Jump to content

User talk:Valereee/Archive 43

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45→Archive 50

Administrators' newsletter – January 2022

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

Guideline and policy news

  • Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The functionaries email list (functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Is this vandalism ?

83 (film) infobox, budget and box-office weird. Genius On (talk) 06:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, @Genius On, can you point to a specific edit that you think was vandalism? —valereee (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Budget and box-office Genius On (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
@Genius On, what about the budget and box office look like vandalism to you? Are you saying that these aren't realistic figures and so must be incorrect and therefore vandalism? It says budget is ₹270 crore and box office is ₹162.56 crore. @Surge elec can you provide any insight here? My knowledge of the film industry in India is pretty much limited to Bollywood. —valereee (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
No, it isn't vandalism. Both, the budget and box office and properly sourced. Surge_Elec (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

The problem was some hours before but someone solved the problem. Thanks for response. Genius On (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Our adopted youngling

It appears that User:Theleekycauldron is getting antsy and wants to consider a run for the mop sooner rather than later. They were chastened a bit at ORCP in October, but I am tickled that they wish to continue and have been impressed with their page creation and curation at DYK. Definitely our kind of kid. I'm urging patience and preparation. Since you were part of the group which helped move me towards further responsibility I'm wondering if you might help TLC establish the sort of admin group who might likewise lead to a successful RFA in a month or so. Some obvious nominators jump out. As always I'm oh so happy to help. BusterD (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

you really just bring a smile to my face, Buster :D also, I think you just got me into Les Misérables. this is fantastic... I do feel a little antsy, but it's really only from power~enwiki telling me at the orcp that waiting until right about now (three months after the ORCP) would be sufficient. Now doesn't seem like the time, though, and I don't think that's going to change in two weeks. i guess i'm just looking for a timetable of some kind? if we're looking at a month or three or five, that's totally cool—i'd be in the tall grass without you both, after all. But a tentative target date of some kind would be helpful, is all :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 11:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2022 WikiCup!

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2022 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. 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. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

DYK update time

Do you know which page is edited when you want to change DYK every 12 hours (rather than every 24)? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, you mean what needs to get edited to make that change? (Sorry if I'm being dense) —valereee (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Admin_instructions#Changing_from_1-a-day_to_2-a-day_and_vice_versa if that's what you mean! —valereee (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Yeah that's what I meant. User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates (linked to from that link) is indeed what I was looking for, thanks! Was thinking about updating my main page snapshots task so it isn't creating two daily entries at WP:Main Page history if there's only one daily update. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm sure all the stuff at that link is something I should understand, but no. :D Er, thank you for all you do. Whatever it is. :D —valereee (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Apology

Thank you for pointing out my vandalism of the Critical Race Theory article. After a careful review of my actions and learning more about Wikipedia I have come to appreciate the work of the many editors who as it seems have a thankless job, yet contribute so much good quality information to the English speaking pubic. I am unsure how I can make up for my actions seeing as they have already been reverted. I sincerely regret my actions. I realize that if I have an issue with the presentation of information in an article I can sandbox a change and seek guidance whether my proposed changes adhere to the standards of Wikipedia. I intend to do that. I do not intend to take the content of articles into my own hands anymore it is unwise, unwelcome and rude. Thank you for this valuable lesson. @Valereee: Godspeed18 (talk) 19:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Godspeed18, thanks for reaching out. I think it's always smart for people to recognize the areas they've got strong emotions about and use edit requests for them. Best wishes to you! —valereee (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! what is an edit request? Godspeed18 (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
@Godspeed18, an edit request is when an editor who shouldn't be editing an article directly explains their suggested edit to another editor, who decides whether or not to make the edit. You can find information at WP:Edit requests. —valereee (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

tens of thousands of edits

Regarding this edit: I'm a little confused—should we just be deferring to those with tens of thousands of edits to make decisions? It can be a viable option—decisions weighted by tenure—and I guess it would make things easier for me: I can just sit back and let them do all the pondering ;-). isaacl (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

No, but when something that gets that much attention is being discussed, someone with one year's experience and 4K edits doesn't need to be rushing in everywhere to clerk all the discussions. The editor in question has made 25% of the edits to basically every involved page. Example Example Oh, only 20% at this one Oh, and opened a section at AN, just in case administrators didn't realize there was a discussion? That's not ideal. —valereee (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Sure, it's just the "tens of thousands" that threw me, as it's essentially telling me to sit back and wait for others to decide (which, hey, might be more pleasant in the long run anyway). On the point regarding newcomers: for better or worse, the English Wikipedia community tries to allow editors with less experience to be full-fledged participants. Tone affects perception a lot: particularly from new editors, it can be annoying for their comments to be presented with an air of definitiveness. But it's something that even non-new editors like me have to guard against, and thus be willing to accommodate in others, as I'd hope they'd do for me. isaacl (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
@Isaacl, if you contribute cluefully at discussions (and preferably don't bludgeon them by contributing 25% of comments), I do not care how many edits you have or how long you've been editing. If you are editing cluelessly, and you aren't very experienced, I'm likely to attribute your cluelessness to your lack of experience, as my other option is to attribute it to an other-than-inexperience lack-of-clue. Which seems less kind. So...
FWIW, I have a lot more patience for freshmen than for sophomores. —valereee (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Well, the issue is the premise that since someone else with more experience is likely to have the same clueful contributions, you should just let them make them. There is of course some truth to that; more voices saying the same thing isn't necessarily helpful. But that aside, thanks for the clarification you added to the talk page in question. (My patience is greater based on the type of behaviour exhibited, rather than experience level, but I realize this is a personal bias against some interaction styles, and so try to fight against my tendencies.) isaacl (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
@Isaacl, the point I was trying to make, and obviously didn't make well, is that inexperienced editors shouldn't be jumping to, "Oh! Clearly no one else has realized that this is incredibly important and needs to be posted to another noticeboard." Or whatever. No matter your experience level, how likely is it you are the only person -- out of the 130 watching this new page, btw -- to notice something that needed to be treated as an emergency and done right now! For me, if I wake up in the morning and the first thing I see is something that seems like it should have been given more urgency but hasn't, I wonder if I need to go have another cup of coffee. —valereee (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, your clarification made your point clear, so thanks! (I don't necessarily agree with all of the argument, but it's clear.) fyi, there's no need to ping me in conversations I am actively participating in. isaacl (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Re: My patience is greater based on the type of behaviour exhibited, rather than experience level, so if you see an editor with 100 doing clueless things, and an editor with 4000 edits doing the same clueless things, you consider them the same? Because I emphatically don't. An editor with 4K edits should have a clue by now. With 100? No, we should give them a break. —valereee (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Learning not to do clueless things is one of the behaviours that affect my level of patience. New editors who don't show a willingness to learn from their miscues, or aren't taking time to understand the current norms and standards for a given area, try my patience, as much as long-time editors who do these same things. Long-time editors, of course, are much more likely to have crossed a threshold of tolerance with me already, due to their long tenure. isaacl (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
What's "new"? I feel pretty patient (and protective) of editors who have a few hundred edits or less. A few thousand, I start feeling like they've had a chance to figure out our culture. —valereee (talk) 23:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm more hardline than many in the community of people who like to discuss such matters. I don't feel very enthusiastic about trying to help someone who shows a lack of understanding of what it means to write an encyclopedia article. If they're proposing a clueless idea but there seems to be some kernel of promise in there, I might ask them questions to try to foster that idea. If it's something with obvious flaws, then I might try to explain those. If it's a frequently proposed clueless idea, then I might point them to previous discussion on the matter to try to shelter them from more impatient responses (but then again, my response style is usually "just the facts", which can be perceived as less than friendly). I do my best not to show impatience, but I'm unlikely to try to help editors who don't show promise (one of those editors with tens of thousands of edits helping others can always step in). I'm biased, though, by not editing in controversal topic areas, and so there's a lot less to trip up new editors. isaacl (talk) 00:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Cincinnati chili

After today's discussion I decided to make Cincinnati chili for dinner, never having had it before. We followed the NYT recipe, give or take, and it was... quite good? Certainly better than I'd expected given the reviews in the article! All the best, Wham2001 (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, God. What is the NYT recipe...this one https://cooking.nytimes.com/recipes/5652-cincinnati-chili-con-carne ? Nah. They want you to brown the beef and add chocolate. We don't do that here. :D Still, probably close enough. valereee (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 2, 2022)

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

Reader Rabbit

Please be bold and help improve it!

Previous selections: History of music • Carapace

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

Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • Opt-out instructions

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Synopsis

CLOSING
Please stop valereee (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Hey, what do you think about adding the synopsis to the official article? In two days, it will be two weeks with no reply. RBut (talk) 12:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey, I have some questions for the reasoning of some changes by jps:

1. Why do the specific molecules that were listed in the documentary have to be hidden? is listed them un-encyclopedic? Because by my understanding it would only be considered as such if we were to expand on them in detail.

2. To those who oppose the use of "experiment" @LuckyLouie and ජපස:, please define "experiment".

3. Walter Willet's, David Katz's and Tim Lang's professions' are in the intro of their wiki articles which are hyperlinked to their names. Only those who do not have wiki articles should do so as the amount of words used can be reduced. That was brought up as an issue and it can be optimized further.

4. Is Exponent not a social engineering company? Is it only a PR campaign to manufacture science to challenge the health risks of whatever compound or product has been shown to cause them, such as second hand smoking, arsenic, mercury and etc? 5. Is the use of "only" not justified when 3/4ths of agricultural land used for a specific purpose provide only 1/3rd of our protein and 1/5th of our calories?

6. To me, "Other scientists in the film mention other attendant environmental issues" is confusing. Attendant environmental issues with what? this is more straightforward to me: -> "Other scientists cover co2 emissions, the overuse of fresh water, and water pollution by the animal agriculture industry".

7. Why do the benefits of a plant based diet have to be doubted at the end? It isn't in the mainstream, and when it isn't, it isn't on Wiki. But it is on this article. RBut (talk) 13:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but this was the reason for the pblock. I was willing to copy your proposal there, and even to noodge the other editors after some time had gone by with no response, but I'm not going to help bludgeon a group of editors who seem to be doing their best to come up with a workable solution that addresses your main concern that there be a reasonable synopsis on that article. It's clearly never going to be exactly what you want, but that's how collaboration works. valereee (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
If this is inappropriate, valereee, please feel free to delete it and trout me. I don't want this to become a problematic back-and-forth, so those questions (or parts of questions) RBut is asking that I do not think are likely to result in fruitful discussion I've simply ignored. But, in good faith, I find some of RBut's questions are legitimately about Wikipedia best practice and might help him in his other Wikipedia editing. Thus, I am posting here but probably will not reply to any other replies. Here it goes:
(3) Although these professions are in the wikibio, it's good practice to include an explanation in text why a person is being referenced. MOS:FORCELINK Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. I think we all agree why these people are included in the film/synopsis, but a reader should be able to understand that without clicking on the link.
(4) As you might see from our own problematic article on Exponent (consulting firm), WP itself shies away from labeling the company a PR firm. I think this may be due to some... um... problematic editing, but suffice to say that I think it's already a good balance to allow that it is a PR firm. Is it a social engineering firm? That depends on how successful you think this company has been in defending their clients. The fact that controversy swirls around them means that I think, at best, they are only hoping to engage in social engineering. There may be a better term for this, but I think that the only alternative that is neutrally available, "scientific consulting firm", is not preferable.
(6) For one, I don't like the word "cover", but more to the point, the problematic wording RBut refers to was chosen by me in part to provide a legitimate MOS:LINKCLARITY for a wikilink RBut included that I think is a good target article for a reader. Better wording may be possible, but I think that "Other scientists cover..." is a bit too vague in word choice.
jps (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
@ජපස:For 3, that was brought up as an issue before to me on the very same article at the beginning, and somebody else conceded. For 4, I would suggest adding (PR) beside public relations as that is the most common method. For 6, "cover" doesn't matter, but definitely make it easier to understand. "other attendant environmental issues" is confusing and is not common language. As for the others, I brought forward perfectly reasonable questions. Such as why do the specific molecules have to be hidden (given as that is completely encyclopedic as well as practiced in every single other article within the same topics). Or why "experiment" cannot be used, because it literally fits the definition of "experiment". Which is why I asked for one, how can you possibly be justifying your positions'? Or why we cannot use "only" given as using 3/4ths of our agricultural land to produce 1/3rd of our protein is only producing 1/3rd of our protein and only producing 1/5th of our calories.
From my view, it is evident that these questions were ignored because an actual debate and concession would have to follow (which from my observation, is only okay when it doesn't affect everyones position. And whenever I propose hard to answer questions such as this, that without confronting bias cannot be, I get piled on by red herrings and personal attacks by the other editors - and no I'm not referring to the dispute thread I started, that was a bad argument by me for which I was piled on for rational reasons).
The discussion is totally lacking here and for what? because I brought forward questions that take some effort to answer (only when an irrational bias is at play), or require otherwise conceding? This is also one of the reasons why the co founder of wiki doesn't trust the site anymore: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0P4Cf0UCwU - To say that any discussion is immediately "bludgeoning" and only those who completely agree with each other are allowed to participate is a massive problem. And I can guarantee you it's not only ruining our trust in Wiki.
And yes, I'm white noise so do not put any effort into confronting those questions. You would have to word your justifications, which again, there is no reason to do as as I am white noise. So do what you want with the synopsis. Even change the last line back to "and he goes back to promoting veganism" (I'm definitely the only problem, that's just a straight up fact!). RBut (talk) 12:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This Month in GLAM: December 2021



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

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

This Month in GLAM: December 2021



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

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

ANI

Thank you for your comment on ANI. I am 100% prepared to agree to what you have proposed. The only concern I have is that it will get buried in the pile-on and that it won't get a fair hearing. I really do want to remain a part of this community. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@The C of E, I really do want you to, too. Open a subsection to propose it under its own heading to call attention to the idea, repeat it there exactly as you understand it, and say you're happy to agree to that. valereee (talk) 12:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Just done so. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@The C of E, if I were you, I'd just withdraw it. Take your medicine. Just go create useful articles. DYK isn't the main goal, here. valereee (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

in friendship

January songs
in friendship

Happy new year! - Today I show yesterday's snow (if you click on "songs") and today's music in memory of Jerome Kohl, a friend - tomorrow, I'll leave for some vacation, and am a bit concerned about a new user on an old course, - please watch. There's a discussion on my talk, begun by IP, then continued by the one (and I'd not be surprised if the same, and not surprised if here before, knowing too much to be new). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Wow, that snow is beautiful, Gerda! We seldom get much snow here any more. I miss it so much. valereee (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
I saw the new user. Too new for me to make a guess, but keep me updated. valereee (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't mind returning per se, but I'm irritated when battlefields are visited that look pacified. Just watch please, I'll travel, so will be not able. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
I just meant if you see something before I do. I've just left a warning. valereee (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Three years!

Nice match in colour! - They started Mozart father and son, - no need to do anything, but I'd appreciate eyes on the scene. The project guideline they quote as "there must be a discussion before adding an infobox to a person who has 'composer' in the job description", is no more than a project guideline (from 2010), in no way binding, and if followed causing a waste of time. Anybody in good standing can add an infobox, - a discussion needs to happen only if there are objections/reverts, per WP:BRD, but even that is only a (useful!) guideline. - A few minutes at the airport. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:34, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt, yes, they don't seem to have discovered their own user talk yet, which is odd since they found yours. I've asked them to start using edit summaries and to respond to questions on their user talk. valereee (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
I see --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Ryan Kavanaugh talk page

Hey, I just want to follow up on your edit to the talk page. Does this mean that threads not edited for three days are automatically archived? If so, isn't that a little short? What are you referring to in your edit summary? Throast (talk | contribs) 22:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Throast, yes, 3 days is ridiculously short for an article about someone this obscure, and my edit summary was referring to how ridiculous it is that a talk page of an article about someone this obscure should need to go to 3-day archiving to keep from becoming stupidly long because a meatpuppet keeps reviving mostly rather silly conversations that had basically ended three days earlier. I have no objection to putting it back to 7 days, so feel free to if you think the meatpuppetry disruption has ended. My only purpose in setting it to three was to help the actual well-intentioned editors who were trying to work at that article. valereee (talk) 13:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I understand. I do agree with your points there. Throast (talk | contribs) 15:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Spiders Nightclub

Hello, Valeree.

I was curious as to why you'd removed my reference to Spiders Nightclub. A club that is a remarkable 43 years old.

There are countless articles about said nightclub on the internet.

Many thanks,

Polly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polly Kiersten (talk • contribs) 21:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey, @Polly Kiersten! Welcome. We include information because it's noteworthy. If Spiders is a bar/club worth noting, there should be better mentions than blogs. valereee (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Valeree,
I thought I'd added other citations too.
Okay, can I add the Nightclub again if I site the Hull Daily Mail, the local newspaper?
I've been to the nightclub, and I know who important it is to the city of Hull.
Thanks,
Polly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polly Kiersten (talk • contribs) 22:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Hey, @Polly Kiersten. Well, not necessarily. The simple fact something has been covered in local media doesn't mean it's noteworthy. But we can talk. We should probably do so at Talk:Kingston upon Hull. valereee (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 3, 2022)

A NeXTstation graphics workstation from 1990
Hello, Valereee. The article for improvement of the week is:

Workstation

Please be bold and help improve it!

Previous selections: Reader Rabbit • History of music

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

Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • Opt-out instructions

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 4, 2022)

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

Television ratings

Please be bold and help improve it!

Previous selections: Workstation • Reader Rabbit

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

Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • Opt-out instructions

How long to marinate pork?

I'm asking because you're a food editor. Searching online, I've seen reputable sources say anything from 30 minutes (but not more than a few hours) to five days. How do I identify what is a reliable source, or what is the best reliable source, for how long to marinate pork? Who do I believe? Levivich 19:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I generally believe the better recipe databases. The NYT is generally good, Serious Eats is generally good. Epicurious used to be reliable but now accepts "contributions" so is a throw of the dice. Spruce Eats is usually good. Some of the bloggers are actually pretty good, but unless you've got a ton of experience you might not be able to tell the difference between a good recipe and an iffy one. Food Network and AllRecipes is a throw of the dice. If you give me a link, I can check it out for likely-to-have-been-tested. valereee (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
I see the USDA is saying up to 3-5 days. The USDA is more concerned with food safety than with taste. :) valereee (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
In no particular order:
  • Dinner at the Zoo: at least 1hr, pref. 6-8 hrs
  • Taste of Home: at least 30min, never longer than overnight
  • BBQ Host: up to 4 days, pref. less than 48hrs
  • Spruce Eats: 1 to 24hrs depending on the cut (with a helpful table) (2-4hrs for a pork chop)
  • Bon Appetit: as little as 15-20 mins, not more than a day
  • The Kitchn: Brine 30 min to 6hrs
  • USDA, which I'd think would be an authority: 3-5 days, but boil the marinade before you brush it on (which, to me, suggests it's been marinating too long, but what do I know?)
By the way, I put the pork chops in the marinate a half hour ago. Clock's ticking. Levivich 20:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
@Levivich, hahahahaha...I'd definitely go with Bon Appetit. Kitchn and Spruce Eats are both good, the others I wouldn't trust. Except USDA, but again they're about food safety, not quality. That 5-day marinade? Might taste like shoe leather, but it's definitely safe. :D valereee (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
From the last time I read about brining pork for sous vide cooking in Serious Eats: since salt breaks down the pork muscle fibres, as it brines for longer, the meat texture will get more smooth (and ham-like). So it all depends on what you're looking for in your dish; take notes on how long you brined this time, and adjust as necessary next time. (Bonus tip: Serious Eats prefers dry brining.) isaacl (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you both! I'll let you know how it goes. If you don't hear from me by tomorrow, it means I got it wrong :-D Levivich 21:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
(Non-marinaded comment) Used to have a recipe for a traditional Goan Pork vindaloo: marinaded for at least seven days—to replicate the week or so it would have been buried in a barrel underground back in the day—the marinade primarily comprising vinegar (or, red wine vinegar), chili powder(s) and garlic. Even better on goat, mutton, due (as Isaacl points out) the potential for breaking down (even tougher) fibres. Glory days. The marinade on which the sun never slept. SN54129 22:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
The vinegar was likely the key to making sure you didn't, er, die. valereee (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm not dead, but the pork wasn't as flavorful as I would have liked after three hours marinating. I think that has more to do with the marinade than the time. Levivich 03:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
The Serious Eats article I linked to discusses how traditional brining results in extra water being absorbed into the meat, thus diluting flavour. isaacl (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

How?

You recently said "People can now subscribe to any section they want notifications for." I didn't know that, and can't figure out how to do it. Can you point me to something? --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures and enable "Discussion tools". After that, a "subscribe" link will appear to the right of each discussion heading. I believe it will be rolled out in the near feature as a standard feature. isaacl (talk) 02:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Pinging @Floquenbeam since you didn't have it set up when you asked. :D I've found it super useful, although it can be a little alarming the first time you see you have 31 alerts. valereee (talk) 10:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you both. I've given it a try. Double digit notifications might be a deal breaker, but it would be nice to unwatch AN/ANI and only subscribe to threads I care about. Or RFD. We'll see. I've subscribed to this section, so I'll start small. Again, thanks Isaacl and Val. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
FWIW, they're grouped, so you can mark as read an entire conversation with one click if you don't see anything that looks promising. Sometimes I open one and it's ten comments by one overcommenter. :) It seemed nuts at first, but as I've used it I've come to appreciate it more and more. valereee (talk) 21:19, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Ooh, there's even the little "replyto" button now too. It even signs for me? Will wonders never cease? I'll be joining the 21st century in no time. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Easy there. The 21st century is not all it's cracked up to be. valereee (talk) 21:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

continued

back from vacation: thank you for helping to solve my last concern, that Mozart religouos fighter who doesn't understand enough English. (Thrakkx met them again as IP, I saw on ANI.) - Now, the tlc RfA: I told tlc to not reply to opposes (directly) but perhaps that was a mistake? You please judge which of those to answer, and by whom. I supported, and stand by that, and see no need to add or reconfirm. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Gerda! No, you're correct, it's definitely always best if the candidate doesn't reply directly to opposes except to clarify or correct some actual misstatement. It generally backfires on them. Unfortunately it's best if the nominators also don't, again except to clarify a misconception or something, as that can also be held against the candidate.
Really the only people who can question or answer opposes are people who aren't participating in the RfA. I don't even !vote in RfAs any more (except of course if I'm a nominator), because I want to be able to discuss questions and opposes, and if I do or say something annoying, it can't be held against the candidate. And if I only !vote when I nominate, my lack of a vote can't be seen as meaningful in any way. valereee (talk) 12:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

... too late, just for the next round, - in a year? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I certainly think by then, yes. valereee (talk) 12:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Cincinnati chili protection

Hi valeree, hope you are well. I saw your request at WP:RFPP regarding Cincinnati chili and indefinitely semi-protected it. I also logged it at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2022#Eastern Europe. I would of never thought a meat sauce for spaghetti would make it to the enforcement log, but here we are. -- LuK3 (Talk) 00:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

😂 This is the Wikipedia I know and love. Levivich 00:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Right? It's a frickin' sauce for spaghetti and hot dogs. And yet here we are. valereee (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

FWIW

I wasted a decent amount of time trying to explain some basic things to this user, and I don't think they're trolling. I do think you're right to block them, just under the wrong subsection of DE. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 21:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin, you could be right. I try to AGF, and maybe I didn't enough this time. valereee (talk) 21:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 5, 2022)

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

Social equality

Please be bold and help improve it!

Previous selections: Television ratings • Workstation

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

Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • Opt-out instructions

February with Women in Red

Women in Red Feb 2022, Vol 8, Issue 2, Nos 214, 217, 220, 221, 222


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Experience with Topic Subscriptions

hi @Valereee! If/when you have a moment, I wonder if you'd be open to sharing what you are coming to appreciate about Topic Subscriptions?

...I ask the above after @Whatamidoing (WMF) drew my attention to this comment which led me to become curious about what might have changed about how you perceive Topic Subscriptions in the time between now and when you first heard about it/tried it.

PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 02:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@PPelberg (WMF), hi! The first time I found I had 31 notifications, it was a bit alarming. Once I'd realized it didn't require an immediate panicked gallop through the previous days's contributions, I still wondered if having that many notifications was just going to start feeling like clutter.
But then I saw that the notifications are organized by discussion, which is great, and start with the bolded name of the poster, which is fabulous because if you can just mark as read the usernames you know are likely just bludgeoning, and then I discovered the game changer: If you click on the main notification, it puts an unobtrusive-but-incredibly-useful light-blue highlight on every post since the last time you were there, which makes keeping track of new posts in long complicated discussions so much easier. Totally worth the reams of notifications. And then in the weeks since, I've totally gotten used to the larger numbers of notifications. valereee (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
It stops counting at "99+". I believe this was a design decision (making large numbers fit in the space was difficult), but I think I like this better than my inbox, which is somewhere in the four digits range.
Also, Echo only keeps the most recent 2,000 notifications, so there is a hard limit on how many we can wake up to. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree that being able to see all the changes highlighted is a great feature. I use the beta Visual Diffs feature for this purposes for pages that I have watchlisted, but it's not as resilient as I'd like (it will just hang when the underlying code throws an exception: it's vulnerable to malformed markup, either because the editor wrote it that way, or it's a consequence of the extracted diff; and I'm guessing it's also still a little buggy). By overlaying the highlighting onto the full page rather than a diff, I imagine some of these resilience problems are avoided. isaacl (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 48

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 48, November – December 2021

  • 1Lib1Ref 2022
  • Wikipedia Library notifications deployed

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
  • The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Amish in Ohio, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dry.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Valereee/Archive_43&oldid=1071527778"