User talk:Valereee/Archive 40

RfA 2021 review update
Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, and.

The following had consensus support of participating editors:
 * 1) Corrosive RfA atmosphere
 * The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.
 * 1) Level of scrutiny
 * Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.
 * 1) Standards needed to pass keep rising
 * It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.
 * 1) Too few candidates
 * There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.
 * 1) "No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins

The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors: 1. Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere) Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere.

2. Admin permissions and unbundling There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas.

3. RfA should not be the only road to adminship Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.

Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1. There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Best, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: September 2021
About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 22:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Apology
I acted poorly as well, and should have taken a step back, myself. If it's any consolation I have enjoyed my hiatus. Cheers. DN (talk) 00:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reaching out. —valereee (talk) 17:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Peer review for Marjorie Paxson
Hi valereee, I've closed the peer review for Marjorie Paxson as it's been about a month and a half since the last comments (trying to work through PR backlog). Hope you get your internet back soon. Zetana (talk) 05:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * @Zetana, thanks! I've got the interwebz fixed but there has been a lot of other fun stuff going on lol. Thank you for your work at PR! —valereee (talk) 21:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Category:Termination of employment for refusing a COVID vaccine has been nominated for deletion
Category:Termination of employment for refusing a COVID vaccine has been nominated for deletion. 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. 1857a (talk) 18:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Help?
I so miss Yoninah. I don't know what to do with this. I thought it would end the issues if I just fixed it and asked to be the contact, but that didn't work. It's stressing me out. Could you look at it and either just approve it or tell me what to do? Thanks! SusunW (talk) 14:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * @SusunW, not a terrible idea if you'd take a quick look at the changes I made during review. I did some copyediting for (I hope) clarity in the early life section and added a sentence+ref for the ALT1. —valereee (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Bless you. I'm on it. I truly appreciate it. SusunW (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @SusunW, any time. :) —valereee (talk) 19:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

A recent edit to Sheila Jackson Lee
Hi there! Regarding a recent edit you made to Sheila Jackson Lee, what kind of "better sources" would we need? I thought that the HuffPost was considered a RS. Thanks! GrammarDamner  how are things?  20:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey, @GrammarDamner! HuffPo is considered generally reliable except around politics. And in this case, that HuffPo article didn't even have a byline. Since this is a BLP, we need to be super careful, and calling someone the "meanest" or "worst" is something we really need to attribute to an actual person, and really we shouldn't be going there unless an incredibly reliable source is publishing it. If we can't find something that hypernegative about a living person in WaPo, NYT, WSJ, AP, Reuters -- if they aren't even reporting it -- we probably shouldn't be either. —valereee (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Andrea Drummer


A tag has been placed on Andrea Drummer requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 20:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

MBC TV (South Korean TV channel)
Move it to MBC TV because there's nothing page with MBC TV to disambiguate from. 1Way4Together - J. Smile &#124; Please comment on content, not on me 01:43, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

No DYK credit
Yesterday a new article of mine Ganna (seeress) appeared on the front page, but I received no notification of it. What happened?--Berig (talk) 04:28, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for bothering you. We may have found the reason.--Berig (talk) 05:47, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Discrimination against bots. Tsk. ;) —valereee (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Inversion (2021 TV series)
Just finished the pilot for Invasion (with Sam Neill). Gonna give the 2nd ep a chance, even though the series is kinda getting destroyed by reviewers. As an aside, the problem with many alien invasion arcs is that there's too many damn people; too many cities and town and villages to alien up. Wouldn't it be a lot easier to simply nuke earth from orbit and be done with it? Just sayin'. El_C 12:23, 26 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Finally got to Dune, as you said, fabulous! Almost made me want to reread the book. Can't wait for Part II. And I actually think I might be able to get into Succession, I've watched the first two episodes and I'm kind of liking it. Oooh, alien invasion apocalypse! You have the best radar for stuff likely to appeal to Val. :D —valereee (talk) 12:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No doubt! Part II, yay! I'd even go so far to say: a 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) caliber film (though they're obviously otherwise different from one another in almost every conceivable way), which I don't say lightly. Another Apple TV+ series I was gonna recommend was Foundation (TV series). But though it is impressive in many respects, I've been finding the pacing and flow a bit... slow. Struggled finishing ep 5, tbh. I'll report back once I'm done S01. Succession is so much fun. It's sharp (bitingly) and has great flair. And an outstanding cast. You won't be dissapointed. El_C 12:58, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Just noticed now that on Oct 22, Charlie was saying that Part II hasn't been confirmed yet. So I checked, and 3 hours ago, The Ringer (website) published: this. Title: "Is ‘Dune: Part 2’ Going to Happen?" Subtitle: "Director Denis Villeneuve made his vision for a sequel clear, but box office uncertainty and tension with Warner Bros. threaten to disrupt the cinematic spice trade" What the...? El_C 13:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * NOOOOOOOOOO —valereee (talk) 16:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Umpdate
Finished the pilot for Day of the Dead. Had a good time with it. Funny. Gonna keep going with ep 2. Also finished ep 3 for Inversion, which I enjoyed. Gonna keep going with ep 4.


 * Ninja skit:

Foreman: Oh, it wasn't a dead body she saw, it was a deer carcass.

Detective: Well, I gotta check just the same.

Foreman: Hold my beer/hat. Hello, corporate: help me do something super-illegal involving a dead body.

Corporate: I have no questions. That is totally within our company's risk portfolio. Hello, Mayor: help me do something super-illegal involving a dead body.

Mayor: I have no questions. That is totally within our office's risk portfolio. Hello, Chief: help me do something super-illegal involving a dead body.

Chief: I have no questions. That is totally within our department's risk portfolio. Hello, Detective: help me do something super-illegal involving a dead body.

Detective: Oh, I thought we weren't doing that anymore.

Chief: ...

Detective: [To self:] well, looks like I'm doing this the stupid way...

Kitty:


 * FIM!

El_C 18:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)


 * hahahahaha...ookay, I'm of an age where I've missed a lot of popular culture due to 20 years of childraising, so forgive me. What's that from? —valereee (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You forgot about Ninja? Cry.png El_C 21:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * hahahahaha...well, it was seven months ago! That's not within my brain's memory portfolio. —valereee (talk) 21:18, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What, I'm not hurt. BTW, I heard that you liked websites. Please con-firm! El_C 21:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Dune (2021 film) is a masterpiece
Just watched last night and was pleasantly surprised, seeing as Dune (novel) and Dune (1984 film) bored me to tears (I was young then, though). This is 2.5 hours long without a dull moment in it. Brilliant cast, incredible visuals, and after the fact (end credits) I realized that the director is Denis Villeneuve (whose Sicario (2015 film) I strongly recommended a while back, if you recall). Anyway, strong recommend (again). P.S. Small quip: In battle, there's flying crafts that fire self-propelled, heat-seeking munitions, and there's AA guns, etc., but all the infantry fight with swords for some reason, which seems... tactically odd (maybe it's explained in the books, I don't remember). El_C 17:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)


 * No kidding -- I tried to get into the Dune universe, too. I think I read the first one and maybe liked it okay but not enough to continue. Well, thanks for the rec, I'll check it out. I saw a trailer for it on...maybe the new Day of the Dead TV series? Which is pretty hilarious if you are a fan of zombie stuff. Hm, I don't recall the Sicario rec, but I'll go looking for that, too. —valereee (talk) 17:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hm, not finding Dune available anywhere yet at https://www.justwatch.com/us/movie/dune-2021 —valereee (talk) 17:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Dune (2021 film) says official US release is Oct 22, with streaming available via HBO Max. Yeah, I think I mentioned Sicario in the context of it being my favourite Emily Blunt film... El_C 17:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * RE: The Days of the Week — I actually thought of watching the Day of the Dead pilot when it got released recently, which I may yet (esp with your recommend), though my tolerance for zombies is a bit below vampires — I do have a nearly boundless patience for the intergalactic or for wizards and shit, however. El_C 18:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Buffy and (for a few seasons) True Blood worked for me. Once Twilight ruined the genre I was done. But I'm still up for zombies as long as it's an actual apocalypse. The whole Santa Clarita Diet thing doesn't really do it for me. I want to see the world falling apart. ETA: Just finished Sicario. Solid recommendation, thanks! Her partner was Daniel Kaluuya, I assume you've seen Get Out? If not it should be next on your list. —valereee (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, this is a lot of zombies. Never watched Buffy, but True Blood was fun. I also liked The Originals (TV series). Just noticed that episode 1 season 3 of Succession (TV series) is now out (different kind of vampires, financial), so that ought to be good. Yeah, I thought Get Out was competently made (if a bit over-rated), but multiple people have recommended I see Judas and the Black Messiah, where Kaluuya plays Fred Hampton, so that's on the list (a black list? A black black list, even?).
 * Glad you liked Sicario. Three years later, they made Sicario: Day of the Soldado (different director and Blunt'less), which was, erm, serviceable, but not nearly as good as the first — granted, tis hard to pull a sequel that exceeds the original, like The Godfather Part II or Aliens (film). El_C 02:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You've never watched Buffy? Get out! ;) I've been eyeing Succession. I have a difficult time when there's literally no one I can identify with. If the entire cast is just horrible human beings...ugh. OMG I loved Get Out! Could it be a US thing? It just hit on every cylinder for me. I did watch the second Sicario last night, right after the first. Yeah, not as good. —valereee (talk) 22:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I know, no Buffy — sacrilege! I can't recommend Succession enough, notwithstanding that. BTW, I now have eps 1+2 of Day of the Dead qued, so will watch soon. El_C 12:52, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's because of their personal shields. I watched it a few days ago, but will have to take the fifth on where or how. I liked it; I better not say more until I have seen the whole story. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Blades are used because of the Holtzman effect. Essentially Herbert's workaround to have lasers and nuclear weapons, but also blade fights. A Holtzman shield will protect against fast weapons, but cannot protect against something slow, like a hand with a dagger. SilkTork (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There's literally always someone here who can explain fricking everything. :D —valereee (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

May I jump in on this lovefest, so to speak? I've long had crushes on Virginia Madsen and Francesca Annis so please nobody speak ill of the old flick. The new one feels unrushed but super-serious. Every frame is a work of art. I think it does exposition well but I've read most of the original books. BusterD (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I hear quacking
That quacking is starting to sound like a possible disruptive sock, but I am unsure of the master or I would open an SPI. Perhaps you have an idea? I'm sure you can work out of whom I speak Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 21:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * @Timtrent, I think you're right. We're being trolled. No one could be this obtuse. I've opened an ANI. —valereee (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This SPI is of interest Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 22:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking at their contributions record the fascination with the M-F 4-6am slot has created at least one more presenter article. I have put that up for discussion at AfD as well. Your unbiased input on whether to keep or delete is welcome at Articles for deletion/Todd Piro. I am not seeking to influence your opinion and will respect any you offer or that you choose to offer none.
 * Good call setting up the redirect from Shimkus to the show's article. Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 10:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

What's it been, like two years of adminship, and your ANI reports are now basically down to just I've had enough. ~ Levivich 22:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * @Levivich, dismaying, isn't it? I just get to the point where I'm like NOPE. :D I need to do better. And thanks for the assist. —valereee (talk) 22:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

RfA Reform 2021 Phase 2 has begun
Following a 2 week brainstorming period and a 1 week proposal period, the 30 day discussion of changes to our Request for Adminship process has begun. Following feedback on Phase 1, in order to ensure that the largest number of people possible can see all proposals, new proposals will only be accepted for the for the first 7 days of Phase 2. The 30 day discussion is scheduled to last until November 30. Please join the discussion or even submit your own proposal.

There is 1 future mailing planned with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. 16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2021
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2021).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Clpo13
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Brian0918 • JDoorjam • Karanacs • MrDarcy • Mindspillage

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Evad37

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Dreamy Jazz • Ferret • GeneralNotability • Girth Summit • RoySmith

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Dreamy Jazz • LuK3

Guideline and policy news
 * Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.

Technical news
 * Toolhub is a catalogue of tools which can be used on Wikimedia wikis. It is at https://toolhub.wikimedia.org/.

Arbitration
 * , and  have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2021 Arbitration Committee Elections.  and  are reserve commissioners.
 * Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves to stand in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections from 07 November 2021 until 16 November 2021.

Miscellaneous
 * The 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of five new CheckUsers and two new Oversighters.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 November newsletter
The WikiCup is over for another year and the finalists can relax! Our Champion this year is, who amassed over 5000 points in the final round, achieving 8 featured articles and almost 500 reviews. It was a very competitive round; seven of the finalists achieved over 1000 points in the round (enough to win the 2019 contest), and three scored over 3000 (enough to win the 2020 event). Our 2021 finalists and their scores were:


 * 1) with 5072 points
 * 2) with 3276 points
 * 3) with 3197 points
 * 4) with 1611 points
 * 5) with 1571 points
 * 6) with 1420 points
 * 7) with 1043 points
 * 8) with 528 points

All those who reached the final round will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. Awards will be handed out in the next few days.


 * wins the featured article prize, for 8 FAs in round 5.
 * wins the featured list prize, for 3 FLs in round 5.
 * wins the featured topic prize, for 13 articles in a featured topic in round 5.
 * wins the good article prize, for 63 GAs in round 4.
 * wins the good topic prize, for 86 articles in good topics in round 5.
 * wins the reviewer prize, for 68 FAC reviews and 213 GAN reviews, both in round 5.
 * wins the DYK prize, for 30 did you know articles in round 3 and 105 overall.
 * wins the ITN prize, for 71 in the news articles in round 1 and 284 overall.

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether they made it to the final round or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup, some of whom did very well. Wikipedia has benefitted greatly from the quality creations, expansions and improvements made, and the numerous reviews performed. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition, not forgetting User:Jarry1250, who runs the scoring bot.

If you have views on whether the rules or scoring need adjustment for next year's contest, please comment on the WikiCup talk page. Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2022 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

The IP is back
Remember this? Looking at their edit history, and now this on my UTP, I prefer to avoid any future discussion with them.  Atsme 💬 📧 18:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


 * They're on my watch, but keep me posted! :) —valereee (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Assistance regarding General sanctions/Syrian Civil War
Hello I am sorry to bother you, but I am not sure how to deal with this or where to go or what process to take as it is not really a normal article disagreement/dispute. I am getting stuck by a certain user which is being disruptive and I personally believe is POV pushing regarding content related to the Syrian civil war.

I wanted to improve and further add to the Safe Zone (Syria) which barely had any additions to all the content regarding the various de-escalation zones in Syria proposed by various parties in the conflict, hoping to bring together for a more complete picture. Creating another page seems unnecessary so I tried to start, I also thought the title could be improved on by changing it to Safe & No-fly zones in Syria which is kind of self-explanatory. Without providing reason or some kind of explanation the user reverted the change, I would understand if there was issue, but his reason is pretty much that [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Beshogur#What%20is%20your%20problem? I do not have the right].

That's not just it, I wanted to improve and further add to Turkish occupation of northern Syria and the various articles on Turkey's offensives. The user reverts my edit and wants his way and other disagreements, fine, so we talk, but seems really not willing to budge, fine again, but now it all seems like time wasting and wearing me down, especially when he accused me of propaganda and kept erasing my talk page addition, (on another article which I basically ended up walking away from).

They have already been notified and also blocked before regarding the Syrian civil war sanctions. --TataofTata (talk) 12:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, @TataofTata! So, it looks like at Safe Zone (Syria), you moved the article, got reverted, and instead of opening a talk section at the article talk, you went to the other editor's talk and asked them "What is your problem?" :D The thing to do is remain civil, assume good faith and open a talk section at the article talk.  And I don't interpret "Because it is not much edited, doesn't give you the right to make such moves" as them telling you that you "do not have the right" to make that move, only that you don't have sole right. A page move can be a pretty major edit, yet you marked it minor. A page move would only be arguably minor if it involved something like correcting a capitalization error. Really the only edits that should be marked minor are things like correcting grammar, fixing typos or spacing, etc.
 * I'm not going to try to get into the other edits, but I will say that contentious articles and newish editors are a terrible combination. Even experienced editors regularly get into trouble in such work. Quite honestly I'd recommend you not edit in contentious areas at all until you have at minimum several thousand edits somewhere noncontentious, but you seem to be only interested in articles surrounding middle eastern conflict, so I'll just say: be ware of the sanctions on various articles/topics. Be universally civil. Assume good faith. You are going to run into the same editors over and over again, and you are going to have disagreements with them, but that doesn't mean you can't collaborate. Work with the other regulars at a contentious article to find what you can agree on, or go edit somewhere less contentious. WP has six million articles, the vast majority of which are non-contentious. —valereee (talk) 15:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting back to me, but you're making it out as if I've freaked out over a simple objection to a rename.. Please trust that I really wish I could collaborate and my efforts in the talk pages really should make you see I am. Instead of improving the article I'm arguing over getting original research removed and obvious ambiguous wordings. I have been civil and always assume good faith, while I have not received any of that assumed good faith back, and this is not the first time I have interacted with this person, as I pointed out accusing me of propaganda and literally removing my section on a talk page article, as I said which essentially made me give up on making any changes to that article and walking away due to a lack of comment. Which you totally disregarded. Here I am replying to another user and he uses an ad hominem to basically dismiss my point and butts into a conversation which my purpose was to object to original research being presented as citations. What he is doing is WP:GAME and WP:SEALION, granted you have to know the subject to see how obvious it is, I assumed you did, but in my opinion he's banking on creating deadlock. Here is another obvious POV pushing (removing mention of the massacres and crimes as a result which is very well sources).
 * Correct me if I am wrong (as I try to read all the rules and recommendations), but on Wikipedia you can always start a discussion and assume good faith before reverting and allow for some kind of further explanation especially in his case where he just wants to know what others "think". My issue is there is no objection per say.. If you really find the change bad or wrong that's when you would or should be reverting. A few times I've gone to peoples talk pages even after they have added content to clarify. In this situation the article had stayed pretty much the same for years and content is readily available to add to it, yet now he knows he can dispute my edit, because of the same argument you've presented.
 * Actually my focus is on improving Kurdish related articles and expanding on those topics lacking accuracy and content, especially Kurdish conflicts as Wikipedia is loaded with anti-Kurdish prospective on these. There is a huge lack of proper Kurdish content and I wanted to make some effort. I'd rather be treated fairly or pushed out unfairly then go edit topics in other areas till I've gained some sort of good faith so I think what you have suggested is just bad. This is why these articles are filled with inaccuracies and ambiguous wordings. The only reason I returned is I saw Wikipedia make some effort in banning and removing these type of people who had so much control over these type of articles. --TataofTata (talk) 23:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Beg pardon, @TataofTata, I didn't mean to overstate your reaction.
 * To clarify, your "Here" diff seems pretty mild: "This isn't reddit. Come on." It's snarky. I'm happy to tell to dial that down. But it's something that feels within limits to me.
 * You say I have been civil and always assume good faith but in fact you posted to the other editor's talk a section headed "What is your problem?" That is neither civil nor AGF.
 * I'm not going to get into content, such as w/re the categories. That isn't a behavioral issue, it's a content issue. There is information at WP:DR for resolving content disputes.
 * Yes, you're correct that if you make an edit and someone else reverts, you go to article talk and discuss. It's best to go to article talk, not user talk.
 * Yes, anyone can dispute or revert anyone else's edit (assuming there isn't protection in place).
 * The reason I suggest new editors edit in less-contentious areas while they gain experience is not because they need to gain what you term as "some sort of good faith", which I'm taking to mean you're interpreting this to mean you need to develop a track record? That's not a terrible idea, but the actual reason I suggest editing in less-contentious areas first is that when you first start out, you don't know how Wikipedia works. It's because in contentious areas, if you don't know what you're doing, you can get yourself in trouble. In less contentious areas, you can learn what you're doing without getting yourself into trouble. Then once you've learned what you're doing, you can go back to the contentious areas. It's kind of like learning to drive. At first, drive around home. Once you know about roundabouts and 4-way stops, you can try getting on the highway. But just starting out as a newbie in downtown Boston? Not recommended. —valereee (talk) 05:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi I'm happy to find fault with myself, I admit my wording should have been more along the lines of "what specifically is your issue with the rename", which is what I was was trying to get at, annoyed due to a lack of effort on the other side, zero feedback, and not really a content objection per say, as far as I know such reverts are frowned upon as you would be courteous and provide some reasoning so that the other side can see what's wrong so all sides display an effort to collaborate. With respects to what you have said, in the future I'll make sure that I don't go over the line as it clearly looks like I have and also decide better when to use article and user talk pages.
 * One reason is I've gone to peoples talk pages returning with knowing I forgot or disregarded something, but not in this case in my opinion as the article has needed some work for years. WP:BRD is also being disregarded a lot in my opinion. Kurdish articles tend to be contentious unfortunately (and definitely not because it's simply Kurdish), I also have made some mistakes and misunderstandings in the past while trying to learn quickly as you mentioned driving as a newbie in Boston, you're right about that, but unfortunately I don't have the knowledge in other areas as I have with the current topics I contribute at so this is one of the main reasons why I can't go edit other less-contentious areas.
 * Anyway I am sure I'm boring you so I'll thank you again for the chat, as I wanted to know where to go to point out these things, but if you think no violations have occurred regarding the sanctions then fine with me. --TataofTata (talk) 15:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Not at all, happy to discuss. BRD is a great default setting for the 99.9% of articles that aren't contentious, but on contentious articles you can't make that assumption. It's not "disregarding" BRD, it's recognizing that there is a small handful of articles where BRD is just kind of irrelevant because almost everything (other than simple obvious corrections) will need discussion. If you are going to work in highly contentious areas, you will need to become very sensitive to such things.
 * Re: working on subjects you're familiar with: you can still find less-contentious areas within the general topic of Kurdistan. There are articles like Kurdish cuisine (and multiple individual dishes and ingredients and food animals and plants), Kurdish clothing (and ditto surrounding that), and probably any number of articles about villages/roads/rivers/buildings/biographies/you name it that you can work on which are much less contentious. Just because you're most familiar with Kurdistan doesn't mean you have to work on articles about politics and massacres and such. —valereee (talk) 21:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 47
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 47, September – October 2021 
 * On-wiki Wikipedia Library notification rolling out
 * Search tool deployed
 * New My Library design improvements

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: October 2021
About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 06:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Dispute at The Game Changers
Notifying you since you've blocked them thrice before, likely WP:SPA editor is refusing to accept consensus and dispute resolution. Funcrunch (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I saw that. —valereee (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

You two
Well you and are sure coming out of this smelling like a fucking rose. EEng 05:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC) P.S. V: We still have to do that edit-request thing.
 * Levivich 06:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it's roses I'm smelling. —valereee (talk) 12:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
I had no idea that the person who created Marla Berkowitz was the same person who created Amy Acton. Good work.

Scorpions13256 (talk) 03:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC) 

Fellow Ohioan? Scorpions13256 (talk) 03:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)


 * @Scorpions13256 m yes, I'm in Cincinnati! —valereee (talk) 11:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * For some reason, I thought you would have been from Cleveland. I have lived there my entire life. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've always been a little ... um, let's say direct? ... for Cinci. I grew up in Dayton. We're not as polite there. —valereee (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Category:Community college alumni has been nominated for deletion
Category:Community college alumni has been nominated for deletion. 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. User:力 (powera, π,  ν ) 02:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Stembridge Gun Rentals
Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  00:02, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

The Artist Known as Jacee215
Jacee215 is accusing you of being involved and stating he did not make personal attacks. User talk:Jacee215 I think further sanctions and/or education may be in order. Minkai ( rawr! )(see where I screwed up) 20:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * @JulieMinkai, oh, that is pretty funny. Unfortunately they've probably turned me into an involved admin by insulting me, which is always a useful trick for bad actors. :) Someone else will come along. —valereee (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Just curious, but are you actually friends with TrickShotFinn? Minkai ( rawr! )(see where I screwed up) 21:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @JulieMinkai, no, don't know them IRL and as far as I know have never interacted here on wiki or anywhere else online. —valereee (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually I'm little confused if Jacee was referring to me or User:NEDOCHAN. The IQ thing was direct response to NEDOCHAN's post, not mine. To me, Jacee just backhandedly referred to me as Volk Han's biggest fanboy that finds no fault in him - when I made comments about that video of his. As for Valeree, the Jacee thread at ANI was the first time the user came to my attention. Judging from Valeree's contributions, we both deal with very different subjects, so I fail to see an overlap. And unlike Valeree, my relationships don't seem quite a smooth sailing. -- TrickShotFinn (talk) 13:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I've ever interacted with NEDOCHAN, either. —valereee (talk) 14:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I thought we were in a committed relationship ;). NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Shh. My husband is due home any minute. —valereee (talk) 17:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Hey girlfriend
...check this out. It's pretty hilarious. Drmies (talk) 01:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * //Calling 1-600-DOCTORB. El_C 10:17, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, snap. They got you. Pretty embarrassing, but it's okay, honeybunch. Everyone needs a thesaurus to come up with "casting aspersions" and "guidelines of engagement". —valereee (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)