User talk:Valereee/Archive 48

One click archiving
I don't know if it's the script or your settings but your archives are going to the generic ArbCom archives rather than to an archives for the RfC discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Dammit. Ugh...I'm sorry, @Barkeep49., can you fix this? I've already screwed it up twice. Valereee (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it must be the script, as MJL's earlier archiving did work correctly. Valereee (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I can fix it when I get home. I'm on mobile at the moment. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 18:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I just manually copy/pasted to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale/Archive 1.
 * ✅ &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 02:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Valereee (talk) 13:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you
I just wanted to thank you for your ongoing work with keeping the workshop on track and civil; it's a difficult task, but it is very much appreciated. BilledMammal (talk) 04:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the kind words! Valereee (talk) 13:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I made a minor edit to your comment at WT:Edit requests
Just letting you know I made a minor edit here so the category would display, rather than place the page in the category. Just giving you the heads up, since I edited your comment. If you have any objections about that, let me know and I'll revert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks! No objections at all, and I knew better than that lol...not enough coffee when I made the comment. FWIW, feel free to correct formatting mistakes in my comments any time you like. :) Valereee (talk) 14:20, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: August 2022
About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 15:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Sigh
I may have made my first erroneous article approval at AFC with that Hell’s Kitchen article. I should have looked at that users contribution history more carefully. I’ll review the article later and maybe discuss it over at the AFC discussion board and see if other reviewers think it was a mistake to approve. If so I’ll see what if any grounds for deletion I can find and possibly lodge an AFD. Embarrassing. Sorry again. I’m very disappointed by the way that editor is speaking to you. MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * @MaxnaCarta, I don't think the subject is non-notable, and I don't think it was a mistake to approve. Articles don't have to be perfect to pass AfC, they just have to be good enough, and IMO this one was. You have nothing to apologize for or be embarrassed about. AfC reviewers aren't expected to make sure an article is perfect. I came in only because I'd reviewed it previously and saw it had been move to article space. I honestly accepted the creator's statement they were just a fan, a few months ago. But now reading the article and checking the sources, I'm just becoming less convinced. And, eh, the editor is pissed. It's fine. :D Valereee (talk) 23:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reassurance V! I do not know why the editor got so heated. It just is not necessary. Have a nice day! MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:32, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @MaxnaCarta, well, if it's a sincere case of no COI, and their first logged-in edits were indeed to create an article from scratch -- which is exactly how I started editing, though I created an article about a dead writer so it wasn't so suspicious -- then having done all that work in good faith and see someone else come in and start pruning it way back would be extremely demoralizing.
 * And if one does have a COI -- an employee of the organization, for instance, who's been assigned this as a job -- you've probably already shown your boss this fabulous long piece with all those lovely details. And now they're being pruned. So either way, it's no fun.
 * I find it very interesting indeed that they said No wonder I was warned that the admins on WP are absolute terrors. Valereee (talk) 11:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hahahaha. I felt you were being quite patient with him! MaxnaCarta (talk) 11:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Rewards on Wikipedia
Hi Valereee, I have read your edit here where I understand that Wikipedia doesn't reward so much for expanding articles than creating them, therefore encouraging editors moving on after the creation was accomplished. the discussion was preceded by a quite large list of lists or article creators. And this I observed as well in the real world, when the community achieves the 6'000'000'000th article its worth a news, not if a certain number of articles pass a certain expanded status. Maybe we can't end the mass creation of stubs, but maybe we could create (a) reward/s similarly interesting for the expanders? If you know a another/better place where to address this interest/concern let me know.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 05:55, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's possible to fix it as long as we keep recognizing the creators of tens of thousands of microstubs as being our 'most prolific creators'. We do recognize people for expanding articles, but that doesn't translate into offwiki recognition, which WP:List of Wikipedians by article count does. No one offwiki really understands what those numbers mean, so the folks creating the worst crap get real world attention as VIPs even though what they're actually doing is making extra work for other editors and very little of real value for readers. To a reporter looking for a splashy headline, someone who has written mostly from scratch 1865 actual articles good enough for DYK doesn't sound like it'll get nearly as many clicks as someone who's created nearly 100,000 microstubs using databases and templates. IMO we need to stop publicly recognizing people for behavior we don't actually value. It's counterproductive. Valereee (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with you that the rewarding of the creators of microstubs is counterproductive. Maybe we could think of a certain level of expansion with which an article creation would count? I know I have learned a bit late of the workshop, but I am interested into contributing to the solution for the problem.20:29, 17 September 2022 (UTC) Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think most people would have an objection to an article being counted once it gets to non-stub status, whether it's the creator or someone else who does that work. Valereee (talk) 20:50, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

There was no accusation
Valereee, the only apology I am going to give is that I am truly sorry you're interpreting an attack. None was intended, implied, or given. I attempted to drop it with this and this. Apparently saying "ok" and "I hope you have a nice day" is another attack? I didn't get how you were interpreting an attack and I still don't get it. I will tell you again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again; I did not intend, imply, or give an attack. I think it critically important for both of us to understand that text is a very limited form of communication, missing so much of language that it severely hampers the ability to communicate. This is most especially so in cases where people are upset about issues. If you and I had been sitting around a table discussing this, there absolutely would have been no misunderstanding. Enough of this, please. I have no other words to give you on this. If this isn't enough to convince you there was no attack, nothing else I can say will sway you. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think I said anything about "attack" -- you were the only one using that word -- but yep, refusing to acknowledge a question can be an accusation is not really going to do it. You made multiple accusations in the form of questions, when I called you on it you refused to acknowledge they were accusations, you told me -- the person being accused, who was trying to defend herself -- that I should drop the stick and that if I had a problem I should take it to ANI. You need to rethink your approach. Asking questions like the ones you asked at WT:ACN:
 * Valeree, why did you shut down this discussion? Why is the draft in your userspace? You're not a member of ArbCom, nor a clerk with ArbCom, and are not one of the appointed moderators of the RfC. Even more confusing. That is an accusation of overstepping on my part.
 * Now looking at the (very oddly placed, seemingly unannounced) draft of the RfC at User:Valereee/rfc_draft,. That is an accusation that I've somehow tried to hide it. ETA convenience link: User:Valereee/rfc_draft
 * So this draft is in userspace? And the community has been made aware of it how? Sounds like it's in an out of service bathroom in a basement, locked in a filing cabinet with a warning sign about large cats on it. Good lord. Again an accusation I'm hiding something.
 * ...were absolutely accusatory. I don't know how else to describe them. Valereee (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * And I don't know how else to convince you I wasn't attacking you. I give up. I hope you have a stupendous, fantastic vacation. I really do. Please, I beg of you on everything that is meaningful in this world and the next, take this at face value. I really do hope you have a nice vacation. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, I didn't use the word attack. I used the word accusation. Which I've been trying to defend myself against. Valereee (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Where Now?
I am confused. Where if anywhere is there discussion or debate or prediscussion or anything about mass creation and mass deletion of articles? All that I can tell is that a lot of editors are complaining, but I am not entirely sure what about. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Just the drafting of the workshop, at User talk:Valereee/draft, and then the workshopping at WT:ACAS. Which complaining are you referring to? :D Valereee (talk) 14:20, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Mostly the complaining at the Arbitration Committee Noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:27, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I am still confused. It appears that the workshopping at WT:ACAS is closed.  I don't see anything happening at User talk:Valereee/draft.  Am I missing something?  Is something missing me?  Is there a subcommittee doing markup behind the scenes?  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Not a subcommitte, but I'm working on a draft at User:Valereee/rfc draft using what came out of the workshopping. Xeno's been working on distilling the deletions at scale questions for workshopping those. There's a hold up right now due to closer availability, so still trying to develop a timeline for the actual RfCs. Valereee (talk) 09:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

TLC
I sure hope so and would be happy to nominate. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 22:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The issue is whether the community sees 8 months as "long enough" between RfAs. It's all kind of a guessing game, and unfortunately failing to pass a second RfA is more of a problem than failing to pass the first. This is an excellent candidate. I don't want to lose out on their contributions as an admin because of timing. Valereee (talk) 02:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, KevinL, that means a lot :) i'll definitely keep it in mind. And yeah, Valereee is right that a hasty re-RfA could pose a problem. No harm in waiting a bit longer :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:55, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll co-nom if you want. That'll certainly help. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

An award for you!

 * +1 Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words, @Thewolfchild. I hope it turns out well. I've done similar things that turned out to be time wasted. Valereee (talk) 12:04, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, the reason I posted this now, as opposed to after the conclusion of that discussion, is because I wanted to recognize and thank you for your efforts regardless of how it turns out. It might not work out, I hope it does, but you're on my christmas card list either way... ;-) Cheers - w o lf  15:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

October 2022 New Pages Patrol backlog drive
(t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Women in Green October 2022 Good Article Editathon
 Hello :

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a  month-long Good Article Editathon event in October 2022!

Running from October 1 to 31, 2022, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) editathon event – Wildcard Edition! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to any and all women and women's works during the event period. Want to improve an article about a Bollywood actress? Go for it. A pioneering female scientist? Absolutely. An award-winning autobiography by a woman? Yes! GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to receive a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

Alanna the Brave (talk) & Goldsztajn (talk) 23 September 2022

You are receiving this message as a member of the WikiProject Women in Green. You can remove yourself from receiving notifications here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Fighting fire with...
... carbon dioxide. Chops off the oxygen supply, with less risk of causing splattering of the flammable material with superheated water and steam. ;) isaacl (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Oh, I think I might have known that! Probably from like some high school class years ago. :D Valereee (talk) 20:49, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I wasn't intending for [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/ScottishFinnishRadish/Bureaucrat_chat&diff=1111406698&oldid=1111406142 you to post about it] :D Water is a fine choice in many situations: it has a high specific heat value which means it can absorb a lot of heat, so through its smothering and cooling actions it can attack two sides of the fire triangle ;) Pretty good for forest fires; just need a lot of it though, like rain. isaacl (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Just keep it away from oil fires! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think there's something about stovetop fires, too...baking soda? Baking powder? Because of the grease or something? Valereee (talk) 21:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Salt is what I've always used for that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:22, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No kidding, smother it with salt? I figured flour maybe? Is flour flammable? Valereee (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Worse, it's explosive. Not like actually explosive like a bomb, but when it's dispersed in air. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We actually have an article on it, Dust explosion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Jeez. Glad I'm not really much of a baker. Valereee (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, any flammable dust material can be explosive as an air mixture; flour on your stove top probably won't trigger one, but it'll burn really well. Baking soda will release carbon dioxide (which brings us back to the start :). If there's a lid that can cover it, that's the first choice as it will cut off the oxygen. isaacl (talk) 21:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Can't I just run? I have insurance. Valereee (talk) 21:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Run to get the lid ;) isaacl (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Screw the lid, I'm getting my cats! :D Valereee (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If my cats saw me running from a fire they'd probably trip me. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Same. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Cats are not good for putting out fires, the fur is too flammable. Levivich (talk) 22:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You people are terrible. Valereee (talk) 22:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I kinda thought it was fun. :) Valereee (talk) 21:22, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Adding tensions to the fun: chamber music pictured today: Spannungen --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

travel and strings sound - will the pink editor colour caused by ever go away? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red October 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Some stroopwafels for you!

 * Thanks, @H0lyh0lywiki! Valereee (talk) 16:55, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 52
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 52, July – August 2022 
 * New instant-access collections:
 * SpringerLink and Springer Nature
 * Project MUSE
 * Taylor & Francis
 * ASHA
 * Loeb
 * Feedback requested on this newsletter

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2022
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2022).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg ScottishFinnishRadish
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Staxringold
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Ahoerstemeier (deceased) • Ched

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Cyberpower678

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg GorillaWarfare

Guideline and policy news
 * Following an RfC, consensus was found that if the rationale for a block depends on information that is not available to all administrators, that information should be sent to the Arbitration Committee, a checkuser or an oversighter for action (as applicable, per ArbCom's recent updated guidance) instead of the administrator making the block.
 * Following an RfC, consensus has been found that, in the context of politics and science, the reliability of FoxNews.com is unclear and that additional considerations apply to its use.
 * Community comment on the revised Universal Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines is requested until 8 October.

Technical news
 * The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.

Arbitration
 * Remedy 8.1 of the Muhammad images case will be rescinded 1 November following a motion.
 * A modification to the deletion RfC remedy in the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been made to reaffirm the independence of the RfC and allow the moderators to split the RfC in two.
 * The second phase of the 2021-22 Discretionary Sanctions Review closes 3 October.

Miscellaneous
 * An administrator's account was recently compromised. Administrators are encouraged to check that their passwords are secure, and reminded that ArbCom reserves the right to not restore adminship in cases of poor account security. You can also use two-factor authentication (2FA) to provide an extra level of security.
 * Self-nominations for the electoral commission for the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections open 2 October and close 8 October.
 * You are invited to comment on candidates in the 2022 CUOS appointments process.
 * An RfC is open to discuss whether to make Vector 2022 the default skin on desktop.
 * Tech tip: You can do a fuzzy search of all deleted page titles at Special:Undelete.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Topic ban
Isn't this a violation? – 2 . O . Boxing  01:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Valeree, I don't think you had any choice with applying the ban here. Adam clearly wasn't interested in changing his ways. You should probably also block this account User:MrScoobyAU, which is a sock of Adam's, as admitted here. I wouldn't be surprised if he tries to set up a new account, can his ISP be blocked as well? Cheers, Zawed (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that she tried everything possible. I was hoping when I reached out that they would have some reason beyond "I decided to break my topic ban." Good on you Valereee for trying everything you could. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, SFR. I'm pretty annoyed lol... Valereee (talk) 13:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Good grief. I've blocked the other account, and account creation is disabled on both. Valereee (talk) 13:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree that you had no choice, Valereee, and that you and a lot of people bent over backwards trying to help him, all to no avail. I don't think there's anything more anyone could have done, but I really appreciate the efforts that everyone made in the attempt. Mathglot (talk) 00:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Ewa Marcinek
Whenever you have a moment, could you take a look through your nifty goggles and tell me if Draft:Ewa Marcinek has anything worth saving? A google search suggests to me she may be NAUTHOR notable, I was considering rescuing. Thanks, Levivich (talk) 01:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Doesn't look like it...she may be notable in Iceland, though. One of the reviewers says "Iceland polished is an impressive work that should find its way onto the bedside table of all Icelanders". She doesn't seem to appear in is.wiki, though. And neither does the reviewer, nor the literary magazine, so hard to tell. There's this, though, which appears to be an alt weekly with editorial oversight and just calls her Ewa, which might mean she's well-known in Iceland. I think it's definitely a promising draft. Shall I restore, or do you just want to copy from here? Valereee (talk) 11:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Ewa Marcinek is an Polish-Icelandic writer and journalist.

Biography
She is a writer and project manager at Reykjavík Ensemble, an international theatre company, that she founded with Pálína Jónsdóttir.

Her writing has been published in Icelandic journals, exhibited during festivals and art shows in Iceland and abroad. In her texts, she plays around with private and public identities, personal stories, and memories. She writes mostly in Polish and English.

Works

 * Coca-cola
 * Ísland pólerað

RfC which may be of interest
Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale Valereee (talk) 13:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Discuss this at: 

ARCA notice
You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: September 2022
About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 22:52, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
Regarding [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Requests_for_comment/AfD_at_scale&diff=1115237392&oldid=1115231772 this comment] and other ones you've made in this discussion: if I'm understanding correctly what you're trying to say, I believe you're flipping the meanings of "threaded" and "unthreaded". Threaded is when replies are posted directly below the comments to which they are replying, thus creating a thread of discussion containing posts from all participants. If in fact your usage does match this definition, then I'm confused regarding your message.

I agree that the disconnection created by separate sections per user is intended to make it harder to reply, thus slowing down conversation and hopefully reducing the risk of rapid escalation of confrontational behaviour. Separate sections also helps everyone have equal access to introducing their thoughts into conversation. I appreciate that it's not an approach required for all discussions, and that it is unpopular with those who want to reply rapidly and feel (rightly or wrongly) that the potential problems don't apply to them or the particular conversation in question. isaacl (talk) 00:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Yeah, looks like I was switching back and forth in the same para lol, thanks.
 * I do get the dislike for not being able to reply to people within a section. But honestly is there any benefit to having discussion on the RfC itself? Maybe just have people take all reactions to anyone else's comments immediately to the talk and open a section? Valereee (talk) 12:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess it's just a matter of what you're used to, and probably when you enter the discussion. When the discussion has just started so there isn't much content yet, or if you're reading it all some time later, then having everything on one page is probably simplest. If you're using a device where showing two pages side-by-side isn't possible or is somewhat onerous, you might also prefer one page. My instinct is to say that I prefer one page, but I realize I might be biased by what I've learned to do.
 * If you don't literally mean holding the discussion on a separate talk page, but holding threaded discussion in a separate section rather than just below each person's initial statement, I've often advocated for this format. It's more work for those who just want to drop in a response and forget about it, or who just want to keep track of places they've commented already (either their own initial comment, or replies to others). For better or worse, it's a tragedy of the commons situation: it's easier for me if people reply directly to me and I reply directly to others, but not necessarily easier for everyone else trying to follow the discussion overall and avoid repeating themselves across multiple threads. isaacl (talk) 23:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I do mean removing responses to an editor's initial comment on a proposal from the RfC to the talk page, into its own section, as soon as it becomes a back-and-forth discussion between/among editors. Other !voters can go read that longer discussion if they want, and join in if they want. That happens often when a discussion breaks out in an oppose !vote at RfA. But no one not involved in that discussion is forced to scroll through pages and pages of it while looking for the next section. Valereee (talk) 12:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Was that last comment (on AfD RfC talk) intended as a gentle "stop trolling, EA"? I (genuinely) find it hard to tell. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 01:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Espresso Addict OMG No! It was just a comment on how best to persuade the people we're trying to persuade. I'm so sorry it looked like anything else. Valereee (talk) 02:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries! I just post something that felt a bit like light-blue-touchpaper-and-retire, and then you post a mod notice. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 02:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Athaenara topic ban
I would like to remind you to remember to notify Athaenara on her talk page that she is now topic banned, now that you closed the topic ban proposal as endorsed. I have logged the topic ban on Editing restrictions for you, but I'm not comfortable delivering the topic ban message myself since I am not an admin. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:31, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for logging that, @Mellohi!, it was on my list. Yes, I'll post for Ath, although of course I'm sure she knows. Valereee (talk) 12:35, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Block + revdel
The account posted porn on ANI. That's why. :) Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:34, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah. That would do it lol... Valereee (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * How did someone find a way to make ANI worse? HouseBlastertalk 01:36, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Rule 34 Valereee (talk) 13:31, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Debatable whether porn is worse than ANI. Levivich (talk) 13:36, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Hey, Tamzin. Thank you for the half-barnstar and for the kind words. Valereee (talk) 22:15, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Amendment request closed
A request for amendment that you were a party to has been closed. The arbitrators felt that Valereee's actions were within the bounds of her discretion and that the discussion of a new deletion criterion should be saved for the second RfC. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:12, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Oh lol is there a third? :D Thanks for the kind words! Valereee (talk) 21:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Desist punishing me
Revert your taking away of my autopatrolled rights. I am not quite as religious about every clear and quite well-known fact needing an in-line citation where one can be easily found, but that is a general philosophical position and not one I apply to most of my own edits. You must note I have done nothing to disrupt or deliberately breach policy. You are judge, jury and executioner. This must stop. Please consider how draconian your action towards me is and that in particular there was a clear source, just not inline and many other experienced admins had read the article and not thought this worthy of punishment. It is like you are the Grand Ayatollah of Iran and I have exposed too much of my face.- Adam37 Talk  16:30, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I also expect a strong apology as you have not at all slowed down to consider the source I was using was in the article, in its references section. You are breaching policy and not me.- Adam37 Talk  16:34, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not punishment. Removal of autopatrolled means new creations will be tagged for someone else to check, which in my opinion is needed when someone refuses to provide inline citations for new content. Valereee (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You have completely misquoted me. It's no wonder you require in-line citations quite frankly.  I did not refuse to provide it for new content.  I have accepted your deletion of the new content.  And then obviously that policy having been accepted (You need to remember actions speak louder than words), I said I did actually have a citation/reference at the bottom for it all.  And that point, which you totally overlook, you then use against me as if it were true. It's not.  So you owe me just an apology and to hell with your "I won't let people know I'm an admin" but I'll take away some of your rights as I don't trust you stance, it's very nasty. Really authoritarian, not even what someone is saying to you just a slanted interpretation, fake news if you will.- Adam37</b>  Talk  19:33, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I do suspect that some things you would like to write about policy or similar would be totally off piste, and so I do hope you find logical and fair citations for each such policy. As I say it tends to be those who wield the axe who never swing it one inch in their own direction. It's not a good look.- <b style="color: black">Adam37</b> Talk  19:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean by "I won't let people know I'm an admin"? Valereee (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's fair process that if you are even considering using powers you let the possible inflictee know you have them. They can then consider the alleged seriousness, which may or not be what you think. Or pre-judge it to be.- <b style="color: black">Adam37</b> Talk  20:06, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It does not matter even a little bit whether the person bringing up a concern is an admin. Any experienced editor bringing up a concern with you should be considered to be serious about their concerns. Consider enabling Preferences>Gadgets>Navigation popups, which will let you hover over a user name to see how experienced an editor is. Valereee (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It is part of my belief system that we should all be loved and valued equally. I see 99% of people who accept my content addition, clarification and citation adding is mainstream. I will not deal with brutes who cannot express what they want while destroying while denying I will follow their system going forward while thinking everything needs an in-line citation when it is a list of organisations or very regular events, while thinking everything someone writes is potentially wrong. Whatever happened to Assume Good Faith, I admit fake news has mushroomed in recent decades but I do not accept that you think I am outside of regular experience. It may be you who is outside of that. And experience is not academically helpful, almost every tyrant on here who has been an admin/similar (such as those barred) started off with academic intent and then launched into a tirade of mono-policy aggression.- <b style="color: black">Adam37</b>  Talk  20:30, 24 October 2022 (UTC)