User talk:Alssa1

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions.

Hi. When you recently edited Pak Hon-yong, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Korean (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alssa1. I think AE is being misused quite a bit at the moment. It's not the right way to settle content disputes. Do you want me to open up a discussion on the talk page [[1]]? That might be a better way to discuss what term to use, and will also be a reference for anyone looking at the article. Regards. --Flexdream (talk) 13:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alssa1. I second what Flexdream has told you. You've strayed into a very contentious area and it isn't worth sticking to your principles for a couple of words on a page. I would suggest you be honest with the sysops on the AE page and tell them you weren't aware of what 1RR was and also (very much) throw yourself at their mercy. Don't edit war is the answer. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply on my talk page. I made the same mistake as you. This isn't about fairness or being able to discuss content. You are up against experienced gamers who will hound you to make mistakes and when you do they will complain about you and you will have no comeback (as now) because you fell into the trap. You must always abide by Wikipedia rules, even when it seems frustrating and unfair that others are able to trash your work without so much as a by your leave. My comments are very well intended and I hope I can persuade you to take the proper action at AE to avoid a ban because that would demoralise you and I can see you have been a useful editor in the past. Be warned though: any article to do with Irish Republicanism is guarded by a band of followers and they will prevent you from making alterations without their permission. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alssa1. There's now a section on the talk page you can use [[2]]. The 1RR rule doesn't apply on the talk page, as you wont be making any reverts their, just adding comments. Feel free to post to my talk page or email me if there's anything you're unsure about. Regards.--Flexdream (talk) 14:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alssa1 thank you for your further reply on my talk page. I am very sorry to say that you are correct. Some groups do band together to make articles they guard uneditable. They enforce this in a number of ways, one of which is to start an edit war then sound really hurt when they file a complaint against the unwary who breach the 1RR rule on contentious articles. You've fallen victim to that. For the record, any article which concerns the Irish Troubles is subject to this restriction. If you change something and someone changes it back then you must wait 24 hours before reverting them. Then they, or another member of their "tag team" will immediately revert you again. You may raise objections on the talk page but you will be swamped by the team who will rubbish your opinions and sources. It takes a lot of patience to have any edit you wish to make acceptable and often only by following the very complex grievance procedures which exist on the wiki. Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings Bach but that's how it is. Please hear what I'm saying and get over this hump quickly. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alssa. Have a look at [[3]]. I think it might help you just to step back at bit. Maybe see how the discussion on the Sinn Fein talk page goes first. Its only just got going so you can see who else wants to contribute to that first. Any contentious edits to articles should not be marked 'minor'. If you are unsure of procedure you can ask. Regards. --Flexdream (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I hope your recent AE block won't stop you contributing to wikipedia. You seem to have a wide range of interests. There are lots of uncontroversial topics you can contribute to. All the best. --Flexdream (talk) 21:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

——SerialNumber54129 22:36, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please vote now now changes to page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brexit_Party#Polling_day._Vote_now!

Thanks Reaper7 (talk) 12:42, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen The Canary has come up yet again at the RSP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:_The_Canary BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comment here, in case you’re not aware the OP was at ANI and is currently on a block for personal attacks and edit-warring at this article. DeCausa (talk) 12:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found the book which was used in the article, and managed to find the pages and sources for statements in the article, thus added them. I don't think it has many reasons to be deleted anymore. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 11:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The issues with sources have been kindly fixed by another user, and if that is not satisfactory for you, further work can and will be done.

Furthermore, there are plenty of other articles about regional subethnic groups on Wikipedia, for example the articles about the Zans and Sandomierzacy. A modern Northumbrian identity has most certainly arisen in the modern era and has its roots in 19th century romantic regionalism, while it is not strong enough to define Northumbrians as separate from the English at large, it most certainly exists.

I think you can remove the template now.

--DogOfDoom (talk) 14:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alssa1,

I notice my assessment of the George Jackson (activist) article was reverted without explanation. What did I do wrong? Please explain the reasons for your reversion on the article's talk page. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 09:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You reverted an edit by User:Misinformation Hater, and you left a warning--but you left that warning much, much later (and didn't sign it). If you had left it right away, that user could be blocked already. As a result, they were able to vandalize the article one more time, and another one as well. Please leave warnings immediately. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alssa1, I found a cite for the paragraph with the dead link and restored it. Whizz40 (talk) 06:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mutt Lunker is a renowned and rabid "Scottish" regionalist/separatist hellbent on dogmatically enforcing his own skewed perception of British Isles identities onto what is supposed to be a (relatively) objective encyclopedia. I suggest bringing up the following points with him, but do expect it to fall on deaf ears, as well as for him to almost certainly band together with a group of likeminded cretinous editors to get you permanently banned from editing Wikipedia over some laughably pedantic or just blatantly untrue rule infringement (as I've seen him do to several goodfaith editors over the past few years):

"Why is Craig Ferguson Scottish? Where has he stated his nationality is 'Scottish'? Where has he stated his nationality is NOT British or that he merely holds a British passport and does not identity with that nationality (British) in addition to identifying with various regional identities as well?"

It seems particular editors are impressing upon many/all British public figures various regional identities THEY would like to be recognized as national identities. I'm from Glasgow. Most people from Glasgow strongly identify as Glaswegians. Glaswegian is not a nationality according to Wikipedia. Glaswegian is not an ethnic group according to Wikipedia. Every argument made to suggest 'Scottish' is a nationality/ethnic group however COULD be applied to Glaswegians to support the notion that THEY were a distinct ethnic group. So why are they not recognized as a distinct ethnic group by Wikipedia? It's all very tiring and very exhausting. Calling a regional identity an ethnic group or a nation does not magically make it one. Scotland is not a nation and Scottish people (or at least what is perceived to be "Scottish" today) are not a distinct ethnic group. An ethnic group is not merely a 'group of people who identify with one another' as these editors have so hamfistedly have tried to enforce on this encyclopedia. Just like Star Trek fans are not an 'ethnic group'.

This is the latest block-evading sock of User:92.14.216.40. If I have ever engaged with them regarding anything other than their block evasion, I have no recollection, and I if I have it will not have been to express the supposed views misattributed to me above. One might reasonably assume that these views are instead a mirror image of the POV they are pushing, whatever that would be. Interesting to note that the agenda of the (other) block-evading sock at the Ferguson article (User:188.39.36.138 & farm) appears to be to expunge the description of "Scottish" from individuals that are baddies or that they otherwise don't like, or that don't seem to fulfil their rigorous qualification criteria for being Scottish enough. Why would a supposed rabid blah-blah revert a kindred spirit rabid..? Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And what exactly is their 'rigorous qualification criteria' for being "Scottish", the strength of their accent(s)? Lmao. How averse they are to all things English? How adept they are at mental gymnastics? I'd LOVE to know ANYONE'S criteria for being "Scottish", regardless of how frail it is. That would at least be SOMETHING instead of just 'not English' (me thinks the lady, and all that...).

That you ask me somewhat indicates an inability to grasp the point. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No idea why any of you think it's appropriate to have a discussion of this nature on my talkpage... Alssa1 (talk) 14:27, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have shown yourself to be unfamiliar with the rules of Wikipedia and to be very rude and pompous. --Kitchen Knife (talk) 21:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've made one for me... Alssa1 (talk) 22:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for removal of SCG from Webbe's infobox was given approx five edits before your reinstatement of it, ie per talk page. - Sitush (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good day Alyssa, it would seem by your edit on the page regarding English people that you disagree with the ethnic relation of the English with other Germanic-speaking peoples, despite studies done on their historic and ethnic relations which are mentioned in the page itself, and I'm curious as to your reasoning regarding the reverting of that information. Sterlingw99 (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, a good day to you too. This is topic that is part of long discussion which I've been a part of, you can see a portion of it here: Talk:English_people#Germanic_and_Frisian_links. Alssa1 (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Genuinely curious as to why you thought it necessary to delete Nuala Ní Dhomhnaill from the list of well-known Irish writers (in the article "Irish People"). She is the best-known poet writing in Irish of the past 40 years and has lectured and read across the globe. Cursory internet searches readily reveal this.

Many thanks! IRideBikes25 (talk) 03:46, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@IRideBikes25: Hi there. It's a question of numbers and prominence. We have 9 other writers (who I would argue are far prominent than Dhomhnaill) listed in the lead already; the lead of Irish people does not exist to list every Irish writer, poet, explorer in history. Furthermore, Dhomhnaill may possibly be a prominent poet in the modern Irish language, but that is quite a niche subject when compared to the entirety of Irish literature and I therefore question the need to list her in the lead. Alssa1 (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response! I can understand your reluctance to include Ní Dhomhnaill in the top of the article - while she is renowned, she's also alive and still writing, and she doesn't have the same caché of a Bram Stocker! Upon further reflection, I think my main concern is ultimately that the introduction, and the list in question, doesn’t reflect 1,500 years of writing and poetry in Irish (both pre- and post-Norman and/or Elizabethan conquest). To your point, in the grand scheme of things, a literary culture in English in Ireland has only existed for a few hundred years - which is actually a relatively small period of time, rich as its fruits have been! I wonder what's the best way to address this in the introduction of this particular entry. I'll mention this in the talk page.

Many thanks again for your thoughts! IRideBikes25 (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So I have taken into account your criticisms, altered quite a bit of wording to remove POV perspectives and used scholarly sources. Your last undo makes no sense and it now seems deliberately obscurant. Docktuh (talk) 01:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You inserted: "National syndicalism differs greatly from its nominal parent ideology", what is the source that explicitly justifies this specific claim? Alssa1 (talk) 01:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I preceded to list, with scholarly sources, all the ways in which it differs. There was nothing incorrect about the many differences that were listed, even if the first sentence could be seen as questionable (which I maintain it wasn't, given everything stated after). Docktuh (talk) 01:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." Source: WP:SYNTH. Alssa1 (talk) 02:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So your objection is simply to the first sentence I used? Docktuh (talk) 07:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My issue is with the WP:SYNTH. The first sentence is just a demonstration of the issue. You can't say 'syndicalists believe X, national syndicalists believe Y, therefore Z'. As the rules surrounding SYNTH say: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." Do you not see how cobbling together a narrative from multiple areas when the reliable sources don't explicitly say something is against the guidance? Alssa1 (talk) 12:39, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK so my last edit was completely free of WP:SYNTH because all I did was add-on to the parts you clearly had no issue with, so now this seems like you're doing it to do it, so I'm going to request arbitration. Docktuh (talk) 13:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly we should be having the discussion on the talk page, not my personal talk page. Secondly, we should discuss the terminology together based on the sources rather than repeatedly making edits to the main part of the page. If you want to take it to arbitration, that's fine. But I don't agree that your last edit was free of SYNTH, which is why I said it wasn't. Alssa1 (talk) 14:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK I put another entry into the talk page on that article. Docktuh (talk) 04:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The citation you complained about being incorrect is actually correct. Please note that academic articles are sometimes published by compilation into a book around a common theme.

The reference refers to chapter 28A in the book, A Companion to the History of Economic Thought (Blackwell Publishing), edited by Warren Samuels; Jeff E. Biddle; John B. Davis. The chapter is titled "The Austrian School of Economics 1950–2000", and is written by Peter J. Boettke and Peter T. Leeson. This is the correct way to cite that chapter:

Boettke, Peter J.; Peter T. Leeson (2003). "28A: The Austrian School of Economics 1950–2000". In Warren Samuels; Jeff E. Biddle; John B. Davis (eds.). A Companion to the History of Economic Thought. Blackwell Publishing. pp. 446–52. ISBN 978-0-631-22573-7.

rgds, LK (talk) 01:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lawrencekhoo: It references 6 pages as a source to the claim that the Austrian school is an example of heterodox economics. I can't see anywhere in that book where it makes that claim. Do you know which page specifically that claim is on? Alssa1 (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't access the article in the book, can I suggest this article by Boettke on his website. Keep in mind that Boettke is an Austrian economist. When he says that Austrian economics is not mainstream, you can pretty much rely on it. LK (talk) 05:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say I couldn't access the article in the book... Alssa1 (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November songs

... for a constructive comment in the Laurence Olivier RfC, to which I referred in my arbcand questions. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:44, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-white racism in Africa has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Bretons, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:50, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't demonstrated it to be incorrect, nor was I the original editor. Alssa1 (talk) 12:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how this works. You reinstated the categorisation, and categorisation needs to be based on verifiable content in the article. See WP:CATV. The onus is on the editor adding material to provide reliable sources. In this case, you're (re-)adding a category when there's not even material in the article to support that categorisation, let alone sources. Nowhere does the article describe Bretons as indigenous. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:54, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alssa, when adding an educational institution to an infobox, please add it in the "Education" field rather than the "Alma mater" field, unless it is an institution of higher learning (that would normally mean a university or, in American parlance, a college), and especially if the subject did not graduate. See Template:Infobox person. If the field isn't present in a truncated infobox, simply change the "alma mater" field to "education". Thank you! Softlavender (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Alssa1: Can you take cognizance that alma mater as a term or a concept is unknown in Europe. Nobody here knows what it means. When they see it in an infobox of a European person, it might as well be in Russian. Its not a known thing. I think that is what Softlavender is alluding to. Morning @Softlavender:. scope_creep^Talk 09:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: as a European, I can guarantee to you that an 'alma mater' is a term/concept that is known in Europe. Alssa1 (talk) 00:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I was alluding to. The "alma mater" field is fine for graduates of institutions of higher learning (i.e. universities), per Template:Infobox person. It is not fine for people like actors etc. who attended a drama school. Softlavender (talk) 18:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These are opinions, saying it is not 'fine' for actors who attended drama is your viewpoint, but is not one I share. Alssa1 (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per Template:Infobox person, the "alma mater" is for an "institution of higher education (not secondary schools)". Many of the acting schools you have been adding were attended by the person as a vocational school, not as an institution of higher learning (a bachelors or masters degree was not earned by the person). In those cases, please use the "education" field instead so that other editors do not have to correct your work. (To avoid having to check each one carefully, it is easier to simply always use the "education" field for performing artists.) Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 04:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We're not talking about a secondary school here, we're talking about institutions that offer Bachelor-level (and above) qualifications... Alssa1 (talk) 10:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm TJRC. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Vanessa-Mae, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. TJRC (talk) 00:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can imagine that you are passionate about this but the source does not back up that the Economic Freedom Fighters are antisemitic. In fact, this Israeli source says a lot of unfriendly things about the EFF, but not that they are antisemitic. Please keep this neutral. Please look at WP:NPOV. The Banner talk 00:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't answered what I wrote in the edit summary... Alssa1 (talk) 00:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm The Banner. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Gaels have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. The Banner talk 11:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]