignore the "strength in shortcuts" as well. But even then it can never come close enough, because how poorly the oppose case was argued overall. —Alalch E. 15:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I hope you are not sympathetic to the oppose as a user's 6th edit ;) - I wish we could edit infoboxes by simple WP:BRD and not think a battle that seems to have been hot in the 2000s (before I even joined) should go on and on, - I noticed in 2012, Samuel Barber). Are you familiar with the Mozart RfC? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I looked at the Mozart RfC recently while looking at other composer pages. I recognize the impetus for consistency, and understand the belief that readers have a better experience if they are provided a consistent experience (I don't actually think that that's a bad argument, Dronebogus). I'm just a bit skeptical of the general consistency tendency, because I think that there's a lot of bias involved, as in the desire to impose order on a superficial level. —Alalch E. 17:36, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

story · music · places

Thank you for explaining. (I was away, sorry for a late reply.) Thank you also for establishing the consensus although you felt you had to oppose! - I don't think "consistency" is the main argument of those preferring an infobox, but "accessibility". Some standard data in a predictable arrangement: that's just easier when you (as a reader) come with a specific question, or you (as a foreign reader) have trouble with English prose but still want to find out about a topic that may not exist in your native Wikipedia. It's also an advantage that some of these data can be omitted from the lead, such as the places of birth of death, making that lead more concise. My last stories in March are biographies of people who recently died, - perhaps I can interest you ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:01, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Citation date formats

Re: [2]

I just wanted to be sure you know that the cite templates convert everything to mdy format for display. So you're benefiting no one but editors, who I think can handle variations of date format in cites. Also, you're suggesting to newer and even mid-level editors that those formats do affect what readers see—thereby effectively spreading misinformation. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 13:37, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I am aware that they display in the specified format for readers, but have a feeling that it's a little cosmetically nicer if the format is consistent in the wikitext ... assuming that what I did made it more consistent (didn't look very hard). I'm a little too much in the habit of using that script, and you make a good point about "spreading misinformation". Thanks. —Alalch E. 13:40, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Provided you're doing this with full awareness, you're consistent with Talk:Donald Trump#Internal consistency:

Otherwise, coding differences that do not affect what readers see are unimportant. Since they are unimportant, we don't need to revert changes by editors who think they are important (the changes, not the editors:).

―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 13:47, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I did not make a standalone cosmetic edit or revert another editor for cosmetic reasons (not counting the talking summary). I agree with you. —Alalch E. 14:02, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

"Where is Kate?" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Where is Kate? 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 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 3 § Where is Kate? until a consensus is reached. Thryduulf (talk) 09:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Taking this to talk page

Hi Alalch, I am sensing that tensions are rising on the discussion, so I would like to move this here in order to avoid WP:BLUDGEON and to try to keep things civil.

Me adding the additional sentence was totally done in good faith, and in direct response to you proposing an Option 4 which involved substantive changes to the second sentence (thus making it more important context). You and Voorts were drawing attention to it, so in an attempt to improve my background summary and make it more complete, I added it to the "background" purely because I thought it would be helpful. I think my edit summary said something along these lines to ("editors are adding discussion of this sentence in").

Implying that I am engaging in some time of covert or strategic trickery to broaden the scope of the RFC, or "scorched earth tactics" as you say, is WP:ASPERSIONS. I would really appreciate it if you could follow WP:AGF and stop accusing me of intentional bad faith behaviour ("scorched earth"). To the contrary, going through the diffs to try and find a basis to criticize me, making unilateral edits the guideline while discussion is ongoing rersulting in multiple reversions, and then introducing an RFCBEFORE argument only much later in the RFC once it becomes apparent the opposing view is winning, are coming across as quite intimidating and retaliatory (even if you are not intending them that way).

I would really appreciate it if we could try to strike a more civil tone and work together to address these issues. If we agree to ping the handful of voters who voted before the sentence was added and make sure they understand that both sentences would be removed, will that be satisfactory to you? Flip^andFlopped ツ 20:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

They will agree, because they're vested in the outcome, since they have already expressed their advocacy. Basic psychology. This is how we get worse, not better policies. —Alalch E. 20:10, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

After your facetious I think Medxvo's point is that this current wording, you will need to make a new subheading on this RFC and ping everyone for consensus on it when it was you who first did not run an RFCBEFORE, have created a barely-functioning RfC question, and have changed the opening statement of the RfC during its run, and then called my conduct "unseemly", I have nothing else to write to you apart what I have already written on this topic. I would also kindly ask you not to post on my talk page anymore. Regards —Alalch E. 20:17, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I won't. I will just say, I am genuinely sorry for the "unseemly" comment, I should not have said that. It's apparent that you don't believe me, but I really was just trying my best to form a consensus in the face of an issue that I saw affecting the community.

I really hope we can reset and work together in the future if we ever across each other again, because you have a lot of passion and some great, constructive ideas. Thank you, Flip^andFlopped ツ 20:24, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Apology accepted. On reflection, I reacted emotively, as I don't really have it in me to doubt your good faith. I have removed the comment from the talk page, and hope that you will receive my apology as well. —Alalch E. 20:30, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

That's very kind. I appreciate it. I acknowledge that I made some mistakes with the RFC and I regret if it causing any stress for you or others. I certainly will do more WP:RFCBEFORE leg work in the future.

I also do want to say, maybe it was a stupid suggestion, but I genuinely did not intend to be facetious with the new subheading thing. I actually was suggesting it unironically, I thought that when directed to your proposal some of the earlier voters might actually support it if pinged. Flip^andFlopped ツ 20:42, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Also, I removed my own unseemly comment too. Cheers, Flip^andFlopped ツ 20:43, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I'd like you to start considering the concept of applying at ORCP

I'm not sure the reviewers will like you as much as I, but you're consistently doing admirable work, and you might need to take a bit of a pounding at ORCP to extinguish the thought in some users' minds (like mine) you were once an arguably disruptive editor with an account rename and other stuff. I think if you got anywhere over 7/10, you could put yourself on a course towards the mop, if you were so inclined. We need quality help and if you got a decent review, you might apply at one of the next AELECTs. BusterD (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Every ~six months, I remind myself of the commitments I made in my appeal in 2022 (via email, but briefly summarized in my subsequent topic ban appeal). On those occasions I keep remembering how your encouragement helped me, particularly when you said I was "not manic anymore". Since then, I've often asked myself, "Am I being manic?" For some reason, that word has really resonated :) I believe that I have essentially stuck to my commitments, though not without fault, and this talk page currently shows some evidence of that.

I will take a good look at ORCP, as I'd like to do more useful things. I feel like I could be doing more, perhaps in a bit more routine, focused manner. Before considering added privileges, I think I should be doing some more consistent work using the NPP right I already have. Also, I haven't participated in AfD as much as I would like in the past year or so. —Alalch E. 01:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for taking me seriously. WP:ORCP isn't a yes or no thing. It's a well-watched "what is this crazy person asking? (1 to 10)" thing. Nobody may nominate you there except yourself; unless you're utterly unqualified, it's more like calibration than critique. Anybody who really wants to be an admin has disqualified themself, IMQO. FTR, I didn't suggest making this choice today. I just wanted you to know that four years ago I thought you were a bad actor. I still think you were acting rashly; perhaps I was as well. Don't think reviewers are going to forgive you for bold actions taken in your previous incarnation. Yet, you are on my radar as someone I may violently disagree with, yet still respect highly for their judgement. Aren't too many wikipedians I might say that about. I know nothing about you personally, and wish you well. But please consider asking those folks at some point. I think we would all benefit from your diligence and willingness to act reasonably. You might benefit yourself from listening to the advice of editors who truly have Wikipedia's best interest at heart. This sort of feedback might improve your comprehension of your own capabilities. I can find you mentors, if need be. But through combat, so to speak, I'm beginning to know you, to trust you. I respect what I have learned about you. Best wishes, your wikifriend, BusterD (talk) 03:45, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I wanted to say one thing more: it's in your detachment where I have seen the most growth in your last four years. You've seen enough code that it just doesn't excite you anymore. I don't see you as emotion-driven these days. Perhaps your growth has also been my growth, but you and I share some common values which we have together discovered through our disagreements. This is what AGF is all about. This is what Aristotle was saying. As the Wachowskis wrote for Seraph in Reloaded, "You do not truly know someone until you fight them." As a sysop, I want to know the other humans given such permissions are good teammates, good fighters, people I may trust implicitly. BusterD (talk) 11:55, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Not to belabor this, but how about you start doing reviews of other editors when they appear at ORCP? There are two very different candidates there now. How would you feel about either of them getting the mop today (1-10/10)? Don't tell me, tell them. Everybody (with a memory of it) remembers your previous accounts as disruptive. You might bring a unique insight on such an evaluative board. BusterD (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

"Iron sharpens iron; so one person sharpens another." I'll incorporate what you said here in what I remind myself of. Your candid guidance and our friendship as wikifriends mean a lot to me. I can see myself commenting on ORCP. Best wishes to you too. —Alalch E. 02:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Prime

Via link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prime_(drink)&diff=next&oldid=1284364275&diffonly=1

WHAT THE HELL DO YOU MEAN SCHOOL-AGE KIDS DOSEN’T MEAN 6-7 YEAR OLDS?! Are you saying that they’re not school-age? Of course they are! After all, they’re not preschoolers/kindergarteners anymore. Plus, again, know in my mind that teenagers are ages 13 to 18, while both 8-9 year olds and preteens (age 10-12) are, well still children, not teens!

Wiki-Ikiw (talk) 13:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

@Wiki-Ikiw Hello. The phrase "school-age children" means people within the typical age range for primary and secondary education, generally spanning from around 6 years old to 17 or 18. This includes teenagers up to the age of high school graduation. The use of the word "children" is a generalization here, as otherwise we would have to say "school-age children, preadolescents, and adolescents", which is cumbersome and unnatural. The intended meaning is not that teenagers are children. —Alalch E. 17:08, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

New pages patrol May 2025 Backlog drive

May 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 May 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Pages Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)