User talk:Valereee/Archive 35

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30 ← Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 → Archive 40

Jack Mitchell (photographer)

Hi Valereee,

I just saw your message on my talk page re: Jack Mitchell (photographer). These days, I edit only as time permits. Thank you for reaching out. I also had a chance to see the great work you did reviving/restoring that article. As you probably noticed, I threw up my hands on it years ago. After all the work I did convincing Jack to contribute so many extraordinary photos to this project, during his lifetime I was unable to protect either his article or his images as he would have liked. Obviously, I know the very nature of this project is that it's constantly changing - and I made that abundantly clear to him. But I also know that Jack felt terribly disappointed in the way we responded to his remarkable generosity. Sadly, he lived to see all the work I did on his BLP at the time in 2012, removed before his death in 2013. And not until your recent work - some 7 years later - has any of it been restored. Jack was a genuinely lovely and surprisingly generous man. And although we never met in person, after several emails and phone calls, I came to consider him a friend. All of this is likely TMI for you. But I felt, given your work and current request, you deserved the background. Now, I understand you're requesting additional images from the person who controls his estate? What additional images are you asking for and what's the status of that request? X4n6 (talk) 04:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@X4n6, actually, in the time since, I've been in contact with the manager of his estate, and they are (understandably) concerned about further donations lessening the value of the estate. I think we'll just have to go with the images we have! I was really hoping we'd get one of his dancers-in-motions images, but maybe in thirty or so years, when the copyrights start to expire! :)
I'm so sorry to hear that he was disappointed with WP's use of his works. That makes me so sad. I wish I'd come across his article earlier. I truly couldn't believe it when I saw it...I was like, wait, what? —valereee (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
@Valereee, I really am sorry that I wasn't in contact with you earlier. Or in the recent case, sooner. As you've probably figured out, Jack's catalogue is as voluminous as it is extraordinary. While he did more than 30 years of dance shots of virtually everyone famous to countless thousands much less so, as you know, he also shot virtually everyone in the film and television world. From what I believe was John Lennon's last professional session, to what I know was Whitney Houston's first ever professional session. In fact, after Whitney's tragic loss, Jack mentioned to me that he had all these early, unpublished shots of her when she was still in high school. He knew he had been the first pro to shoot her. But he thought her loss meant no one would ever be interested in those photos. I told him he was nuts(!) - because interest in them would actually increase significantly because of the public's increased interest in her life. But Jack had to be convinced to even tell his reps he had them. Finally, I wore him down and he told them. They went crazy for them, sold them immediately for well into six figures, CNN got a temporary exclusive, which they used until the last moment and the photo house owns them to this day. So that was one good thing a WP editor did for him!
But yes, WP didn't give either him or his work the respect he felt came with his generosity. Again, obviously I understand how the project works and I explained that to him. But he always felt the quality of the images he was giving would speak for themselves. So he couldn't understand why, for example, the Alfred Hitchcock page was using a washed out, generic studio shot in the infobox instead of his shot of Hitch, which became the definitive image. I think, even according to Hitch! The same with: Natalie Wood, Meryl Streep, Andy Warhol and John Lennon.
You could say it's just the expected ego of every artist to prefer their own work, but if you see how dramatic the pages are when Jack's work is in the infobox: Truman Capote, Leonard Bernstein, Leontyne Price and Ann Reinking, they do speak for themselves. If nothing else, Jack knew the quality and value of his work. So when Picasso himself gives you an original and you bury it to feature someone else's Polaroid, Pablo could be inclined to wonder why he even bothered. Again, I certainly get that this is a community and everything is constantly changing. But I also know this is also why it's difficult to get folks to make significant donations. You're essentially allowing some nameless wonder to distort, edit or worse, even ignore your work. So in short (too late!), while I certainly wouldn't presume to speak for anyone else, I suspect that may be some of what you encountered with the person in charge of his estate. Not saying you won't ever get any more images. Just saying, without Jack, the likelihood of getting more prominent individuals or signature shots is probably diminished. X4n6 (talk) 01:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
@X4n6 Wow. I really think maybe you should talk to the managers of his estate, whom I believe are beloved friends of his, not just business people and lawyers trying to maximize value. I think your passion might actually be worth approaching them with. I truly would love to get even one of his dancer-in-motion images, even in a small or low-res version, on his article. Do you think you'd be up for that?
I can tell you that if you and they could come to some agreement, I promise I will not let it go to waste while I am able to help. —valereee (talk) 02:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
It's been a while since I've been in touch with his estate. Also, unfortunately, real world issues keep me from being able to devote a lot of time to this at the moment. But if you can identify specific images or types you're looking for and how many you had in mind, it would be helpful. Also, from this point forward, let's discuss by email. Thanks! X4n6 (talk) 03:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

My edit to Positive Illusions

Hello, I removed a twelve-year old tag on Positive Illusions as I don't think it applies anymore. Feel free to review my edit. Firestar464 (talk) 06:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey, @Firestar464! Yes, in my opinion that was a very reasonable removal. My thinking on it was this: there have been many many edits since that tag was placed -- enough so that it's very reasonable to believe over the years whatever tone was considered "off" has been fixed. The person who placed the tag was indeffed ten years ago themselves, so I can't ask them to take another look. A look at the version they tagged shows it at the time had zero inline citations. And a quick skim of the first few paragraphs of the current version didn't raise any major concerns about tone for me. I think you were quite right that the tag was stale. —valereee (talk) 11:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Cheryl Fullerton

I'm wondering, if in the interests of transparency, we should move Cheryl's topic ban proposal to ANI? It's the most obvious place for it, and I don't want any accusations of not being transparent, or trying to shove a polite editor out of the door. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:54, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie333, I have no objection, and I'd have taken the issue there next if we'd asked her to stop directly editing and that didn't stop the disruptiveness. I'm not sure it's necessary, but if you're more comfortable with it, definitely move it! —valereee (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
I think my primary concern is a gut feeling that COIN is more likely to get support, while ANI is more likely to get counter-opposition, which would at least give the impression of being fairer. Anyway, I've started the ANI thread now, so we'll see what happens. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Cleanaway

Just a heads up, I've toned down a lot of the promotional language on the article after you blocked them from editing their own page (at least, it sure looks like them doing it), and added various information I suspect they'd sooner forgot such as court cases with significant impacts. So, as the weekend draws to a close, we can expect to hear from them soon. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 22:08, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 20, 2021)

A computer lab equipped with desktop computers
Hello, Valereee. The article for improvement of the week is:

Desktop computer

Please be bold and help improve it!

Previous selections: Tattoo • Fashion accessory

Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations

Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • Opt-out instructions

Pls revdel

I saw you were active recently at ANI.

Can you perform a revdel for all nine edits of Special:Contributions/2603:8001:400:2:4032:DBCD:8A15:6999? The person has taken a turn for the worse since previous edits from the /64 range Special:Contributions/2603:8001:400:2:0:0:0:0/64. Thanks for your time. Binksternet (talk) 03:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not just the /64, I'm seeing the same vandalism on Special:contribs/2603:8001::/32, e.g. [1]. That's a big range to block though, with good (or at least not-obvious-vandalism) edits on the range as well. Levivich harass/hound 03:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
That range certainly spent much of yesterday focused on African Americans in California. —valereee (talk) 11:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I KNEW it!

Big tobacco's behind the conspiracy to suppress the truth about definite articles. EEng 08:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

And just when we thought we had them on the run. —valereee (talk) 10:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Seriously though, that response from Mardus made even less sense than his arguments about "the". I am struggling to find another way to explain the difference to him. As a native speaker it is not even something I would ever question, let alone need an explanation for. --Khajidha (talk) 13:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Revdel on ANI

Hi, Valeree, what were you trying to do with the revdel on ANI? If it's removing the RL name of the person, then you didn't revdel enough; you'd need to revdel the content of all edits between when you added the content to be removed and when it was redacted in the text, otherwise it will still be trivially visible in the intervening edits. That's a lot of edits, though, and the name is mentioned in other people's edits as well as yours. Otherwise, not sure what the point of revdeling just the one edit is? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Writ Keeper, it wasn't so much the name itself -- which is the user name -- as the question of whether the user was the same person as was mentioned in the book under the same name as the user name. If you have a solution, I'm all for it. :D —valereee (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Ah, okay, I get it. Unfortunately, I don't think there's a great way to handle it AFAIK; we'd have to revdel a full two-plus days' worth of edits to ANI to actually get at it. Honestly, I'd say the best we can do is unrevdel the two revisions--it's not doing us much good, since the stuff in question is still there in all the other revisions--and just leave it with the in-text redaction. Not ideal, but probably better than however many hundreds of edits it would be to do the full revdel. That said, I certainly wouldn't fuss if we feel it's better to just leave well enough alone and leave it as-is, to avoid drawing attention to it even further with more deletion log entries. Whatever you think is best. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
@Writ Keeper, I have pretty much zero opinion other than wanting to respect the other person's concerns. The person objected to my question as outing, and I just wanted to respect that, but as you say, it's really not even possible. What they saw as outing was (to me) a simple connecting of dots here on WP, not bringing in anything from outside. I was just trying to be open to their concern. Whatever you think is best is fine with me. —valereee (talk) 22:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Personal attack over pronouns

Dear Valeree, we wanted to inform you on a "pronoun war" that's been going on on the Dutch wikipedia page of Demi Lovato. As you probably know Lovato came out as non binary and thus the pronouns were changed. This became a problem when two people started changing it back to female pronouns while commenting on it in a rude and disrespectful way. We couldn't find any rules on hate speech and thus we wanted to message an admin directly to ask what we can do. Is there any place where we can properly report hate speech? Thank you, kind regard, J & K

Hi, J&K. Unfortunately there's no place here on English Wikipedia to make such a report, and I don't speak Dutch. If there is a Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard or an Administrators' Noticeboard on the Dutch Wikipedia, that's where you would report this. It looks like nl.wikipedia has a help portal at
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portaal:Hulp_en_beheer/Wikipediagemeenschap#Moderatoren
If you don't see anything there, there's a Help Desk at https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Helpdesk where you can ask. —valereee (talk) 14:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

since you asked ...

Hey there Valereee, how's it goin'? So anyway, I was researching a "ban" discussion on ANI, and I ran across this edit you made a while back. Your edit summary caught my eye because I'm a big fan. Specifically smokestacklightnin.com is an unsecured (FANBOY) website devoted to old blues music. Now, in general: Smokestack Lightning is an old (but classic) blues song by the late great Howlin' Wolf. (yes, I'm a FANBOY for both the artist and the genre). You're probably not interested, most folks these days aren't - but there's still a few old-timers about that enjoy it. Here is a YouTube video/recording if you're curious about the song. There was also a rendition that was really pretty well done in the movie Cadillac Records a few years back too. All probably more than you really wanted to know - but since the opening was there .... :-) — Ched (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ched, actually old time blues is a favorite of mine. My concern was the source rather than the reference, if you see what I mean. :D
And lol on Howlin' Wolf. Yes, I know of him. We had a local radio personality, a huge blues fan himself, who had an ongoing schtick hosting a weekly blues show as "Howlin' Blind Muddy Slim, your 60-minute jelly-belly toe-jam man." :) —valereee (talk) 16:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Cool. I'll come visit. Got my shades 😎, crank up the stereo. Where should I sit? — Ched (talk) 20:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Pretty sure on a bench in a bar with a sticky floor. —valereee (talk) 22:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Run Little Chillun.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Run Little Chillun.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 00:45, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:ITN posting

Hello Valereee, saw you posted the Israel-Palentine ITN blurb. In reference to Wikipedia:In the news/Administrator instructions#Credits - could you give me credit - in Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#(Posted) 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis' Credits section it says Nominated by Starship.paint (talk · give credit) - click on give credit. I've already given credit to the other updaters, so you don't need to do that, but it would be silly for me to credit myself. starship.paint (exalt) 15:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

So sorry, @Starship.paint, I had a feeling there was something I was forgetting! I only work at ITN when they really, really need an admin so I'm never quiiiiiiiite sure I'm doing it right! Thank you so much for giving the other people credit! —valereee (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
It's alright, Valereee, I understood that you weren't a regular at WP:ITN, and surely as busy with other things as well. starship.paint (exalt) 02:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 21, 2021)

Cooked pork chops on a plate
Hello, Valereee. The article for improvement of the week is:

Pork chop

Please be bold and help improve it!

Previous selections: Desktop computer • Tattoo

Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations

Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • Opt-out instructions

My edit

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Primer_(molecular_biology)&diff=1024825953&oldid=1024825805&diffmode=source

I removed the content because it seemed to be promoting the tools as "popular" while linking to them, and talk of online tools was irrelevant anyway. Feel free to review my edit. Firestar464 (talk) 08:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Firestar464, Hm. I think that may have been a too-aggressive edit.
This part: Many online tools are freely available for primer design, some of which focus on specific applications of PCR. The popular tools Primer3Plus and PrimerQuest can be used to find primers matching a wide variety of specifications. Highly degenerate primers for targeting a wide variety of DNA templates can be interactively designed using GeneFISHER. Primers with high specificity for a subset of DNA templates in the presence of many similar variants can be designed using DECIPHER. was added in this edit, without a reference.
The IP's other edits don't appear to be problematic, and they'd only made about three edits at that point, so it's possible this person just didn't know we don't use external links in the body of articles. From the rest of their edits they look like some sort of expert who occasionally adds things they think are missing.
Then Primer design aims to generate a balance between specificity and efficiency of amplification.[1] was appended to the unreferenced paragraph in this edit. This second editor, who has a message on their user talk about struggling with citations, did a very silly thing: They added a sentence and a source to a paragraph which didn't have a source, making it look like the entire paragraph was cited to that source. Obviously the information in the first section can't be sourced to the reference editor #2 provided as that reference is a 1993 journal. There were no freely available online tools for anything in 1993.
So I think you should revert and instead I'd recommend this:
  • Remove the external links.
  • Check if we have an article about any of the tools. If we do, you can probably link to those articles. If we don't, you can either leave them out of the sentence or redlink them. At some point someone did that with an external link the IP had also added for DECIPHER -- they removed the external link and replaced it with a link to our article DECIPHER.
  • Add "As of 2014" before "Many online tools" and change "are available" to "were available".
  • Remove the word popular; without a source we can't say that in wikivoice, and since this information was added seven years ago it could be out of date -- maybe those tools aren't even popular any more.
  • Add a citation needed tag after DECIPHER. —valereee (talk) 11:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Dieffenbach, C W; Lowe, T M; Dveksler, G S (1993). "General concepts for PCR primer design". Genome Research. 3: S30-S37. Retrieved 23 June 2017.

User:Pce1984

Hey. This is the user, now renamed, that you'd blocked from editing the Cleanaway article for undisclosed paid editing. It looks like their actions were down to genuine ignorance rather than malice or subterfuge, and they're making serious good faith efforts to assist with article improvements. They've clearly noticed and agreed with my edit summary adding an image and are working on sourcing a new one, and are engaging on the article's talk page as well.

I'm not sure how this all works, but would you be willing to unblock them as a show of good faith? They have promised more than once to never again edit the page directly, and have been diligently making sure their paid status is fully declared. As I said to them on their talk, I do think having them about is a net positive despite the rocky start, and it would be a nice gesture to remove the big red "currently partially blocked" notice from the top of their contributions page.

Don't know if that's possible! But thanks either way for reading this and considering. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, IP! I've unblocked! —valereee (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much! I must admit I expected things to go badly when they next logged on, and the fact they haven't has been a very, very pleasant surprise. Credit where credit's due. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

When is hard news not hard news?

When it's Soft media or Infotainment! Get it? Because they're opposites!

Seriously though, no patronizing riddles, straight brass tacks, it's News you can use. Not saying you must, not saying you were wrong to not think of it sooner, not calling you a corrupt 1940's government agent (Axis or Allied). Just think about it. The news doesn't need our help in turning people around 180 degrees from the thing they clicked to see, we rely on them for that. Keep 'em honest?

Barring that, it would be nice to see Wikipedia go full Opposite Day with redirects for a month, only to see the drama boards not explode in outraged lulz and eyeroll emoji for once, cheers! InedibleHulk (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Well DUH. It had been redirecting to Infotainment, and I thought soft media was at least an improvement from that once I'd added a bit. :D
I added a bit to the lead there to make it clearer. Thanks! —valereee (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Definitely better, just not best, fair enough (for now)! InedibleHulk (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Just noticed it was you who "quoted" the hard news. Sorry if my later edit summary seemed strange, cryptic or "SHOUTING AT YOU". I intended that shouting for emphasis, not anger, and just aimed generally into the dark for anyone who happens to stumble across an old-fashioned "Grammar Slam" online and might consider it at least considerable. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
@InedibleHulk, no worries, I went back and forth on the quotes. :) I was like..."is it so-called? In quotes? Just bolded?" I figured someone would be along with an opinion. —valereee (talk) 10:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
I just dropped another "G-Bomb" on Piano, but go slow, "it ain't worth the trip". InedibleHulk (talk) 10:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
And by "just noticed", I mean "late yesterday". Just now I noticed a real hard change. You're the best! InedibleHulk (talk) 09:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

June 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | June 2021, Volume 7, Issue 6, Numbers 184, 188, 196, 199, 200, 201


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

things happen

(continuing from DYK) timeline further: When the page Harnoncourt was moved (forgot which day, doesn't matter enough to look up), I remembered that the conductor has three brothers who deserve an article. I looked up the one I thought of next: birthday in August, then looked at Philipp: birthday in April, had just passed, but day of death 25 May lay ahead, so I began 8 May. I am not particularly interested in days of death, it was just a reason to start. The article in German is long and practically without inline citations, so it took me the week permitted to nominate. You know the rest. Came an extra diligent reviewer, + Pentecost when I was really away. Thank you for understanding and making an exception when needed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt, no worries, I'm happy to make an exception when I see a good reason, and in this case I did. :) I wasn't trying to come down on you, just really if you think a date request is important, please give other people more time, especially when we're in two-a-days and everyone is putting in extra time. If you had even just asked Drmies to place the spec occ request in the holding area as soon as it occurred to you, that would help. Once someone else has placed the spec occ request, you can even add the hidden comment to the prep so that prep builders know something is coming and to leave room for it. You make so many special occasion requests that when one comes along that really is a special occasion, other editors may assume it's just another mundane anniversary and not look closely enough at it. I almost just didn't bother to look, but the please please please made me think 'ok, maybe this one is actually important'. :D —valereee (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for one of many exceptions needed to make it happen. See my talk today, - it's rare that a person is pictured when a dream comes true, and that the picture is shown on the Main page on a meaningful day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 22, 2021)

A trench digger being used in Baku, Azerbaijan
Hello, Valereee. The article for improvement of the week is:

Trench

Please be bold and help improve it!

Previous selections: Pork chop • Desktop computer

Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations

Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 31 May 2021 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • Opt-out instructions

DYK for Meredith Clark

On 1 June 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Meredith Clark, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Meredith Clark (pictured) is "the go-to person about Black Twitter", according to NPR? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Meredith Clark. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Meredith Clark), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 21

News and updates associated with user scripts from the past four months (February through May 2021).

Hello everyone and welcome to the 21st issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter:

My apologies for this long-overdue issue, and if I missed any scripts.
Hopefully going forward we can go back to monthly releases - any help would be appreciated. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Electronic missive

Hello, Valereee. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

GirthSummit (blether) 16:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 23, 2021)

200th Anniversary of Berlin Academy, 1900
Hello, Valereee. The article for improvement of the week is:

Learned society

Please be bold and help improve it!

Previous selections: Trench • Pork chop

Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations

Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • Opt-out instructions

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic James Charles (Internet personality).

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

benǝʇᴉɯ 22:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

got it, thanks! —valereee (talk) 22:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2021).

Administrator changes

added Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless
removed Husond • MattWade • MJCdetroit • Carioca • Vague Rant • Kingboyk • Thunderboltz • Gwen Gale • AniMate • SlimVirgin (deceased)

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: May 2021



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Move/delete request for Draft:Public image of Donald Trump

Valereee, could you either delete Draft:Public image of Donald Trump or move User:Kolya Butternut/Public image of Donald Trump into its place? The original draft has not been edited by a human in six months. I had created a new draft in my userspace due to an IBAN. I asked another admin who was not interested. [2] Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure I should, either, actually -- you and I have had discussion off-wiki, so it's probably best to find someone completely uninvolved. —valereee (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Firestar464

After checking Firestar464's most recent anti-vandalism edits, I have decided to stop mentoring him because he no longer needs it. I could not find anything wrong with what he did on June 1, but I was not feeling well enough to definitively say. I am happy I was able to help prevent an outcome that would have personally upset me. On another note, after this week's events, I have decided to make changes to my life that will help me think more rationally. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Q

I can't tell in that discussion what "Guy's idea" is. EEng 15:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry: Guy's idea is, on talk pages of protected articles that are getting large numbers of new editors coming in to make edit requests, admins may remove the 'post an edit request' button and replace it with a 'start a new section' button. This will keep dozens of bad edit requests from being made. I was thinking this could partially solve the problem of those patrolling requested edits coming into pages that were fully-staffed and giving unhelpful responses to edit requests. —valereee (talk) 16:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Well that would help, but it's not as good as the stuff you and I were talking about. I've been putting that off way too long, and you've been very patient. How about we pick up that discussion (above on this page) and see if we can get it to where we want to make a proposal somewhere. (But AN isn't the right place for such a discussion, is it?) Extra thought: you and I discuss, then bring in Guy, then we jointly propose somewhere. Ready? EEng 23:21, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Sure! —valereee (talk) 16:01, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
I was afraid you'd say that. All right, deep breath... EEng 16:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 24, 2021)

Hello, Valereee. The article for improvement of the week is:

Savoriness

Please be bold and help improve it!

Previous selections: Learned society • Trench

Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations

Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • Opt-out instructions

Editing news 2021 #2

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter

Junior contributors comment completion rate across all participating Wikipedias
When newcomers had the Reply tool and tried to post on a talk page, they were more successful at posting a comment. (Source)

Earlier this year, the Editing team ran a large study of the Reply Tool. The main goal was to find out whether the Reply Tool helped newer editors communicate on wiki. The second goal was to see whether the comments that newer editors made using the tool needed to be reverted more frequently than comments newer editors made with the existing wikitext page editor.

The key results were:

  • Newer editors who had automatic ("default on") access to the Reply tool were more likely to post a comment on a talk page.
  • The comments that newer editors made with the Reply Tool were also less likely to be reverted than the comments that newer editors made with page editing.

These results give the Editing team confidence that the tool is helpful.

Looking ahead

The team is planning to make the Reply tool available to everyone as an opt-out preference in the coming months. This has already happened at the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedias.

The next step is to resolve a technical challenge. Then, they will deploy the Reply tool first to the Wikipedias that participated in the study. After that, they will deploy it, in stages, to the other Wikipedias and all WMF-hosted wikis.

You can turn on "Discussion Tools" in Beta Features now. After you get the Reply tool, you can change your preferences at any time in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion.

–Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk)

00:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Now reading...

A Hebrew translation of Bruce Sterling's (ed.) Mirrorshades: The Cyberpunk Anthology (1986). It's taking me places. El_C 00:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@El C, I've never been a big consumer of short stories, but I might give that a go. 80s cyberpunk sounds interesting! :D —valereee (talk) 09:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
In fairness, I've just started it, but so far I like what I'm seeing. I've read it once before many, many years ago, but since I've become more into fantasy than the harder sci-fi of my youth, it's been pretty much relegated to the wayside of my library. Will let you know how I find the entire anthology once I finish.📖 El_C 14:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
It's taking me a bit longer than expected to finish, but certainly not due to lack of interest. Now half-way through, I've been finding most of the novellas to be nothing short of true masterpieces. But I can also see why it didn't appeal to me that much when I was younger. The prose does tend toward the expressionist and the surreal, often to the point of reading like a fever dream. Even when the prose is more straight-forward, many of the stories veer toward the plain bizarre. Like, for example, Greg Bear's Petra, which depicts a world where the (presumed) death/absence of God leads to the de-coherence of reality itself. So, not for the faint of heart! Will follow up once I'm done (done-done). El_C 15:44, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
That is so interesting...must have been an interesting translation effort. Now I really want to find it so I can report back on how surreal it is in English... —valereee (talk) 16:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes! Emanuel Lotem is the country's preeminent English-to-Hebrew sci-fi and fantasy translator (he's also one the founders of the Israeli Society for Science Fiction and Fantasy). For example, he translated all of the The Lord of the Rings (and beyond), brilliantly modernizing from the rather archaic language of The Hobbit. Huge fan. El_C 16:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Well, where the heck is Emanuel Lotem? —valereee (talk) 16:50, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Ugh! Hanging out with Guy Mazig [he], I presume... They are basically best friends! El_C 17:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Now  Done. So, yeah, wild ride! I so enjoyed it. Short story month now continues with a Hebrew translation of John Cheever's The World of Apples (https://www.nytimes.com/1973/05/20/archives/the-world-of-apples-cheever-at-his-best-as-if-he-were-growing.html). Let's go! El_C 03:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

DRV Ruling

Hi, there is currently a DRV (that admittedly I am involved in) that is a SNOW relist and I accept that. Since you are definitely not involved in any way, would you consider relisting the article to AfD. If you chose not to, I understand. I just want to put that entire stressful thing behind all of us.

In case you are wondering, you were the admin at the top of the history for ANI when I clicked "view history". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey, @Neutralhomer, I'm actually on my way out the door, but maybe tomorrow I can take a look! —valereee (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
No worries. :) Safe travels wherever you are headed. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Just walking out to friends for drinks, but thanks! —valereee (talk) 22:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
I owe you an apology. I have never seen such insanity at that DRV. I thought that would be an easy and uncontroversial relist. I didn't think it would crater like that. My sincerest apologizes. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:57, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Don't worry about it, seriously. I am so shocked myself that it's almost entertaining. Seriously these folks apparently think there was some...conspiracy...? Totally not your fault. I'd actually be interested in hearing why you think it happened. I've seen many of those folks around and haven't thought they seemed nuts. What happened? —valereee (talk) 02:12, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) sigh, good example of people ignoring "assume good faith". Elli (talk | contribs) 02:36, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
@Elli, is this something you've had experience with? I actually haven't. I'm completely shocked. —valereee (talk) 02:45, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Not exactly this I guess - but I've seen similar behavior elsewhere. The only thing you can do is step back, really. It's not worth it to engage. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:47, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
I think it's worth it to engage. If people are dealing with good faith efforts to help with hostility, we should be talking. If there's a counterproductive subculture in DRV, we should be dealing with that. —valereee (talk) 02:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Do you mean the DRV or what's going on with everyone's behavior? The DRV, that's because Superastig (signs as Astig) closed the AfD in question, but was involved in others with Keep !votes. He didn't !vote in this AfD and he closed it by the !votes 3-1 to Keep. Clearly everyone thought otherwise, I disagree, but such is life. OK, we don't need to drag it out. It's a clear SNOW relist and we don't need to go to another forum when they will just do what you can do anyway.
If you are meaning everyone's behavior....uh? I have no clue. That's a new one on me. We are working on an RfC for WP:NMEDIA, so they are a little riled up right now (they disagree with it, I agree with the current and new writings). But right now, I've never seen anyone basically tell an admin what to do. The whole thing is nutso.
I just never thought it would be like that. They wanted it relisted. That's what, I assumed, you were going to do. I wasn't going to object, clearly, or I wouldn't have called an admin in. I was one of the Keep !votes. So, I'm at a loss. I honestly am. If I could put emotion into black and white text, I would, but I honestly don't know how better to say it. I'm at a loss. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
It is not that complicated. My point is that participants should not invite closers to close. It is regrettably distracting. Energy should be devoted to Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(media)#Status, which might make a lot moot. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe, your behavior at that discussion was actively hostile for absolutely no reason. If I'd seen you behaving that way toward someone else I'd be leaving a warning at your talk. I don't know what your problem is, but that is not how well-intentioned editors behave to uninvolved and also well-intentioned editors who show up at discussions to try to help. —valereee (talk) 10:42, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
I am sorry that you feel that way. I did not mean to offend you. Disagree strongly about “no reason”, as participants calling in their personal choice of admin for a speedy close is not ok. I really am surprised myself that you claim to not know the problem with that. Clearly, we are looking at that DRV from very different directions. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe, NH asked an uninvolved admin to take a look at a discussion. That is generally okay. To me it looked like it could be SNOW closed early, which is also generally okay. Why, in this case, would it not be okay? And what "very different directions" are we looking at DRV from? Are you saying it is a place where only regulars should try to work? Are you saying it's such a hotbed of nefarious interference that unlike other areas of WP, it's off limits for asking an uninvolved admin to take a look?
There was no 'calling in their personal choice'. They picked an uninvolved admin. Whether or not you believe they chose at random, there is absolutely nothing in my edit history that could possibly point to me being friendly with them or to having a axe to grind about radio stations or even to be deletionist/inclusionist. There just isn't. I've barely interacted with them, the closest I've come to radio stations is at DYK, and my AfD stats show nothing like that. So it doesn't even really matter whether they chose in some completely random way. They say they just went to ANI and clicked on the topmost admin in the edit history. Completely believable, since I was actively working there at the time, but again it doesn't matter because I'm completely uninvolved.
The funny part is, I was going to close both discussions in the direction you prefer and they don't. You know what would be really funny is if the silly discussion had to be listed at RfC and wait three days for someone to close it. :D —valereee (talk) 11:48, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Actually, that would be funny. :) I mean, I don't mind waiting around for 3 days. Personally, I was trying to speed up the process for them. But, hey, if the discussion goes to RfC and more eyes get on it...more the merrier. :) It might just turn the tide. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:52, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant requests for closure, not RfC. I've made that mistake before. —valereee (talk) 12:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
No worries, it happens. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Valereee, you most certainly did not deserve any of this. My apologies. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:22, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Apology accepted, with thanks, and you might want to apologize to NH, too. —valereee (talk) 12:42, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Some things irritated me, including NH, and I deny simply abandoning AGF, but it is complicated and confused and long-since way out of proportion. If you think NH deserves an apology, then surely they do, and I apologise. In particular I apologise for stress and ill feelings that I have generated or exacerbated. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, and no worries, I'm sure I've done worse. :) —valereee (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
"You're irritating, then, since you forced it out of me, I'm sorry." I'm not sure if I should take that as an insult or a compliment....or a compliment then an insult. Either way, not a great apology. But, I appreciate I have irritated at least one more person. :) Three more and I get a free sandwich. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@SmokeyJoe: I take offense that I "called in" Valereee and she was my "personal choice". As explained, she was chosen at random. Next time, I will take video of my random choice to back myself up as proof as you clearly don't believe that. You need to stop throwing wild accusations around about me. One, you are on an admin's talk page. Two, you've done it once and I let it go. This time, I am going to warn you....do not let it happen again. A third time, I will ask for you to be either blocked or topic-banned for BATTLEGROUND behavior and accusations that are easily swatted down. Stop now. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:50, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Fair point. I don't feel I can warn SJ at this point, as I do feel I'm now involved w/re this discussion among the three of us, but you're right that these are accusations of bad faith that haven't been supported by any evidence, and they've now been made multiple times. —valereee (talk) 12:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
I kinda feel that's what SJ wanted, was you to be involved so you couldn't affectively do your job as an admin. That's just my opinion, though. Anyway, I do again apologize. This is a wild discussion, both here (not with you) and at DRV. I can honestly say, this will go into my history books. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Let's try to AGF. :D And now I believe I'll archive this. —valereee (talk) 15:01, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Valereee/Archive_35&oldid=1142708677"