Jump to content

User talk:Valereee/Archive 30

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32→Archive 35

Slow as Christmas!!

🔔🎁⛄️🎅🏻 Atsme 💬 📧 04:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Atsme, and Merry Elfmas to you, too! —valereee (talk) 13:43, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Donner60 (talk) is wishing a foaming mug of Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec20}} to your friends' talk pages.

Thank you, Donner60, and the same to you! —valereee (talk) 13:43, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

File:Christmas tree decorations 2.jpg Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you and your family. Whispyhistory (talk) 17:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

And to you, Whispyhistory! —valereee (talk) 18:55, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

My edit at Papal States

Hi, this is a message to let you know I removed a duplicate in the successor states section of the infobox of the page regarding the Papal States. The Principality of Pontecorvo was already mentioned in the same section above. Feel free to review my edit and let me know if you have any questions, as there have previously been concerns regarding my edits. Thank you. Firestar464 (talk) 04:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Firestar464, thanks for letting me know. I agree that looks like a completely uncontroversial removal of duplicate information. —valereee (talk) 12:04, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Partial blocks

I'm curious why you have blocked some POV-pushing editors from the talk page but not from editing the page itself. Meanwhile, I am still topic banned. What is the purpose of this enormous asymmetry and how does it benefit the project? GPinkerton (talk) 07:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Things are a bit messy at that article, have you noticed? :) —valereee (talk) 10:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, as far as I can see, the POV push goes on apace, with those editors allowed to edit the page (and many, many others) but actually forbidden to discuss changes on the talk page. No-one has taken seriously any suggestion I have ever done anything of that kind, suggestions which have only been made in retaliation, and yet because of it I am prevented from editing because of having reported concerns you (and many others) have repeated. I curious: why block from the talk page and not from the main page itself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GPinkerton (talk • contribs)
Just an oversight, but in any case I've instituted an editing restriction there, which I hope will solve the problem and mean the blocks are no longer needed. —valereee (talk) 13:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Will that stop refactoring of talkpages too? GPinkerton (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
GP, I strongly suspect posting that diff here would be considered by at least some admins to be a violation of your topic ban. I really don't want to ding you for that, so I'm archiving this as soon as my reply posts, and I suggest you go find something else to work on. —valereee (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

December 2020 2

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages are for discussion related to improving (a) an encyclopedia article in specific ways based on reliable sources or (b) project policies and guidelines. They are not for general discussion about the article topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Edits at RSN have gone off-topic. The topic is Tibetan Political Review. Pasdecomplot (talk) 15:17, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot, sorry, can you tell me what edits you're referring to? —valereee (talk) 16:00, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
This is an invalid warning since it refers to not following seriously off-topic edits at RSN, which are found in the two edits located at the end of the discussion. Per policy, off-topic edits should be refractored. Thank you for striking through the directly rude edit. And, please stop all direct editing interactions -pings, user talk pages, notice board discussions, etc. Pasdecomplot (talk) 12:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Happy to stop interacting on your user talk except when absolutely necessary; as I said there, I tried to avoid that but you wouldn't acknowledge my request to stop reformatting my posts. I literally asked you twice to at least acknowledge the request, and when you didn't, that really only left me with either asking someone else to ask you to acknowledge it, which seemed a bit silly, and posting to your talk, as you acknowledge it by removing it. As I've made that request many times before, I felt I needed to have it acknowledged so I could stop asking. Happy also to not ping you, although when you mention/refer to me, I'd prefer you do ping me, as a courtesy.
I can't actually say I won't speak up when I see you discussing me, although I've ignored you doing so multiple times. I also can't say I won't join a discussion simply because you're participating. I'm certainly going to address the things you say about me, like calling my posts inaccuracies, saying they're incorrectly formatted, etc., and when I disagree with you about a point you're making about policy, I'm going to say so. If you want to keep ignoring me, that's your right, but I have to say doing so means you leave me little choice but to post to your talk when I feel I'm forced to. Since it seems to be what you'd prefer, I'll instead ask someone else to ask you to acknowledge, even though I'll feel a bit silly doing it.
Editors here sometimes disagree with one another. It's inevitable. In general, it's best to just try to get along as best we can. It's a collaborative project. We're supposed to be working together. —valereee (talk) 16:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Valereee, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021.
Happy editing,
Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:32, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Thank you, Narutolovehinata5! Same to you! —valereee (talk) 18:11, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you!

Dear Valereee, thank you for your time and advice. Best wishes for the holidays! --A.S. Brown (talk) 02:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

A.S. Brown, you're very welcome, and best to you and yours also! —valereee (talk) 12:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 53, 2020)

Fish processing is a significant part of the fishing industry. Pictured is frozen Tuna being cut using a band saw in the Tsukiji fish market in Tokyo.
Hello, Valereee. The article for improvement of the week is:

Fishing industry

Please be bold and help improve it!

Previous selections: Edible • Christmas ham

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

Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • Opt-out instructions

The Signpost: 28 December 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

A New Year With Women in Red!

Women in Red | January 2021, Volume 7, Issue 1, Numbers 182, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Irreversible Damage

Hello Valereee, I know our interactions have been rocky but @MJL: said I should give you a chance, so here I am. I could use your help with something. There has been an influx of SPAs or sleepers over at Irreversible Damage, quite possibly related to off-wikipedia WP:CANVASSING from Twitter. If you could maybe assist with mediating the heated discussions and consider applying discretionary sanctions there, I would really appreciate it. Thank you, IHateAccounts (talk) 04:16, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey, IHateAccounts, of course I'd be happy to help. I've fully protected the page for edit-warring, for now. Hm, it looks like the talk page doesn't have a ds notice on it, which it should; I've added that. Everyone working there needs to get a ds alert on their talk page, if they haven't had one so far. Once they've been alerted, admins can use discretionary sanctions. —valereee (talk) 11:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

My edit at Human Rights in Syria

Hello, this is just a message to let you know that at Human rights in Syria, I tagged a poorly cited section with "citations needed." Feel free to review my edit and let me know if you have any questions. Thank you! Firestar464 (talk) 04:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Firestar464, that's a better choice than removing any of the content! Not strictly needed -- as you noted, the section already has a silly number of cn tags -- but a section banner can help attract the attention of someone willing to check the assertions. Another editor may decide the banner and the tags are redundant; we'll see! —valereee (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

TimestampDiffs

On the subject of scripts that make it easy to grab diffs: User:Evad37/TimestampDiffs. For every talk page comment, the time stamp becomes a link to the diff for that comment. This makes it only two clicks to "thank" and three clicks to ANI! Levivich harass/hound 06:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, oh, interesting, thanks! I'll give it a try, thanks! I've got so many scripts running...I've been wondering at what point they start bickering among themselves. —valereee (talk) 11:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Even works on my talk page. EEng 04:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Hm, I think it may actually be bickering with reply-link. —valereee (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
I uninstalled reply-link and replaced with the WMF's new DiscussionTools. Add this to your common.js if you want to try it: if ( $( '#ca-addsection' ).length ) mw.loader.using( 'ext.discussionTools.init' ); In some ways it's not as good as reply-link, but on the whole I think it's better. Levivich harass/hound 16:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Hm, it doesn't automatically ping, that's actually better. might help me remember not to ping people to their own talk pages. Or accidentally ping someone I've agreed not to ping lol. And you can use VisEd to make correctly pinging easier for people with difficult usernames. I like it! I've been watching the discussion at (meta?) but didn't realize it was actually available on enwiki yet. —valereee (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Funny cuz not auto pinging is one of the things I actually don't like about it. I hope they turn it into a setting. I don't think it's been officially released on enwiki yet, so we're probably all gonna get office banned for using it, but until then it makes replying a lot easier! Levivich harass/hound 17:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Wait, what? You've got me using contraband?! —valereee (talk) 17:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Well I needed something to blackmail you with. Levivich harass/hound 17:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

DYK for LaVon Mercer

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Happy New Year 2021
I hope your New Year holiday is enjoyable and the coming year is much better than the one we are leaving behind.
Best wishes from Los Angeles.   // Timothy :: talk 

TimothyBlue, thanks, and same to you! —valereee (talk) 15:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Valereee!

Happy New Year!

Valereee,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Moneytrees🏝️Talk🌴Help out at CCI! 02:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Welcome to the 2021 WikiCup!

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. We thank Vanamonde93 and Godot13, who have retired as judges, and we thank them for their past dedication. The judges for the WikiCup this year are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations on the No. 4 hook of 2020!

The 2020 totals are now complete, and your "professional day-drinking" hook for Jackie Summers ranked as the No. 4 hook of the year with 3,111 DYK views per hour and No. 7 based on total DYK views (37,332). A list of the 25 most viewed hooks of 2020 can be viewed at "Top hooks of 2020". Congratulations on your hook's remarkable showing, and please keep up the great work! Cbl62 (talk) 09:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations on the No. 8 hook of 2020!

The 2020 totals are now complete, and your hook for Goat tower ranked as the No. 8 hook of the year with 2,142 DYK views per hour. You landed two of the Top 10!! A list of the 25 most viewed hooks of 2020 can be viewed at "Top hooks of 2020". Congratulations on your hook's remarkable showing, and keep up the great work! Cbl62 (talk) 09:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

No. 12 as well!

Adding to a very impressive showing, your hook for Detroit-style pizza ranked No. 12 with 1,995 views per hour. I'd ask for a slice, but I'm a bit worried about what's been dripping into those "drip trays". Cbl62 (talk) 09:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Cbl62, wow, thanks! How fun is that? —valereee (talk) 10:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

What admins can do at Syrian Kurdistan

I happened to see your update to the GS banner as described at Talk:Syrian Kurdistan/Archive 5#Disputed content requires recent scholarship for source. It's good to see an administrator trying to settle down this area. I have looked at the Syrian Kurdistan issue once or twice but felt discouraged by the complexity. In the past, the one thing I did notice was an apparent lack of RfCs at Talk:Syrian Kurdistan. But at this exact moment there is an open RfC at Talk:Syrian Kurdistan/Archive 2#Rfc: Syrian Kurdistan's lead: is it universal or not. It might be worth trying to get that closed. I know that some people are leaning toward an Arbcom case (per WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Kurds) but that risks becoming a time sink. Though it's good to see the work put in by User:Levivich to organize the issues. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@EdJohnston, relieved not to discover someone pointing out to me that my "creative" restriction is in fact a major policy vio and an ANI has been opened. :) I've been waiting with bated breath since I posted that. Hm on the open RfC...it's over six weeks stale. Does it need to be closed, or can we let it die a natural death? Yes, yes, Levivich deserves a knighthood, we've already covered that. :D I honestly don't have an opinion on whether an Arbcom/similar case would be productive in the long run. It's all so messy. You know what I like to write about? Unusual food. Quirky obscure little bits of vintage culture like Feed sack dress. How did I even end up in Syrian Kurdistan, which I couldn't reliably have located on a map ten weeks ago? —valereee (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, that RfC has kind of gone off the tracks, and it might be possible to get the original proponents to fix it. There is now a subsidiary discussion of sources at the top of Talk:Syrian Kurdistan. The source discussion might find some way to get merged with the RfC. The beauty of an RfC is that people who are inappropriately pushing a POV might simply be outvoted. EdJohnston (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
@Levivich, do you have an opinion on the RfC? Sorry if that's a double ping! —valereee (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
@val and @EdJohnston: I think it's been superseded by subsequent discussion among the participants, in Archive 3, 4, and on the talk page, which led to a compromise version of the lead paragraph that was added to the article on Dec 23 and has been edited since then with minor tweaks by a few editors (including myself, recently adding citations), but not reverted or complained-about. (Although I should acknowledge that like half of the participants in that RFC are now blocked or banned.) So IMO the first paragraph is stable. In fact, the first two sentences of the article are now well-sourced and I think have consensus; the rest not yet. I plan to keep going with updating the article using the sources identified on the talk page, and I think the sources are more than adequate to construct a basic article explaining the subject. There will definitely be further content disputes, but my hope is that I can at least move the NPOV tag from article-wide to a minority of sections, maybe even by the end of this week, depending on how much I get and what other editors think. We'll see how it goes.
Syrian Kurdistan is doing OK since the full protection expired. It's required like two or three FTEs worth of admin time to get there, but so far so good. The rest of the Kurd-related topic area is still problematic AFAICT, but I can't say I really want to sign up for the task of comprehensively investigating/collecting diffs to present to Arbcom (beyond what's in the AN/Kurds sub-page, which is some small percentage of the full picture). It's such an investment of time. Also I'm new to the topic area, and I can't stomach the idea of filing a case request like, "Hi, my name is Levivich. I've been editing this one article for a month. Please institute DS on this topic area and TBAN the following editors: ..." I mean that would just be bullshit coming from a newcomer. So I'm not going to be filing an Arbcom case, but those with more experience in the topic area (or an admin) might. Levivich harass/hound 21:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
A full case takes a long time and Arbcom does not have special magic wisdom. The best they can do is clamp down on especially bad situations that have been running out of control. This particular area is not (in my opinion) out of control, but it may seem so unappealing to outsiders that they don't choose to come in and try to help. So, in a sense, what it needs is 'good marketing' which Levivich has helped with. Thanks to his work, the problem now looks somewhat tractable. EdJohnston (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
One thing I would appreciate, and maybe I should ask for this at the AN thread, is if an admin or three would look at the AN/Kurd subpage and say whether or not the various complained-of-edits (like removing "Kurdistan", or Kurdish-language translations) are or are not disruptive and should or should not continue. Editors need to either stop doing the problematic edits (if consensus is they're disruptive) or stop complaining about them (if consensus is that they're improvements or at least not disruptive), because both the edits and the complaints continue. Levivich harass/hound 21:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
I think the AN thread needs it. It's heading for as bad as SK had been. Honestly, none of the interested editors seem to be able to recognize their own biases even a little. —valereee (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 Done Request posted in the AN thread. Levivich harass/hound 22:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
And I've backed it up. —valereee (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

PP

IP is edit warring and the following need PP, please? List of lighthouses in China (article) and List of lighthouses in Hong Kong (redirect). Atsme 💬 📧 18:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, I protect the china article, but I'm not following on the HK -- is it a redirect page that's got the problem? —valereee (talk) 18:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Both - the IP is removing material from the China article and creating a new article, then removing the redirect. Based on my research, the Hong Kong list (article) was deleted and a redirect was created which was supported by consensus. Atsme 💬 📧 18:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Atsme, I'm sorry, I'm too stupid for this.  :) I think I've gotten it, but of course the wrong versions are probably protected. I'll leave a message at the IP's talk. —valereee (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
No problem, Val. List of lighthouses in Hong Kong needs to be restored as a redirect to List of lighthouses in China. Atsme 💬 📧 19:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC) PS: I restored the redirect, and advised the lighthouse project.Atsme 💬 📧 19:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Ok, so the main article is protected and that means List_of_lighthouses_in_China#Lighthouses_in_Hong_Kong is in tact; so, should the redirect be speedy deleted? The IP removed the redirect and created a duplicate list to what we already have as a subsection per the aforementioned. The current List of lighthouses in China is not overflowing or in need of a split. I realize that spin-offs cannot be speedy deleted but this is technically a redirect, so what do you think? Atsme 💬 📧 17:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Atsme, hm. I think I'd leave the redirect. They're cheap, and it's possible someone would type that in to see if we had that article yet. I'm thinking if the problem keeps recurring we protect it instead? —valereee (talk) 17:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
See this, and then see the reverts I made today here. If you can protect both it may help. That IP needs to start a discussion because the article isn't so large that it needs a spin-off. It's just a list and it's convenient to have the locations in one place (despite WP:NOTDIRECTORY) but hey - if consensus agrees it should be a separate article, it's ok with me. The IP needs to start a discussion on the talk page of the China list and make that happen. Atsme 💬 📧 18:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Atsme, yeah, I've recommended that. Don't hold your breath. Okay, I'll semi both for a short time. —valereee (talk) 18:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Val! If you are only protecting the page for 2 or 3 days, it isn't working. See this edit today. DumbBot also removed the pp symbol on the 16th presumably because the page wasn't protected, so that's twice now. The IP reverted immediately following DumbBot's removal, see this and this. Also see List of lighthouses in Hong Kong - they've been busy, and now they have created List of lighthouses in Macau. They have also placed improper tags so I've replaced the redirects. There has not been any discussion on the Talk page to arrive at a consensus to move/split those sections. As a patroller, it is difficult for me to properly do my work when others refuse to follow WP:PAG, as is the case with this IP. They apparently want it known that there is a People's Republic of China and that China is not part of it, or so it seems by the edits and separation of the lighthouses. Should it be escalated to AN or ANI if you have concerns over longer PP or blocking the IP? I created a discussion on Talk:List of lighthouses in China for the splits, hopefully to stop the disrutpive editing. Atsme 💬 📧 11:54, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Atsme, I've indefinitely semi'd both redirects. I can't think of any reason an IP would need to edit a redirect that isn't going to ever become an article.
It's not all the same IP, is it? —valereee (talk) 12:12, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
I think it's the same editor using different IPs but who knows? IP:219.77.112.107 and IP:210.0.147.67, both geolocate to the same area in Hong Kong. Atsme 💬 📧 12:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC) Adding diffs: most active and least active but recent. 12:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Why don't you go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong too? 218.255.11.66 (talk) 16:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Atsme: May I know what your point is of removing an inter-wiki links? Or just that you keep removing it because you genuinely believe that's "gibberish" as you put it? Who's waiting whose time? 210.0.147.24 (talk) 10:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
  • It's feeling more like trying to herd cats, huh? Thank you for all the effort you've put into this, Val. I'm feeling guilty that you've had to take the brunt of it, so I reached out to Daniel Case, a member of WP:WikiProject China. I'm hoping a project member will be able to get collegial discussions started where they're needed. Atsme 💬 📧 13:14, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
    Atsme, no, don't feel guilty at all, lol! I just wish I knew some strategy for dealing with this. I feel like it's a single person or maybe very small number of meatpuppets who are IP-hopping, but maybe it's actually multiple people being sent here from some Reddit subpage for people in Hong Kong and that's why they all sound like the same person and geolocate to the same area? I just feel like even blocking a dynamic IP is just a waste of time, all the person needs to do is turn off their wifi and turn it back on to get assigned a new IP. And then the next person who gets assigned the other one is blocked. —valereee (talk) 13:43, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
I didn't realize Reddit was used for that sort of thing - learn something new everyday! Well, it looks like semi-PP is a good option for now, and hopefully those pages won't have to be elevated to extended confirmed. Just an FYI, I have pending changes reviewer rights, just in case this is a waiting game for the IPs. The pages are on my watchlist. Atsme 💬 📧 13:57, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
What's the point of going to WPChina and to one of their participants but not WPHK? Is this going to lead to a neutral outcome? 218.255.11.66 (talk) 16:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Ping Feminist, who is a member of WP HK. Feminist, you don't have to read this entire thread, but we've got multiple IPs (which all sound like the same person, or at least they all have the same complaints and are expressing them in the same angry manner) coming into Hong Kong articles, and we can't seem to get them to discuss productively, as you can see at Talk:List of lighthouses in China, where it looks to me like they're IP-hopping to sock in an attempt to affect a !vote. They've accused us of "forum-shopping" because Atsme opened the discussion at that talk (rather than at the talk of the Macau redirect, which has only 3 watchers) and I enforced that; they seem to think the reason we want it at China is because we're biased toward China? I can't quite figure it out. Also they don't want to create an account because of fear of the government, I think; is that something you can address? Thanks for any help, and if you aren't interested, apologies for the ping. —valereee (talk) 16:32, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Feminist please do go through this thread and the discussions elsewhere. Their disruptive behaviour, forum shopping, abuse of admin powers, and so on, may go much farther and deeper than what appears to be the case from the outset. 218.255.11.66 (talk) 11:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. After quickly skimming through this discussion, I'll make a few comments. 1. WP:HK and WP:Macau should be notified in a discussion like this which involves topics specific to Hong Kong and Macau. As an analogy, if a discussion pops up which concerns whether to create a Scotland-specific article separate from one covering the UK as a whole, I would expect both WP:UK and WP:SCO to be notified. 2. Split discussions are typically held at the article where the content currently exists, so having the discussion at Talk:List of lighthouses in China is correct. 3. The status quo (i.e. including Hong Kong and Macau on the China page) is fine, but it's not unreasonable to want separate articles for List of lighthouses in Hong Kong and List of lighthouses in Macau. These topics are arguably more significant than similar lists we currently have as separate pages, e.g. the pages for Åland, Réunion, Puerto Rico. I realize this is an WP:OSE argument which perhaps supports merging those lists for sub-national entities to the sovereign state rather than splitting the Hong Kong and Macau lists, but proposing splits is not without merit. This doesn't excuse edit warring though. feminist (talk) 12:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Feminist, thanks, I've listed it at WP:MACAU too! —valereee (talk) 13:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Feminist you may wish to note that the Macau list was not newly created as Valeree and Atsme might have tried to portray. It has existed for quite many years. What they did was to blank and redirect it, which involved the use of admin powers to entrench what they did.[1][2] The Hong Kong list had likewise existed way until two and a half years ago,[3] and that blanking and redirecting was never discussed and there was certainly no consensus. It was also against the common sense to have done so given the established conventions not to regard dependencies as subnational entities except for those with special circumstances (e.g. Faroese atheletes in Olympics). They edit-warred against another presumably HK Wikipedian's attempt to revive that list from edit history, and had refused to discuss at the talk pages of the lists actually affected by edit-warring to change the venue.[4][5][6][7][8] 218.255.11.66 (talk) 09:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Atsme and 210.0.147.24 can you actually read the linked article in another language? 218.255.11.66 (talk) 16:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi hello? 218.255.11.66 (talk) 09:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Val, I brought here rather than discuss it on the article TP. Take a look at the following geolocates, it pretty much pinpoints the source: the enlarged map of the building; 218 IP, and 210 IP. Interestingly, they are all in the same vicinity. Maybe we should add it to the SPI case? Atsme 💬 📧 17:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
    Atsme, I think the geolocate just gives us the comms center for the provider? —valereee (talk) 17:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
    I don't think so per this site - (excerpt) Through a useful Internet tool called IP geolocation lookup, you can track an IP address close to someone's exact location, if they're communicating with you through the Internet...and if you want or need to know where they really are. You can get pretty close, depending on a variety of factors, to finding the physical location of someone's IP address (if you can capture it). Atsme 💬 📧 18:01, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
    Atsme, all I'm seeing is that they're all in Hong Kong. I don't know what I'm missing that you're seeing, but I see the same things I see when I use the geolocate link on the IPs' talk pages. I don't see anything about the Garrison building at all. I'm clearly too stupid to figure out what you're talking about. :) —valereee (talk) 18:14, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
    Zoom in on the maps until you can't zoom anymore. (+++). Re: the map of the building shows you it's located between the 2 causeways. Both IP geolocates are in that same vacinity (the white dot when you zoom in, the text reads City: Central) so when you zoom in, you can see the two causeways, the water and mainland. The actual map with the building shows it is also in City: Central, the 2 causeways are left & right, then there's the water, and the mainland. Atsme 💬 📧 18:24, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Are there actually causeways there? Central is just the city or the main business centre on the island and where some ISPs have their registered address or contact address. 218.255.11.66 (talk) 16:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Or if an address is not identified, Central is often where electronic maps would identify as the locator point for this country. 218.255.11.66 (talk) 09:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Question

What authority do you have to decide this: [9] ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Supreme Deliciousness, you are welcome to ask at AN whether I in fact do have that authority. :) It's a perfectly reasonable question to ask, since it's as far as I know a new type of editing restriction under general sanctions and it's quite possible the community will decide that I don't in fact have the authority to assert such a restriction. —valereee (talk) 13:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Have opened discussion: [10] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Clarification

Continuing from:[11]

For any content to be disputed there has to be a sourced-based argument against it, Levivich disputed it saying: "Because they were not sourced to modern scholarship." and "Anyway, the reason for the removal of those population figures was because they were sourced to 75-year-old surveys.", he did not oppose them because they are inaccurate and modern scholar sources say something different, but because they are old. There is no modern scholarship about the french census or modern scholarship disputing the french census. If there was, I would understand that its disputed. But the only dispute now is from Levivich himself and not from any modern scholarship sources. But you are saying that this is okey? Just because an editor himself disputes it we are not allowed to have it and the conversation is shutdown? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 1, 2021)

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

Pork chop

Please be bold and help improve it!

Previous selections: Fishing industry • Edible

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

Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • Opt-out instructions

Astrophysics prof

Hi: You partially blocked Marinaromanova55 from Richard V. E. Lovelace. She's started communicating, first on Worm That Turned's talk page, then at the Teahouse, where she posted what may have been intended as a response both to me (I did some rewriting of the article, so I responded to her on WTT's page) and the community. Can you help her out with a response (I think she's misunderstood some of my mumblings) and maybe a move of the Teahouse comment to the article talk page, which she may believe she's also blocked from? I for one say "moar astrophysicists!", and not just because it's Cornell (they probably don't remember me fondly). Yngvadottir (talk) 09:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Valeree. I saw WP:THQ#Need more help and explanation and noticed this editor had been partially-blocked by you from editing Richard V. E. Lovelace. Could you take a look at Draft:Richard Van Evera Lovelace since it was created by Marinaromanova55, but there's no need for two articles about Lovelace? My guess is that Marinaromanova55 was hoping to replace the current version with the draft version at some point. There might be some content in the draft that can be incorporated into the existing article, but not sure. In addition, could you please ask her to look at c:User talk:Marinaromanova55#File:Picture of Richard Van Evera Lovelace.jpg. I'm sure she probably meant no harm when they uploaded that file, but it seems pretty clear to not be their own work since it can be found used on various profile pages for Lovelace on Cornell University webpages. Even if it is her own work, it would need to be OTRS verified per c:COM:OTRS#Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS? just to make sure. I thought about posting about these things myself, but felt it might be better if you did since you've already interacted with her a bit. Too many people coming out of the blue and posting on her talk might just overwhelm her. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Marchjuly@Yngvadottir I'm wondering if she made that draft, then just didn't know how to move it/submit it so just copied it into a new creation? It's clear she's well-intentioned and it doesn't even sound like it's much of a conflict of interest. I've posted to her talk, let's see if she responds there. If she does, I'll ask her about the photos, but those photos aren't appropriate for the article anyway. So the guy likes to hike. :) —valereee (talk) 12:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
You might be correct about the draft. I mistakenly assumed the article existed first, but it actually was created after the draft. Perhaps Marinaromanova55 didn't know how to WP:MOVE a page; so, she just copied-and-pasted the draft into the mainspace. FWIW, the draft has lots of issues that would need to be cleaned up before any of it is acceptable for the mainspace; moreover, if the current article were to be draftified for some reason, there would then be duplicate drafts. I can't see any value in keeping the draft, but perhaps a WP:HISTMERGE might be helpful to tie the two together. Anyway, the draft is likely going to be deleted per WP:G11 in six months if left as is; so, maybe just getting rid of it now would be better.
As for the photos, I think the mountain climbing photos are probably OK from a licensing standpoint and can be kept by Commons; their use in the article for contextual reasons is a different matter, but there's no reason to delete them for copyright reasons. Perhaps one of them could actually be cropped and zoomed by someone at c:COM:GL/P to get a better image of the subject's face; of the three photos, File:Near Avachinsky volcano.jpg might be the nest candidate for something like that. The photo used in the infobox was a clearcut copyvio that has already been deleted; it was a nice photo for sure, but it couldn't really be kept without the WP:CONSENT or the copyright holder, who I'm guessing isn't the uploader. If that consent is subsequently received, it can always be restored per c:COM:REFUND. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

COI tag on Neelofa?

What did you mean by A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject.? Or rather, whom did you mean as the major contributor? --GRuban (talk) 14:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@GRuban, hm...I believe it was Neelofafiance, but I feel like there were some IPs that maybe had added stuff that seemed iffy? —valereee (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Heh. Honestly, User:Neelofafiance was probably merely an obsessed fan, and never a major contributor, almost all their edits (which mostly consisted of - shockingly enough! - adding a specific name as Neelofa's "fiance" or "partner"), having been reverted as blatant nonsense. Certainly never her actual fiance, I'll stake good odds on that. And they are now blocked. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1054#User:Neelofafiance_(and_the_article_Neelofa) ... oh, that's interesting, I didn't see that last comment there earlier, according to their MS wikipedia edits, they're not even a committed obsessed fan ... two-timing the object of their obsession! ... If you had no other COI editor in mind, or reason to believe the IP edits were any more than the similar fans that any young female entertainer gets, any objection to removing the tag?--GRuban (talk) 14:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
LOL, I'd missed the last part of that ANI discussion! No, no objection whatsoever! —valereee (talk) 14:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

How many references?

Dear Valereee, sorry, I misunderstood you. I though, I have permission to do minor changes. Its OK, I will describe all changes here. Some other wiki referee answered to my long letter and noted that there should be a proof of Lovelace's discovery. He/she was not happy that I added only references to his own work. I am happy to add references to other people's work, where they refer to his papers and point out his discovery and other work. Question: how many references to add? There are hundreds of references of other people. How many to add? We already have a long list of references. Is it OK to add many more? I would like to note that his major work has been published in Nature, which is most significant science journal (with very strict Referees). Do we still need a proof from other sources? Thank you very much for your help. Marinaromanova55 (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Marina, we should take this discussion to the article talk, which is at Talk:Richard V. E. Lovelace. All discussion of the article should be there so it's all in a single place. —valereee (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
@Marinaromanova55 forgot to ping —valereee (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

As-Sajda again

Hi Valeree, thank you for taking action at As-Sajda a few days ago. Unfortunately, after the protection expired, the same user restored the disputed content again (without having consensus) [12] and re-reverted (rather than discussed the change) after I reverted [13], Could you take a look again, or should I go to WP:ANI? HaEr48 (talk) 14:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

HaEr48, I've given them a pretty strong warning about edit warring to include disputed content. Go ahead and remove just the content you truly object to, not everything they've done, and ping them to talk again. If they revert again, let me know. —valereee (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
With the greatest of respect Valereee HaEr48 is not following due process JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
JorgeLaArdilla, I'm sorry, not following. That's just the edit history for the article talk? —valereee (talk) 17:11, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
By due process I mean the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, You will note no recent contributions to talk from HaEr48. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 17:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
JorgeLaArdilla, to me it looks like you asked for consensus, they asked for something, you said there wasn't such a thing, and then the protection ended and you started editing. You need to gain consensus before you edit in anything disputed. —valereee (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Creating this link has prompted a roll back of my work by HaEr48, including re-introducing an obvious grammatical error. You requested him to remove just the content you truly object to. I would ask you to reconsider whether he really has an objection to the link, whether it has been discussed and whether his claims to consenus are genuine. I will use the talk pages but I respectfully request that you now properly investigate his complaint Here as I believe there was little merit in HaEr48's original complaint and that you taking him on his word is allowing him to go WP:Diva and game the system. Thanking you in anticipation. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Valereee/Archive_30&oldid=1145983513"