Jump to content

User talk:Valereee/Archive 64

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 60←Archive 62Archive 63Archive 64Archive 65Archive 66Archive 67

This week's article for improvement (week 32, 2024)

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

Happiness

Please be bold and help improve it!

Previous selections: List of public art in Chicago • Cape (geography)

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

Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • Opt-out instructions

Request for Third Opinion on Edits to Doping in China

I got to admit that I don't have extensive Wikipedia experience like you do. But you left an impression on me on Qin Haiyang's talk page in July that you understand Wikipedia and know what content is acceptable and what's not. And I think you make an excellent impartial judge. On Doping in China, I added information to this chapter titled (Trimetazidine revelations/allegations in Chinese swimming). This is the version that I made it to.[1] And this is the version that 3 others keep deleting updates and reverting to.[2] Despite my efforts, I feel that productive discussion with the other editors has not been possible. Therefore, I am seeking your help for an honest third opinion on which version better adheres to Wikipedia's content guidelines and provides more value to readers. Your expertise and impartial judgment would be greatly appreciated in resolving this matter. Thank you for considering my request. 49.179.43.130 (talk) 10:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Tech News: 2024-32

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Feature news

  • Advanced item Two new parser functions will be available this week: {{#dir}} and {{#bcp47}}. These will reduce the need for Template:Dir and Template:BCP47 on Commons and allow us to drop 100 million rows from the "what links here" database. Editors at any wiki that use these templates, can help by replacing the templates with these new functions. The templates at Commons will be updated during the Hackathon at Wikimania. [3][4]
  • Communities can request the activation of the visual editor on entire namespaces where discussions sometimes happen (for instance Wikipedia: or Wikisource: namespaces) if they understand the known limitations. For discussions, users can already use DiscussionTools in these namespaces.
  • The tracking category "Pages using Timeline" has been renamed to "Pages using the EasyTimeline extension" in TranslateWiki. Wikis that have created the category locally should rename their local creation to match.

Project updates

  • Editors who help to organize WikiProjects and similar on-wiki collaborations, are invited to share ideas and examples of successful collaborations with the Campaigns and Programs teams. You can fill out a brief survey or share your thoughts on the talkpage. The teams are particularly looking for details about successful collaborations on non-English wikis.
  • Advanced item The new parser is being rolled out on Wikivoyage wikis over the next few months. The English Wikivoyage and Hebrew Wikivoyage were switched to Parsoid last week. For more information, see Parsoid/Parser Unification.

Learn more

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

MediaWiki message delivery 20:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2024).

Administrator changes

readded Isabelle Belato
removed

Interface administrator changes

readded Izno

CheckUser changes

removed Barkeep49

Technical news

  • Global blocks may now target accounts as well as IP's. Administrators may locally unblock when appropriate.
  • Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Help (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:M.Bitton&diff=prev&oldid=1239463772)

Hi. This user, unfortunately, wasn't respectful to me; "You're no longer welcome here", what a bad message. How can I solve it? JacktheBrown (talk) 12:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

It looks to me as though they mean their talk page? Knitsey (talk) 12:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
^^ this. You can solve it by no longer going to their talk page. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
@Writ Keeper: I no longer have any interest in writing to this user; it's still a very disrespectful and rude message (I've never rejected anyone on my talk page). JacktheBrown (talk) 13:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, it looks like that editor is telling you you aren't welcome on their talk page. Unless there is some compelling reason you need to post to their talk page (such as a required notification), just keep any discussion you have with them on article talks. Valereee (talk) 13:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
@Valereee: thank you. Have a nice day! You too, Knitsey and Writ Keeper. JacktheBrown (talk) 13:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Some falafel for you!

Saw the interesting page you started on food controversy. That's great coverage of this notable subject in the appropriate place. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm not too sure about where it seems to be headed at this point lol... Valereee (talk) 15:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
And falafel is on the menu for dinner tonight at our house. :D Valereee (talk) 15:32, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm smart enough not to inquire as to which legume. SPECIFICO talk 15:37, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
(talk page stalker), have you come across any literature discussing pita bread in this context? I remember reviewing Israeli pita a long time ago and feeling like it was a POV-fork, but I didn't have any academic sources on hand with which I could evaluate that suspicion. signed, Rosguill talk 15:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I've seen sources argue about who invented pita, but unfortunately I don't remember any actual academic ones, but I would be shocked if they aren't out there. That Israeli pita article looks like a fork to me, too.
Speaking purely from an OR standpoint: what we call pita (a flat bread with a pocket) is quite likely just a happy accident from very-quickly making and cooking flatbread, which is a type of bread that has been made since humans started grinding grain into flour in order to cook it faster. The fact you end up with a pocket helps the bread cook more quickly. Then the pocket collapses and the bread becomes easy to stack in a small space and transport without being crushed, which was probably what people were going for. So when our article is arguing that the pockets were some sort of modern development as a part of Israeli cuisine...unlikely. It's possible that intentionally going for the pockets in order to fill them is a recent development, and certainly possible that flatbread with intentional pockets developed among Jews migrating into the area and setting up non-nomadic households, though. Interesting question! Valereee (talk) 16:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 33, 2024)

A fictional social network diagram
Hello, Valereee. The article for improvement of the week is:

Social experiment

Please be bold and help improve it!

Previous selections: Happiness • List of public art in Chicago

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

Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • Opt-out instructions

This Month in GLAM: July 2024



Headlines
  • Albania report: For what matters most for your community
  • Argentina report: Mid-term digitization update
  • Brazil report: Structuring Wiki Loves Monuments through a Wikidata portal
  • Canada report: CCA Hosts Inaugural Wiki Edit-a-Thon
  • Germany report: The flight over the "Rosinenbomber" - drone deployment for Free Knowledge; Kicking off a German-language community of practice for building cultural heritage linked open data with the wikimedia projects
  • India report: GLAM partner ventures into 'Digitisation Plus' programs with Wikimedians
  • Kosovo report: Prompting what's most important - our community in Albania and Kosovo
  • New Zealand report: WikiProject International Botanical Congress 2024, a presentation to the Natural History Museum, London & Kew Gardens staff and a Research expeditions edit-a-thon
  • Switzerland report: Swiss GLAM Programme
  • UK report: Translations galore
  • USA report: Wikicurious WikiNYC Civic Hall; San Diego 111; #5WomenArtists campaign
  • Biodiversity Heritage Library report: BHL-Wiki Working Group July monthly highlights
  • Special story: GLAM GLobal meetup & GLAM Global Calls
  • Calendar: August's GLAM events
Read this edition in full • Single-page

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

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Jollof rice
added a link pointing to Semafor
Ludo Lefebvre
added a link pointing to Eater

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Sealioning and Etiquette

Thanks for the clear response on DMh's talk page about the Xfd. I don't want this to be a big headache for anyone, but I want some clarity. If you could explain the actions or my questions, I'd feel really satisfied and can edit with a clearer head. Being banned for saying "I don't know what consensus between two editors is supposed to be", was a "last straw". I'm sorry, I just really am struggling to see how this was sealioning, antagonistic, uncivil, without etiquette or anything that was ban-worthy. Maybe it was a sliver flippant, and if so, I'm sorry. I feel like I'm being watched like a hawk and editors are calling me a sealion every second edit I make. I've re-read what I wrote and meant it like "we're getting nowhere." I'm not sure how you read it, but I really want to understand so I feel I can edit comfortably and not bother you or any other editor.

As users are expecting me to respond to edits, locking me out from a talk page where I was what I believed to relatively civil conversation with editors. I'd really relish the opportunity to try and improve the article with them. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Scratch this. I'm going with it's the "when it's you and I". That was really uncalled for and I was wrong. I think its hang over from the editor removing my deletion of image requests, and editors constantly saying i'm a sealion and I can't be trusted. I feel like editors can get on scott free, and I've had issues with the editor removing cited material and replacing it with unsourced content here: here, removing deletion requests here, and our conversations boil down to saying "this information is noteworthy". I should step away though. You are correct. I'm sorry for wasting your time. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Tech News: 2024-33

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Feature news

Project updates

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

MediaWiki message delivery 23:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Question

Valereee, I don't want the talk page to drag on as I feel like other users have made their decision on how they stand on me. To clarify, is me discussing on the talk page like this here still sealioning? I just want to know I'm at least heading in the right direction and would appreciate guidance. If you can't offer it either, if you could point me in the direction of an area on the site that can, I'd be grateful. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I haven't assessed the situation at Talk:The Inner Sanctum Mysteries (film series), but you have contributed nearly 80% of the text on that talk page, so in all likelihood, yes, you're sealioning there. Valereee (talk) 13:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Okay. I appreciate you telling me. I'm really really confused on the topic as its predominantly about content without a source being added. What would be a better approach? Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
As difficult as sealioning is to prove and assess, it often seems equally difficult for those doing it to understand what they're doing. Others do this:
  1. They accept it when consensus is against them, even if they think that consensus is wrong
  2. They don't ask for explanations over and over again when people have already explained, even if they don't feel the explanation is correct
  3. They avoid generating huge amounts of text for others to wade through
Honestly, since you don't really understand it and can't seem to help yourself, you'd be best off just making a rule for yourself that you will limit yourself to one argument per section on a talk page (and this doesn't mean open a new section every time you have a followup question; one and done, that's it), and never reverting any nonvandalistic edit within any article more than once. Valereee (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
That's probably a good rule of thumb for me going forward. This is the kind of advice I was sort of looking for from the beginning. I know I've caused a lot of editors grief and frustration and I want to be easier to deal with, so I'll try to say thank you and try not to pester you further. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
I think that percentage one is a bit misleading. Most of the information added to the article was what I had added as well, but with a source. Some of the information it was replaced with changed some things (release dates, etc.) without a source. So I know you haven't looked into it, but I think that may factor in here if we are trying to reach brass tacks about it. But I could be wrong, I appreciate you taking the time to check it out. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Hey Valereee, I don't really expect you to use me as some sort of guidance, but I feel like any suggestion I make on that talk page when I ask for something as wikipedia basic as a source is being snarked at me sealioning. This is why I re-did the article in the first place as content was unsourced and I expanded it with what little sources I could find. I feel like locking me out here or feeling like i'm on watch has given any user I respond to just leaping on me that i'm on the attack. I really don't know what I should or should not comment when suggestions are immediately responded with attacks. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
I get it. It's not fun, but when someone exhibits a behavior -- and sealioning, as I've pointed out, is an incredibly frustrating and difficult to deal with behavior -- people do kind of watch for that behavior to happen again and probably scrutinize for it more carefully than they otherwise would. I've started a section at the page to help try to moderate, but you did say you thought only responding once within a given section -- and not opening new sections to allow you to follow up -- was a good idea, but you aren't really doing that. Do you really need to keep asking for sources when multiple others are telling you they believe the sources are sufficient? Can you maybe consider walking away for a while, giving people a chance to work, and then maybe circle back in six months? Valereee (talk) 18:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Valereee, with all respect you did not even let me respond to you talk page post you removed here. My issue is that nearly all content being suggested to be added is without any source. This series is complex as many old hollywood films are. As you can see from the Dracula (Universal film series) article, academics do not even agree with what should belong to that series. It grows even more complex with the Universal Monsters and the suggestions assume some films belong, others do not. I'm also trying to avoid WP:OR and WP:RS and I think anyone vaguely familiar with these rules would.

I really appreciated the olive branch you tossed out with your question towards me, I only wish you gave me time to reply, because I was really trying not to make it a wall of text, calling out any specific editors, but still clearly getting my point across. As I've stated on your talk page before that. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, @Andrzejbanas, but it's been too much. The consensus remark was the last straw for me. Valereee (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm aware of what your reasoning. I was really excited you asked me for my opinion as I felt like at least one user wasn't seeing me as a sealioning, and I responded to it here as I felt you were discussing content and not user actions.
Prior to your entry to the article and my banning from it, I asked questions before even editing it to shake a perceived notion that i'm owning it or anything. an editor even encouraged me to go ahead without asking. Suddenly, once users tagged me as a sealion, I've been watched with hawk eyes for anything resembling sea lioning. I appreciate you giving me a chance, but I'm just really disappointed with your course of action. I hope if we edit again in the future, we can apply WP:ETIQUETTE and I'm not out to trap any other editor. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Felt the need to jump in here. While there are a number of examples we could look at, Andrzejbanas, let's use the one you just provided. You had an opportunity to course correct in this discussion and move closer to compromise, right up to the point you dropped this comment: "You are really obsessed with cast and crew." Any goodwill you should have been attempting to salvage or earn back from your peers at that article gets sabotaged with comments like that, which places others back into a defensive posture. DisneyMetalhead had just left you some positive feedback, showing a willingness to compromise and move forward, yet you proceeded in typical fashion with a narrow, self-serving focus. A great opportunity to mend relations was lost here; many editors with your experience would have instantly recognized this as the perfect time to pause and simply "thank" DMh for the kind feedback.
Littered throughout these talk page discussions are reminders from you directed at other editors to remain WP:CIVIL and to focus on content, like you did recently here and here, yet you aren't heeding your own advice when you call out another user's obsession, or especially when you launch a personal attack. Have you read WP:POTKETTLE? You speak about all this animosity and unfair judgement directed at you, but the underlying issue is failing to take accountability for your own actions and behavior. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
@GoneIn60:, I'm going to acknowledge that I have been full of contradictions. Thanks for pointing this out. I've also posted several times (and if you are were traipsing through my comments, I said that lately, I've felt like I've been watched like a hawk for people trying to catch me slipping up." Thank you for confirming that is exactly what is happening. Not sure what the end goal of this is, but yes, it might have made my etiquette slip. If you want to discuss with me on what I can do and how you could help. Fantastic. Would love to hear it. Perhaps on my talk page or yours. You made good points and I'll be an adult and respect them. As stated, I feel like I've got hawk eyes on me for any edits as of late. Please discuss with me on my talk page, as I'm feeling a bit hounded. I've already apologized to you for past incidents, which is you know, following WP:ETIQUETTE. I'd suggest you follow the previous rule, and I really don't think it would be respectful to just link to a bunch of diff pages as I would really like to move on and try to edit. Cheers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Despite the path you appear to be stuck on, there are still signs that you care to learn and improve from a discussion we had, which is why I jumped in above. For editors that are clearly wasting the community's time, I wouldn't have bothered. If you genuinely want to improve and change course, the comments above should help with that personal journey. I actually had Valereee's talk page on my watchlist for a short time after she left a note on my talk page earlier this year. Of course, I don't want you to feel hounded, so I can certainly abstain from providing feedback (on pages other than your talk page) if that is your desire. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

LTA user reassurance attempt

Hi. I'm a neurodivergent long-term user that's recently returned under a new username. I've been reading about some of those reassurance comments that you've been posting lately and have been very impressed with the way they've been written. Anyway, I'm determined with the experience I've gained to step forward and speak to the user, User:MidAtlanticBaby. However, I'm not sure what's the best way to contact this user so that he/she can respond, and it's not helped by the fact this user's already globally blocked. I also have limits of my own as to what forms of contact I can use myself. This was one of the reasons I decided to come back onto Wikipedia, as I believe the biggest trolls are the ones that they believe to be blocked unfairly, which I believe is the case here (and is still ongoing today). A♭m (Ring!) (Notes) 09:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm a bit confused as to why you'd want to do this or what you'd want to reassure this person of, but you've got email enabled, and they aren't blocked from sending email, so if you want to discuss with this person I guess you could post on their talk to email you. Valereee (talk) 12:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
I'd rather not show my email out at this point, so I'll leave it for the time being. Thanks for your suggestion, though. A♭m (Ring!) (Notes) 12:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 August 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Request

Per your request, I can avoid contact with editors for that article. I feel this will not help the article as the content suggested contradicts sources provided and already established and have had no contention against them.

Somewhat unrelated and you don't have to answer this obviously, but why was it an indefinite ban, instead of a timed one? Is my track record? I would find it much easier to ignore the block if I didn't get a big banner across my screen whenever I check my own edits. Its a bit of a double-edged sword on moving on. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I know this seems counterintuitive, but an indefinite block is seen as less harsh than a timed one by many admins, including me, as many admins are reluctant to lift a timed block, but an indef can generally be appealed at any time.
And a timed block is seen as less effective by many admins, as it can simply be waited out. An indefinite requires the blocked editor to understand the reason for the block and to commit to changing their behavior.
Re: your track record. Blocks are not punishment, if that's what you're asking. They're always intended to be preventative.
Where are you seeing the banner? If it's at the article in question, I'd recommend you just stop looking at that article. Just take it off your watch and ignore it.

Valereee (talk) 19:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh it's not on the article. It's on my user contribution page. it's obviously not the end of the world to see it, but a giant red warning banner does not make me want to contribute any more or less.
I honestly can look at the article, and do not mind looking at it and am curious what changes are being made. While I should probably stop approaching DMh, I can't see how their current path towards their edits passes any basic original research statements or rules about lists. The article isn't destroyed or anything but I don't think this me being picky about rules, this is standard stuff and I feel my ban has suggested and the users comments when you've asked me to stop interacting has suggested that they are free to go beyond what sources state. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
200 editors have that article on their watch list, a dozen of whom visited in the last month. If someone's edits don't pass basic policy, someone will notice. Maybe give it some time, see what result they come up with, instead of commenting on each step while they're still working. Valereee (talk) 11:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't mind 200 editors on a watchlist, but please do not pretend that is a reason that it was considered workable. I was the only editor involved in the discussion, and less than 10% of people having that item on a watchlist responded following you banning on the article. " If someone's edits don't pass basic policy, someone will notice.", and I've presented it right here. You have been active in keeping up with the article as you approached the move on it. I don't think you have to correct it, but its not exactly invisible that content has been changed in the lead and prose that contradicts information brought up as early as a few days ago on two talk pages you have interacted with. You don't have to do anything about this, but lets just be clear that is the result of all this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
I can't correct it. Taking a position in a content dispute would make me an editor at that article, which would mean I cannot act as an admin there. And I'm not pretending anything. Valereee (talk) 13:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with admin policies, so I appreciate you telling me. Just a forward for you approaching me or others as I've pointed out, highlighting things in green seems to give off the same effect as shouting. I do not think that's your intention, but regardless, I think my statement above stands. I don't expect you to change it, but edits without sources was exactly the kind of content that editors and YouTubers unfamiliar with wikipedia policy were lobbying at me before. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Highlighting in green indicates you're quoting a previous poster, in this case you. It's done via a template like Template:Talk quote inline or Template:Xt. It's pretty commonly used in discussions. Valereee (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Since I was talked about without pinging my name (again), and as things are being stated about my contributions at the article in question -- I will not engage in this conversation, other than to say that I haven't removed any sources/references from the article. I am trying to constructively assist with a page that has been plagued by poor form for years. As Valereee pointed out there will/should be various editors contributing. Not one single editor controlling what is on the page (i.e.: you). DisneyMetalhead (talk) 06:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 34, 2024)

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

Keygen

Please be bold and help improve it!

Previous selections: Social experiment • Happiness

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

Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • Opt-out instructions

Problem

Hi, I would like to inform you that Sapsby has restored their changes, without reaching a consensus; I kindly ask that their changes be cancelled until they reach a consensus. JacktheBrown (talk) 13:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Tech News: 2024-34

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Feature news

  • Editors who want to re-use references but with different details such as page numbers, will be able to do so by the end of 2024, using a new sub-referencing feature. You can read more about the project and how to test the prototype.
  • Editors using tracking categories to identify which pages use specific extensions may notice that six of the categories have been renamed to make them more easily understood and consistent. These categories are automatically added to pages that use specialized MediaWiki extensions. The affected names are for: DynamicPageList, Kartographer, Phonos, RSS, Score, WikiHiero. Wikis that have created the category locally should rename their local creation to match. Thanks to Pppery for these improvements. [7]
  • Advanced item Technical volunteers who edit modules and want to get a list of the categories used on a page, can now do so using the categories property of mw.title objects. This enables wikis to configure workflows such as category-specific edit notices. Thanks to SD001 for these improvements. [8][9]

Bugs status

  • Advanced item Your help is needed to check if any pages need to be moved or deleted. A maintenance script was run to clean up unreachable pages (due to Unicode issues or introduction of new namespaces/namespace aliases). The script tried to find appropriate names for the pages (e.g. by following the Unicode changes or by moving pages whose titles on Wikipedia start with Talk:WP: so that their titles start with Wikipedia talk:), but it may have failed for some pages, and moved them to Special:PrefixIndex/T195546/ instead. Your community should check if any pages are listed there, and move them to the correct titles, or delete them if they are no longer needed. A full log (including pages for which appropriate names could be found) is available in phab:P67388.
  • Editors who volunteer as mentors to newcomers on their wiki are once again able to access lists of potential mentees who they can connect with to offer help and guidance. This functionality was restored thanks to a bug fix. Thank you to Mbch331 for filing the bug report. You can read about that, and 18 other community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week.

Project updates

  • The application deadline for the Product & Technology Advisory Council (PTAC) has been extended to September 16. Members will help by providing advice to Foundation Product and Technology leadership on short and long term plans, on complex strategic problems, and help to get feedback from more contributors and technical communities. Selected members should expect to spend roughly 5 hours per month for the Council, during the one year pilot. Please consider applying, and spread the word to volunteers you think would make a positive contribution to the committee.

Learn more

  • The 2024 Coolest Tool Awards were awarded at Wikimania, in seven categories. For example, one award went to the ISA Tool, used for adding structured data to files on Commons, which was recently improved during the Wiki Mentor Africa Hackathon. You can see video demonstrations of each tool at the awards page. Congratulations to this year's recipients, and thank you to all tool creators and maintainers.
  • The latest Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin is available, and includes some highlights from Wikimania, an upcoming Language community meeting, and other news from the movement.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

MediaWiki message delivery 00:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Good morning

Good morning, I would like to inform you that I have sent you an (important) email.
Have a very very good day. JacktheBrown (talk) 10:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey, Jack! The problem was that no one who recognized the problem was bothering to prove it. I spent quite a bit of time looking at the various edit histories this morning, and I agree with you, and I've filed, but it was a wheel I shouldn't have had to reinvent. When you are recognizing something like this, start collecting diffs (I recommend you do this offwiki if possible). Because you're familiar with the behavior patterns, and you're coming across it over and over, you can recognize and collect them in seconds. It took me hours. It's not really fair to expect me to do that work, and it's really unfair to ask me why nothing is happening in the absence of proof. Valereee (talk) 14:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Hello, thank you very very much.
"It's not really fair to expect me to do that work, and it's really unfair to ask me why nothing is happening in the absence of proof." I apologise for this; mine is currently a very bad situation to be able to make an accusation, and furthermore I have no email contact with users who have, unofficially, started this procedure. JacktheBrown (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Submitting drafts

hi, I was helping a user called User:Nanette unsolved and it seems like you told them that When you feel it is ready for submission, you can move it to Draft:Murder of Nanette Mae Ellis and submit it for approval. i'd just like to remind you that sandbox pages can be submitted as normal drafts! — Karnataka 14:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh, thanks, I'd commonly seen sandboxes submitted and someone else moving them to draft space because that was the preferred space for submitted drafts. Valereee (talk) 10:39, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
oh sorry for confusing you but yes, it is the preferred place for submissions as it keeps drafts organized and therefore almost all submitted sandbox drafts get moved to draftspace. I just wanted to inform you that it is possible to submit sandbox to AfC since the editor got confused with you implying that they need autoconfirmed to submit the draft (to move the page to draftspace) and it would have made it impossible for the editor to actually submit. which isnt really why AfC exists as autoconfirmed users don't need to go through AfC anyway (since they can just move their draft to mainspace) — Karnataka 22:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Hey, Valereee,

Would you be up for closing the open ANI discussions regarding Imane Khelif? It seems like you are more familiar with these issues than many other admins. I understand it's a big ask but this bickering has to end. I closed off one section because it was going off tangent but I don't know if that was fair. I just got tired of the endless complaining. Liz Read! Talk! 07:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

lol...ugh, I was hoping that closing some of the sections would get someone else to look at what was left. I'll take a look in a couple hours! Valereee (talk) 10:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

A Multi-Barnstar

The Peace Barnstar The Antiflame Barnstar The Socratic Barnstar
The Mediator Barnstar The Helping Hand Barnstar The Admin's Barnstar
The Multiple Barnstar
I am going to post these 7 barnstars (or technically EIGHT given that the Multi-Barnstar is a recognition all its own), to acknowledge the hugely appreciated various things you did recently. As initially started here you took on a monster (puns intended) of a task for a discussion that had been ongoing and one-sided for the last 6 years (detailed extensively in a podcast video here). Throughout the process you were unbiased, and maintained peace with various editors. You were skilled and eloquent with the instructions and direction you provided. You were civil, and kept your cool when things begin to become contentious. Furthermore as an admin, you had to make a difficult decision which ultimately assisted the article in question, and allows editors to contribute with resolving a situation that had spiraled out of control and stems from a case of WP:SEALIONing. Thank you for your help on the article, thank you for helping to maintain a positive/constructive community, and thank you for assistance on my talk-page as well. Cheers m8! DisneyMetalhead (talk) 06:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, DM! Very kind. Valereee (talk) 11:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
That's creative. Stealing the multi-barnstar format. BorgQueen (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
It's a nice way to acknowledge all the good that was done, all at once! Well-deserved for some seriously difficult work that Valereee completed. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:31, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Block from Khelif

Hi Valereee, I have two quick questions:

  1. Could you please confirm that my block is due to these two edits: 22:20, 16 August 2024 and 22:49, 22 August 2024? Or is there something else I've missed?
  2. Regarding the second edit, there's currently a BLP/N discussion about whether my comment and revert were a violation of WP:BLP. So far no one has claimed that they were. Were you aware of this thread when you blocked me? If you were aware of it, do you think the violation was so egregious as to prevent you from waiting for community input?

Thanks, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Good block which keeps me from having to further waste ANI's time with another report and TBan call, which I would have done after Gitz's reply to my self-revert request on his talk page.
― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  14:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
The block was for this edit. I was not aware of the BLP/N discussion. Valereee (talk) 14:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Could you explain to me why do you thing that that comment violates WP:BLP? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
You're continuing to speculate on this person's medical condition. Valereee (talk) 11:35, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm not speculating about her medical condition. It seems you don't understand the meaning of "speculation": "Speculation" and "speculate" mean to take to be true on the basis of insufficient evidence (Merriam-Webster), the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence (Oxford Dictionary of English), the activity of guessing possible answers to a question without having enough information to be certain (Cambridge Dictionary). Speculation is basically a "bad theory": a theory that states that things are a certain way without sufficient evidence. Speculation is clearly different from a conditional statement that makes no claim about how things are. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
You wrote "If Khelid has DSDs". That is speculation on her medical condition. Valereee (talk) 11:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
No, that is not a "speculation". Please, check a couple of online English dictionaries. A speculation affirms something without a firm grounding, and is different from a hypothesis. Perhaps you are arguing that WP:BLP prevents editors from making hypotheses about leaving people's medical conditions? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by Perhaps you are arguing that WP:BLP prevents editors from making hypotheses about leaving people's medical conditions?...leaving people's medical conditions what? I feel like there's a word missing? Valereee (talk) 12:18, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant "living" not "leaving". So my question was: "perhaps you are arguing that WP:BLP prevents editors from making hypotheses about the medical conditions of living people?" Is this your interpretation of WP:BLP? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:21, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes. Either speculating or hypothesizing. Valereee (talk) 12:32, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Why do you think WP:BLP forbids hypotheses like the one I made? WP:BLPTALK says that Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed. But my comment (a) is strictly related to making content choices, and (b) the hypothesis that it mentions has been reported by countless news articles (e.g. NYT, Guardian, CNN, NYT, USA Today Independent, NYT, DW, BBC, BBC), sports journalists (e.g., Barney Ronay, The Guardian, Alan Abrahamson, 3 Wire Sports, Martin Sameul, The Times) and academics, subject-matter experts and feminists (e.g., Doriane Lambelet Coleman, Colin Wright, Helen Lewis). To claim that editors should not mention such a hypothesis, even in a conditional statement, on a WP talk page, seems far-fetched.
Is this what you claim? Are you relying on WP:BLP alone, or are there other WP policies and guidelines that back up my block? Any BLP talk page is bound to have countless BLP violations if you interpret and enforce WP:BLP in this way. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
As explained at ANI, this is the intersection of BLP and MEDRS. It doesn't really matter whether anyone else is speculating or hypothesizing if the speculation and hypothesizing aren't done in a MEDRS source. Which you won't find, because no ethical medical professional will speculate on a medical diagnosis of a living person they haven't personally examined. Valereee (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm not persuaded by this argument.
Firstly, Wikipedia has many BLPs that include medical information about living people without the support of MEDRS-level sources. For example, no MEDRS source confirms that Putin has Parkinson's (the claim originated from The Sun) and yet we include this information here. Can you confirm that WP:MEDRS also applies to reporting on the health of individuals? I've found some comments on both Khelif's talk page (comments by Kcmastrpc [10] and CambrianCrab [11]) and the WP:MEDRS talk page that explicitly exclude the medical conditions of individuals from the scope of WP:MEDRS (e.g., here).
Secondly, the medical conditions of professional athletes are often the subject of public debate, which Wikipedia should be able to cover. Since Khelif chose not to disclose the results of any tests that excluded the presence of DSD, it was inevitable that speculation about her condition would arise. These speculations, reported by dozens of sources, are a public debate. Your interpretation of BLP + MEDRS would prevent Wikipedia from circulating knowledge about significant (notable) public debates on gender and sport.
Thirdly, and most importantly for me, my comment does not argue that we should include the fact that Khelif may have DSDs in her BLP. On the contrary, I've always argued that we should avoid speculating about Khelif's chromosomes in article namespace, that is, we should avoid suggesting that she does or does not have DSDs (see 11:36, 6 August 2024 and 07:58, 7 August 2024). In fact, my comment argues that our BLP should not suggest that she doesn't have DSDs. By blocking me, you are policing the article talk page in a way that prevents a reasonable argument from being made. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
If you'd just said, "We shouldn't speculate on any aspect of Khelif's medical condition in the article about her", you'd be fine. It's the arguing that she might have DSDs, might have XY chromosomes, and somehow that 'might' is the reason not to speculate. Just don't speculate about people's medical conditions. Zero need to bring up what journalists are reporting some layperson is speculating about. And re: my comment does not argue that we should include the fact that Khelif may have DSDs, stop. You literally just did it again. "The fact that" she may have this condition? I'm starting to have a hard time AGFing. Valereee (talk) 16:25, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
You are answering my third point while the first two remain unanswered, right? When you have time, could you please answer them as well?
As to your reply, the reason why editors should be allowed to mention the possibility-that-must-not-be-named in talk page discussions is that the article selects information in a way that suggests or implies that that possibility does not exist:
  • In the lead, No medical evidence that Khelif has XY chromosomes or elevated levels of testosterone has been published. Khelif chose not to share evidence about her chromosomes and levels of testosterone, as reported by NBC, TIME, BBC, and publishing medical evidence against her will would be a criminal offence, as explained by the IBA.
  • In the lead section, Khelif was born female. I believe that "was assigned female at birth" would be preferable for many reasons, including the possibility-that-must-not-be-named, as I argued here.
  • The choice of including misinformation ... False assertions about her gender without mentioning (legitimate) public scrutiny over her eligibility to compete with women is questionable and is the subject of an open RfC. Many RSes report that athletes with certain forms of DSDs can have significant competitive advantage; for this reasons, some argue that they should not be allowed to compete with other women.
It is quite hard to question these choices if admins don't allow editors to even mention a possibility that has been reported and discussed by dozens of news organisations, sports journalists, academics and feminists. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
You know, I've responded to you for like 40 hours now, and you're complaining that I haven't responded to your every point? If you have something you really want addressed, maybe limit yourself to that instead of making three points in your 8th post.
For me it seems a bit disingenuous to compare things like "looked like a sprain, not a break" to "might have DSDs or XY chromosomes", but I'm not going to weigh in on sprain vs. break content.
I think you should just request unblock on your talk. Valereee (talk) 20:10, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
I did not complain that you hadn't responded to my every point. I noted it, and asked you to reply when you have time. If you don't want to answer me, fine - you won't tell me why you think WP:MEDRS also applies to medical information about individuals, and you won't tell me how this might affect WP coverage of public debates about the medical conditions of athletes (or also politicians and other public figures). Maybe editors shouldn't talk about the medical conditions of living people at all, unless they have a MEDRS source at hand. I find this hard to believe: I don't think it reflects practice. As for your last comment, I'm sorry, I didn't understand it. It looked like a sprain, not a break - what? I didn't make any comparison or analogy, except perhaps with Putin's alleged Parkinson's, which is a pretty serious medical condition. I really don't understand what you're talking about, which is frustrating, and since you no longer wish to explain your action, I agree that it's best to drop this conversation altogether. Thank you anyway for the 40 hours you spent answering me. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Valereee/Archive_64&oldid=1243821239"