User talk:Valereee/Archive 34

DYK prep 2 double-check
Hi valereee. I see the notice on your userpage so I'll grab somebody else's attention if you understandably can't reply in the next 48 hours. I was heading to Yoninah's talk page to ask a question and take her up on the suggestion she made to me a while ago that I could build a DYK prep set when I learned of her passing. I see that you've been helping people a lot with the prep building that's needed in Yoninah's absence. I felt moved to build Template:Did you know/Preparation area 2 and would like a double-check by someone experienced as it's my first time. The headlines are: check the hook is in the article and sourced; trim the wording if easily possible; use DYKmake for the credits to be bot-delivered; don't put two hooks on the same topic consecutively, end on a quirky one and aim for half US (tick) and half bio (only two in the end). Made some notes as I was going along. Have I missed anything? Does the prep set have any obvious issues? — Bilorv ( talk ) 04:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * @Bilorv, I'd be delighted to! I have a busy morning but can definitely start on it late this afternoon and finish up by tomorrow, if that works for you! —valereee (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, that sounds great. — Bilorv ( talk ) 14:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Got busy this afternoon, but I will look at this first thing in the morning! —valereee (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

assess
, it's a good prep. Is the reason you only included two bios that we are short on them? And is the reason you included so many arts/entertainment because we are swimming in them at the moment? One thing you might consider is looking at other full preps and seeing if one of them is bio-heavy and could use an arts/entertainment swap. (Sorry, I'm a little out of the loop on what's in current prep sets/approved list right now.) —valereee (talk) 11:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Good choice of image slot, as the day before's was a bio, and this is a compelling image.
 * Lack of four bios is an issue unless we are so low on bios that it's not really reasonable to do 4. Ideally we alternate within a prep, bio/non-bio. If we don't include that many, eventually we can end up with a set that is all bio.
 * The prep is very arts/entertainment heavy. It's not necessarily a problem -- we can only use what people are submitting, and if we're getting large numbers of arts/entertainment, that's what we have to work with -- but four is a lot. There's a painting, a song, a play, and a movie, so it's not that there are, say, two music hooks. But unless we are overwhelmed with arts/entertainment hooks, multiple in one set can mean there are fewer such hooks for future sets. Also if arts and entertainment is a particular interest of yours, you might be aware of your likelihood to be attracted by such hooks and try to choose a more diverse group. I have to remind myself to include sports hooks when we've got a lot of them. :)
 * You've got a Gerda hook, that's good, probably more than half of preps need to include one.
 * You don't have one from Cwmhiraeth. That's not a problem, of course, but be aware that because she does so many noms (and therefore so many reviews) that since she can't promote a hook she's nom'd or reviewed, if you can fit one of hers into a set, it's helpful. Plus her hooks are usually nature, which in the case of this set would have helped provide balance.
 * Thanks for the feedback, Valereee! Unfortunately I don't think any of the oldids will show the version of the approved page I saw. I was looking from the top down and trying to get as much variety as I could, so I was seeing a shortage of bios among hooks that had been approved for at least a fortnight (of which there might have been 50–100). I think the queues are consistently under-half bios at the moment but I have swapped a bio out in a prep that had 4, to make it 3 and 3 (as most of the other prep sets contain 3). I was thinking the arts&entertainment was reasonable given that they're all different types and from different eras/cultures but I take the point, especially if you're saying that the long-term proportion of A&E hooks is not close to half, and because my inherent bias definitely is towards A&E (and like you, very much away from sport). Wouldn't have occurred to me to give the prep builders priority if possible, and hearing your other reasoning is really useful. Thanks for sparing the time, even when you're busy! — Bilorv ( talk ) 15:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * @Bilorv, sincerely delighted to help someone learn about prep building! And it's totally possible that we have fewer bios than usual or more arts/entertainment than usual, especially during the initial months of WikiCup when a particular competitor specializes in a particular topic. And to clarify, we don't give prep builders priority! The reason we encourage other prep builders to include one of Cwm's hooks when possible is that she touches such a high proportion of hooks that if other prep builders don't promote her hooks, they can languish (because a prep builder can't promote anything they nom'd or reviewed). The reason we give Gerda priority is similar -- she's so prolific that if we don't include one of her hooks in at least half of preps, we could end up with dozens of them waiting to be slotted. It's not that they're given priority, it's just that we have to keep up with them.
 * Oh, yes, long-term, we don't get half A&E hooks! However, it's possible other recent prep builders aren't as interested in A&E and have left those hooks behind -- that's why you'll see the most-experienced prep builders often swapping hooks between preps. That's actually what I'm going to work on this afternoon if I get a chance, as I see several queues with only 2 bios, etc. —valereee (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, imprecise wording on my part with "priority" but I understood the purpose. I have taken prep builders for granted before but I'll make sure to at least pay it forward with the number of hooks that people have prepped and queued for me and see how much time I can spare on it beyond that. — Bilorv ( talk ) 15:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I figured you didn't actually mean we advantage prep builders' hooks over anyone else's, just wanted to confirm that. :) And FWIW, you don't need to do a full prep every time! Promote a hook or two if that's what you have time for!  —valereee (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

dyk
bot for DYK seems to be stuck Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

My edit
Hello, I removed a tag. Feel free to review my edit. Thank you. Firestar464 (talk) 03:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * @Firestar464, the tag had only been placed six months ago, and by an experienced editor, @Baffle gab1978. And it is a really long page. This one is a judgement call, but with a tag placed by a very experienced editor I might, if it were me, have instead asked about it -- maybe opened a discussion section on the talk page, pinged the editor, and discussed whether the article needs to be broken into sections, turned into a list, or just accepted as an extremely long article. That said, this isn't an incorrect edit, just a bold one. Baffle gab may push back, reverting, opening a section, and pinging you to that discussion. —valereee (talk) 15:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 March 2021
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for what you said on Yoninah's talk! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

My edit
Please review. Sounded just fine to me. Firestar464 (talk) 12:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Trouted!
APRIL FOOLS DAY! LET'S GOOOOO! Firestar464 (talk) 10:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2021). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Alexandria • Happyme22 • RexxS

Guideline and policy news
 * Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
 * Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.

Technical news
 * When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem.
 * Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers.

Arbitration
 * A community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure is open until April 25.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Happy Easter
Hi. I wish you an happy Easter. Dr Salvus 22:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Eugénie Brazier
— Maile (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history&#32; on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 05:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: March 2021
About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 22:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Good article reassessment/Steve Cherry/1
Your participation is requested at this conversation.4meter4 (talk) 13:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * @4meter4, so sorry for the delay, I've been crazy busy IRL for the past few weeks and will be for the next couple-three months on and off. I answered there, but please let me know what else you need, I'm happy to help if I can squeeze out the time! —valereee (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding and helping. The main thing would be to identify any more controversial material that should be removed. I think as long as that gets trimmed, we can remove the tags and pass the GA review, and then go ahead with the DYK. The article has already been improved by some sourcing to more secondary sources in places where possible, and some essentially cosmetic changes by lumping citations in the autobiography so its not taking up as much space in the citations section.4meter4 (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @4meter4 There seem to be still about a hundred citations to the autobiography. IMO what's needed is for each of those assertions to be checked to see if they're simple facts, which to me seems highly unlikely. 100 simple facts sourced to the autobiography? And none of them can just be sourced to something else unaffiliated? It seems like a major issue to me.
 * Like I said, I just don't have time right now to go through that article and check each assertion that is being sourced to the autobiography -- like literally, go through each autobiography citation, some of which are used 26 times, and check what it's supporting -- but that's IMO what's needed. I think it could take hours. I'm actually very surprised to see anything other than stuff in early life and personal life -- straight solid facts, not controversial in any way -- sourced to an autobiography. —valereee (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Problem
Firestar464's editing has improved substantially. His error rate has decreased, and his mistakes have become more subtle. Do you know who can determine if his account is compromised? Seriously though, I am pleased with how things have turned out. I think I might turn him loose by June. I have started mentoring him in my userspace. You are welcome to offer your opinions at any time. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , hahaha! Sorry for the delay in responding, I saw this come through but it didn't seem urgent and I'm just now getting to a long list of pings and messages. I'm so glad! If you think they're ready, I believe you! You've worked most closely with them. Feel free to reach out any time! —valereee (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Firestar is definitely a he. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Gotcha! I try to remember for each person but I'll probably forget again lol... —valereee (talk) 20:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It gets better. Check his userights. I'm glad to know that an administrator thought he was good enough for an additional right. The only reason I did so much for him was that I almost got fired from my first job at the beginning because I was not competent. Like him, I surprised a lot of people with massive improvement. Scorpions13256 (talk) 06:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit
Hi, in a recent edit to International Pacific Halibut Commission, I removed a tag as I didn't see any suspicious ELs. Feel free to review my edit. Thanks! Firestar464 (talk) 03:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey, @Firestar464, I think the problem the other editor was flagging with the external link to the 1979 treaty? That link was broken, so I just removed it. —valereee (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying that. I didn't know as I had a PDF of the treaty open, so I assumed the link was working. --Firestar464 (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Firestar464, you could probably put a link to the pdf into the external links section. The other editor was objecting to linking to it from within the text, which we only do in very rare circumstances. I've seen external links within article the text to verses of the Koran, for instance. —valereee (talk) 09:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd like your view
Hello, hope you are well. Recently I came across Editor_assistance/Requests. The draft was well-written, but big fail on refs, tone, probably image etc.

The draft was quickly declined, also deleted. Good enough. What surprised me was the block, User_talk:Iamwillow, since, iirc, the user didn't touch mainspace and started editing on April 20. Is this a reasonable block in context? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I hope you don't mind an additional opinion: the user was obviously (AGF) unaware of notability guidelines and policies. Now that they have been made aware, they might consider contributing to existing articles instead. This is not possible while blocked. This kind of block is reasonable when an editor is obviously just spamming, but this seems more nuanced than that. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 08:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * That is also my thinking at this point. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I didn't look deeply, but I p-blocked a COI editor briefly recently because we couldn't get their attention, then unblocked her once she started communicating. In this case because the person may not yet be notable we don't have an article to p-block her from. Since the block was just a few hours ago, and this person seems to be Canadian, maybe she'll find her way to her talk page and start listening. And, yeah, it's not likely she holds the copyright to that image. :) @Alexis Jazz I suspect this is not someone who is going to turn into an actual editor but instead someone who wants to make sure all 'social media' that contribute to building her brand is updated regularly, and just didn't realize that WP isn't the same as LinkedIn. :) If she starts contributing articles on fashion and modeling, bully, but I'd be surprised. :)  —valereee (talk) 09:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking! Just found this great article: Wiki-Validation. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I agree it's not super likely, but you never know. In this case, the editor found Editor assistance/Requests and made a polite request which is atypical for your average spammer. More to the point, in this particular case I don't think the block serves any real purpose. Given her polite request at Editor assistance, I doubt she'd turn into a repeat offender. She hasn't ignored any warnings from what I can tell. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 10:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, you never know...she could get the bug. I wonder how many people who come here to create a page about themselves or their business actually ever work on other articles? Yes, she found her way to a help page, but she hasn't responded to the response to that query, and she hasn't edited her own talk page, even though she's received multiple messages there, so I'm assuming she hasn't discovered her notifications icon. And lol, GGS, that article is great! —valereee (talk) 11:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * but she hasn't responded to the response to that query, actually, she has. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "She even got me to submit a photo, which required a release saying I owned the rights. I hope someday my 12-year-old son who took the picture doesn’t sue me." Ok, we must obviously delete that pic ASAP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , what are you quoting? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , Wiki-Validation, it was mostly adressed at Valereee. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , hadn't read it (I don't have an account), but I read it now. And no way File:JudithNewman2013.jpeg depicts a 52-year woman. Though the plastic surgery Newman talked about in that article would explain this.. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Nah, the reason she submitted it is that even though it's not technically a very good photo, it makes her look young. It's probably one of her favorite photos of herself. :D —valereee (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I give you the leadimage at Élizabeth Teissier, said to be taken in 2009. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oh, well. The French. —valereee (talk) 10:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The French, are you here? Updated version. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * hahahahaha —valereee (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2021
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2021
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

May 2021 at Women in Red
--Rosiestep (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Something To Consider
—valereee I am in possession of the recent communication you sent directly to Bob McDonald (businessman) and it is pure, blatant harassment of an article subject off of Wikipedia.

Could what you have done constitute a violation of the off-wiki harassment policy?

Or, could what you have done support a strong case for violating the policy against harassing those outside the editing community?

These are all important questions that other parties close to Wikipedia may have to consider and act upon at some point.

Therefore, I would strongly recommend that you do not continue to harass the subject of this article in any way.

Should you instead desire to work in the context of making the article the best it can be for Wikipedia users, then I am happy to collaborate with you.Tsmith47 (talk) 14:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I recommend you add the rest of your clients to your user page and the appropriate talk pages. Taking that angry newb at David H. Huntoon to ANI was kind of the last straw for me. I generally try to work with COI editors and even paid ones, but that turned my stomach. I think what you're doing to Bob McDonald is likely predatory. What do you do, call him once every couple weeks and say, "So what would you like to work on next?" You know damn well that a paid editor will attract hostile attention to an article -- but that just means more work for you, doesn't it? —valereee (talk) 14:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 May newsletter
The second round of the 2021 WikiCup has now finished; it was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 61 points to advance to Round 3. There were some impressive efforts in the round, with the top eight contestants all scoring more than 400 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 110 good articles achieved in total by contestants, as well as the 216 good article reviews they performed; the GAN backlog drive and the stay-at-home imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been partially responsible for these impressive figures.

Our top scorers in Round 2 were:


 * 🇧🇼 The Rambling Man, with 2963 points from three featured articles, 20 featured article reviews, 37 good articles, 73 good article reviews, as well as 22 DYKs.
 * Epicgenius, with 1718 points from one featured article, 29 good articles, 16 DYKs and plenty of bonus points.
 * Bloom6132, with 990 points from 13 DYKs and 64 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
 * Bennington Flag.svg Hog Farm, with 834 points from two featured articles, five good articles, 14 featured article reviews and 15 good article reviews.
 * Standard of Oliver Cromwell (1653–1659).svg Gog the Mild, with 524 points from two featured articles and four featured article reviews.
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski, with 501 points from one featured article, three good articles, six featured article reviews and 25 good article reviews.
 * Transgender Pride flag.svg Sammi Brie, with 485 points from four good articles, eight good article reviews and 27 DYKs, on US radio and television stations.
 * Flag of the United Nations.svg Ktin, with 436 points from four good articles, seven DYKs and 11 "In the news" items.

Please remember that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of Round 2 but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in Round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (except for at the end of each round, when you must claim them before the cut-off date/time). When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

RfC on racial hereditarianism at the R&I talk-page
An RfC at Talk:Race and intelligence revisits the question, considered last year at WP:FTN, of whether or not the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is a fringe theory. This RfC supercedes the recent RfC on this topic at WP:RSN that was closed as improperly formulated.

Your participation is welcome. Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 21:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

'Rhetorical snark'
I strongly object to your description of my comments at ANI as ‘rhetorical snark’. It is not rhetorical – it is practical. I think that should be warned about his biased use of language. It is not ‘snark’ – I don’t know what you mean by that. If there is some purpose to your comment other than to insult me, perhaps you could explain? Sweet6970 (talk) 11:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * It is the very definition of a rhetorical remark when you ask someone a question make a statement for dramatic effect because you believe it makes a point. —valereee (talk) 11:29, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Bringing up Floyd and lynching (to a user who already told Guy to stop ranting himself deeper) was "dramatic", irrelevant and unwarranted. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Relatedly, I thought you meant Guy by "some people", so was shocked to see you choose to collapse only a part of that sidetrack, leaving the attempted murder allegation that started the swerve untouched. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry, @InedibleHulk, not following -- where did I say 'some people'? —valereee (talk) 11:31, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't apologize, my fault, just said "people". I object to your partial sidetrack collapse. Finish it, I humbly request, or undo. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @InedibleHulk Finish it by doing what? The 'lynch mob' phrase is four comments above, and there is discussion in those four comments that is actually cogent to the discussion of the original complaint. Everything I collapsed -- which leaves it completely available to anyone who wants to see it -- is a sidetrack. I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be intentionally dense here, nor difficult. If you both believe that the sidetrack caused by a rhetorical question is crucially important to the discussion to be collapsed, I'll undo. —valereee (talk) 11:43, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Cogent?!? Which part? Nothing I responded to, at least, was about Innican Soufou. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly I think we could just strike through half the discussion. If JzG had just ignored the remark, would we be missing anything? That was my thinking. You can argue that more should be collapsed, but the point for me was that this portion added nothing and certainly could. —valereee (talk) 11:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * May I collapse Guy's allegations of conspiracy to commit mass murder, levied against living and dead untried people, or do I need "the mop"? InedibleHulk (talk) 12:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @InedibleHulk, it's not a matter of needing the mop. It's a matter of being involved. Plenty of non-admins clerk at ANI, and if an uninvolved non-admin had made that collapse, it would have been fine. Someone might have objected, but that doesn't make it not fine. The problem here is that you undid clerking by an uninvolved admin, which should be presumed to be an admin call. Another admin shouldn't do that without consulting. If I'd been involved, I wouldn't have made that collapse.
 * Since you are part of the case, you shouldn't be collapsing things. You shouldn't be deciding what isn't important for others to read. You can request that the original poster of something strike their comments, though.  —valereee (talk) 12:23, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * How are you uninvolved in the case if we were talking to you about it there, and saw you vote? InedibleHulk (talk) 12:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Talking about what and voting where? At the article? I don't think I've edited that article or its talk? —valereee (talk) 12:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The case of Guy v. Soufou at AN/I. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:41, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @InedibleHulk, wait, are you talking about at the case discussion? Taking part in the discussion of the case and even !voting on proposals doesn't make me involved in the case itself. —valereee (talk) 12:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * So "case" means "incident"? "Talk Page"? What to you? InedibleHulk (talk) 12:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @InedibleHulk, by "case" I mean whatever beef is being brought to a noticeboard because the editors involved in some argument thought it needed attention from uninvolved administrators. —valereee (talk) 13:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "Beef", got it. As this one seems "squashed", don't worry about reminding me to remind you of any apologies. Could just "Forget to Remember". InedibleHulk (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * hahaha...okay, I'll unpin this. :) Best to you. —valereee (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hell, the part you concealed was part of the exact evidence of Guy's misconduct you asked me to point out for you. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * IH, I've restored the silly thing, even though I still think it isn't important in informing anyone's thinking. What are you looking for here? —valereee (talk) 12:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies, but not sarcastic ones. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:43, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @InedibleHulk, I hope I have never made a sarcastic apology when a sincere one was needed.
 * I sincerely don't know what you are asking me to apologize for. I collapsed a section of a wall of text that I sincerely believed did not add useful information to the discussion. You believed I was wrong, and I restored it. What do you believe I should apologize for? I am not being snarky, here. I sincerely do not understand what you believe I have done wrong. —valereee (talk) 12:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Then remain legit unapologetic, and I'll go, fair enough! InedibleHulk (talk) 12:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @InedibleHulk, actually, I'd prefer to understand, if you think you can explain. I'm perfectly willing to apologize when I've done something wrong, and I respect your opinion. —valereee (talk) 12:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Remind me again in two weeks, I swore a vow at User talk:Terjen. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Valeree – your comments do not make sense. I did not ask a question – I made a statement. I am not trying to create a drama. I was making serious comments which are relevant to the discussion. You have chosen to insult me, and to interfere with a discussion at ANI. What is your justification for your actions? Sweet6970 (talk) 11:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * S6970, an administrator at ANI collapsing discussion she feels is a sidetrack so that within a wall of text it can regarded by others as safely ignored is completely reasonable and quite common. I have already stated my willingness to undo if both of you believe that discussion is crucial to others' understanding of the discussion. I disagree, but I'm willing to go with consensus. Please stop claiming insult. The remark was IMO rhetorical. You wanted to make a point. If there'd been no ensuing discussion, would we be mssing anything important? —valereee (talk) 11:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Valeree – yes, I do think you should reverse your collapse of my comments. It is your opinion that my remarks are rhetorical. They are not. As I have said, I think that JzG should be warned for biased language. You say ‘Please stop claiming insult’. What part of ‘rhetorical snark’ is not insulting? Sweet6970 (talk) 12:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @Sweet6970, rhetorical snark is redundant, but it's a fair and accurate descriptive term for the remark. I don't know how else to describe the remark you made. I think it was unhelpful at ANI. —valereee (talk) 12:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * A lynch mob genuinely is made of murderous intent. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * And you think they were looking for a nonlethal hanging? OK. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * And you think Babbitt is to be judged by their actions, fine. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's not argue this here, I want to stay out of the content. —valereee (talk) 12:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Valereee: ‘Rhetorical snark’ is not a fair and accurate description of my remarks. They are, as I have said, serious and practical. It seems you cannot tell the difference between serious remarks and rhetorical ones, and you assume that my remarks were ‘snark’ (whatever that means). I diagnose a serious case of Assuming Bad Faith, combined, perhaps, with an admin’s disdain for a non-admin’s view. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * @Sweet6970, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on whether or not the remark was rhetorical and therefore snarky, but I accept your assertion that wasn't what you intended. I don't actually think making a rhetorical remark is necessarily bad faith, I just don't think it's ever helpful at ANI where there's already more heat than light in many cases, but since it obviously felt like that to you, I apologize. I reject the idea that there's general disdain by admins for non-admins' POV, and certainly it's not true of me. —valereee (talk) 13:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've struck the phrase and replaced it with a more descriptive term that maybe will feel less insulting —valereee (talk) 13:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for striking the phrase. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2021). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Enchanter • Carlossuarez46

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news
 * Following an RfC, consensus was found that third party appeals are allowed but discouraged.
 * The 2021 Desysop Policy RfC was closed with no consensus. Consensus was found in a previous RfC for a community based desysop procedure, though the procedure proposed in the 2021 RfC did not gain consensus.

Technical news
 * The user group  will be renamed to  . This is for technical reasons. You can comment at  if you have objections.

Arbitration
 * The community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure was closed, and an initial draft based on feedback from the now closed consultation is expected to be released in early June to early July for community review.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 43
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 43, March – April 2021 
 * New Library Card designs
 * 1Lib1Ref May

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Pop!
If you take out laughingly, they could be just anyone watching the video, appalled like everyone else. That they were laughing while listening for the pop of the shoulder is the core of the hook. And it's definitely grammatical. EEng 00:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC) You're going to laugh, but the edit-request thing is still the first ping on my notification list.
 * @EEng Of course you're right, it's not ungrammatical, it's more I found the usage off, although that's not actually incorrect either. Once I tripped over it I decided it was probably what was making everyone else find it unduly negative. I'm open to a tweak. And hahahaha! —valereee (talk) 11:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have to apply neutron star–like pressures to force a hook like that down to 200, and naturally under such compression some verbiage will get twisted a bit out of shape. I'd rather see laughingly in there but I don't feel strongly enough about the matter to force you to the ground and hogtie you. Unless you want me to. E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 14:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Tempting, but I've got a trick knee. Yes, I get it on the 200. I would be willing to IAR on that if we can find something that works for both of us. Er, @Levivich, for all three. Not the hogtieing part, that starts to get way too confusing at 3.
 * Hm, looking at it again, I think what actually tripped me is the placement of the laughingly: "laughingly watched". How about instead of
 * ... that a Colorado policeman told coworkers "Ready for the pop? ... I think it was her shoulder" as they laughingly watched footage of a handcuffed 73-year-old being forced to the ground and hogtied?
 * we go to
 * we go to
 * we go to


 * ... that a Colorado policeman laughingly told coworkers "Ready for the pop? ... I think it was her shoulder" as they watched footage of a handcuffed 73-year-old being forced to the ground and hogtied? —valereee (talk) 17:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * For now I've made that change. —valereee (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Meredith Clark at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with db-g7, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 20:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: April 2021
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 04:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)