Valereee

Need help and don't know where to find it? Help!

Gourmand Cookbook Award

I came across this award reviewing a draft and it appears to be a notable award mentioned in several articles. Thought you might be interested in creating an article. See also es:Gourmand World Cookbook Awards. S0091 (talk) 16:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Hm, it has an entry in 8 language wikis. Definitely seems worth investigating, thanks! Valereee (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Valereee. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

James Rowe, again

If you feel like saying something on the recent (todays) edits on the article and talkpage, please do. A little more at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#James_Rowe_(footballer,_born_1983). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I've p-blocked from the article for 24 hours for EW. I'm afraid I'm not following the discussion very well...I don't know football, don't know the football-specific sources, and the Telegraph source is paywalled for me. And the editor's discussion style, I'm finding very difficult to follow at all. Before I go into the talk to try to moderate: Is this person objecting to using the Telegraph source to support the fact Rowe is married because the source says things the editor doesn't want readers to be able to click to from the article? Valereee (talk) 12:30, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

On that particular point, it seems the problem is/will be that source being used in the article at all:[1], which IMO doesn't fly since it's a decent on-topic RS. However, using the BBC instead in that particular case is of course acceptable, though unnecessary. But it it serves the peace. Which per [2] I'm sceptical of, SM intends to keep editwarring.

My impression so far is that SM can accept no judgement/reading on a source other than his own (see the [3], [4] and [5] threads), and will edit-war to impose it.

I don't know football either, which is why I leave the stats-discussion to others, but the Rowe-article has been problematic in other ways. On reading The Telegraph, have you tried [6]? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I can often find a way get to these if I'm just a little less lazy. :) I'm wondering if the objection to that particular article being used at all is the headline, "Ex-Chesterfield manager ‘thrust exposed penis into massage therapist’s hand’, sex assault trial hears" which of course appears in the references. And if the only use of that source is to support that he has a wife, then it's not an unreasonable objection given that he was acquitted. Valereee (talk) 15:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, though it's one of the national in-depth sources that shows that the court-thing belongs in the article, and as of [7] it's the source currently there that says he lives in Derbyshire now. And for WP-purposes, the headline shouldn't matter. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I agree! I was just saying maybe that's the actual underlying objection. I'm assuming this editor is someone close to Rowe, and that for someone with a COI it's understandable why they would hate seeing that headline in the references. Valereee (talk) 16:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's very underlying, SM has been pretty upfront on that. I didn't say I appreciate you involving yourself, but I do. And I hope you keep watching when the 24h ends ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Big family holidays here, I'll be around, but if I miss another EW, just ping me. Valereee (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Even less underlying. Potentially problematic, time will tell. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately Gråbergs Gråa Sång your argument falls flat on its face as I was proven right about your misinformation as to Rowe being married. Anyone who disagrees with you isn’t COI. I have gone and looked at previous interactions you have had with other editors of this particular page and you claim them to be COI too. It’s purely down to ensuring your edits and sources of information are credible. Which proven on the professional career , lead in and Rowe’s marital status that for a supposed experienced editor you have been wrong . Super Mario 1887 (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Editors there decided to use partner, not wife or fiance. That wouldn't prove wife wrong. It wouldn't prove fiance wrong. It only means editors can't get consensus on whether his partner is still a fiance or is now a wife. I don't think you can assert you were 'proven right' or that Rowe being married is misinformation. It just means editors have had to compromise on how to describe the relationship based on RS. Valereee (talk) 22:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

No it proves that putting wife was misinformation as it can’t be proved so. A mm edit mistake but we all make mistakes. We move forward.you have currently blocked me for flagging up the edit mistake and rightly highlighting that Gråbergs Gråa Sång was wrong to keep re editing Rowe was married. There will be further challenges when im unblocked that I hope Gråbergs Gråa Sång doesn’t continue to re edit without a reliable source. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 23:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

How can wife be proved to be misinformation?

I didn't block you for "flagging up the edit mistake and rightly highlighting" anything. I blocked for edit-warring. Valereee (talk) 23:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

are you going to block Gråbergs Gråa Sång then as she was edit warring and continuously putting in that Rowe was married . The final edit shows I was in the right and actually she was incorrect. Wife can be proven misinformation because she frequently stated it and she had no proof. Something you also tried to have back her on. Please treat everyone equally if you’re going to exercise your mighty Wikipedia power . Super Mario 1887 (talk) 23:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

We have bright line policy about edit warring. You can find an explanation at WP:3RR. Valereee (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. See below for exemptions.

based on the fact that Gråbergs Gråa Sång reverted more than 3 times in a 24 hour window are you going to block her ? Not only this but she was proven wrong to. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 23:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Being wrong is irrelevant, just stop even saying that, it means nothing.

It looked to me like there were 3 reverts. If you have 4, you can give me the WP:diffs. I tend not to be a hardass over this, though...I don't want to punish, I just want it to stop. Which is why I pblocked you for 24 hours from a single article. Some would block you from the entire encyclopedia. Valereee (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Treat everyone equally. Being wrong is my exact point , it was in fact Gråbergs Gråa Sång who was edit warring . The edits I was reverting back were actually proven right to do so. So please stop saying i was edit warring when in fact I was doing right. My block is unjust. 3 edits as per above is enough to block so as an experienced editor and moderator of that page can you please adhere to the guidelines and block Gråbergs Gråa Sång from that page for at least 24 hours. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 23:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Wrong. Doesn't. Matter. Valereee (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Editing. 3. Times. Or. More. Is. Edit. War. Please. Block. Editors. Who. Do. This. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 08:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

No, editing three times isn't edit warring. Reverting a fourth time within 24 hours crosses into an unambiguous edit war, and even then there's room for discretion either way. I could, for example, block you again for making a single edit that resumes your edit war. Or for

There are multiple editors at that article, all working on different sections and wordings. Your edit warring was easy to see, but I'm not actually going to do a forensic analysis to make 100% sure an experienced editor with 50K+ edits over the past sixteen years who has no history of edit warring might have crossed the line. If you believe they did, do that forensic analysis yourself. I'd recommend that unless it is extremely easy to see, you take it to WP:AN3, where there are experts in this policy.

Admins use discretion. Sometimes we look back over a user's past edits to see if they're well-intentioned. Given this edit of yours, you had already used up all the discretion I was going to give you for being well-intentioned. And the block I gave you was about as light as it could possibly be: blocked from a single page for 24 hours, which has already expired. Valereee (talk) 13:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok . Have a good day Super Mario 1887 (talk) 15:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

And you. Valereee (talk) 15:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Fwiw, we have a new friend now:[8] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

OMFG. Welp, that's that. Valereee (talk) 16:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, now we can turn to something less adversarial, like Wikipedia wants to burn down India. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Lots of fun. I've increased protection for a week. Valereee (talk) 11:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Good call. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Speaking of returning editors, I fear this new editor [9] might be a return of [10]. Hopefully I'm wrong, but writing like "While this interpretation is interesting, regardless of Shakespeare’s intent, it is critical to acknowledge that his decision to convey this message through a Jewish character has enabled the play to be used by antisemites." reminds me of the other guy. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Certainly seems possible! Valereee (talk) 18:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

And if you get tired of me being the cat dragging in things, please let me know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I like cats. :) Valereee (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

My brother told me of a cat his girl-friend had when he moved in. Great hunter, and they lived next to the wood. One night the cat comes meowing, and the girl-friend says "God, he's caught something again, get rid of it, will you?" Sure enough, the cat had proudly delivered a mouse to their bedroom. Another time he wanted to deliver another trophy, but the rabbit got stuck in the kitty door. Neighbor dogs were scared of him. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the gifts my cats have brought me. I had one cat who would put her kills just under the overhang from my bed. So at least I wasn't actually stepping ON dead mouse/mole/vole/chipmunk at 6am, still half asleep. Very considerate. Valereee (talk) 18:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Quite so. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 5 arbitration case opened

You offered a statement in an arbitration enforcement referral. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 23:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC), which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 06:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

. Valereee (talk) 16:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 5 updates

You are receiving this message because you are on the update list for Palestine-Israel articles 5. The drafters note that the scope of the case was somewhat unclear, and clarify that the scope is The interaction of named parties in the WP:PIA topic area and examination of the WP:AE process that led to two referrals to WP:ARCA. Because this was unclear, two changes are being made:

First, the Committee will accept submissions for new parties for the next three days, until 23:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC). Anyone who wishes to suggest a party to the case may do so by creating a new section on the evidence talk page, providing a reason with WP:DIFFS as to why the user should be added, and notifying the user. After the three-day period ends, no further submission of parties will be considered except in exceptional circumstances. Because the Committee only hears disputes that have failed to be resolved by the usual means, proposed parties should have been recently taken to AE/AN/ANI, and either not sanctioned, or incompletely sanctioned. If a proposed party has not been taken to AE/AN/ANI, evidence is needed as to why such an attempt would have been ineffective.

Second, the evidence phase has been extended by a week, and will now close at 23:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC). For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 50, 2024)

Hello, Valereee. The article for improvement of the week is: Gulf Please be bold and help improve it! Previous selections: Volt • Diurnality Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI •

Tech News: 2024-50

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

Weekly highlight

• Technical documentation contributors can find updated resources, and new ways to connect with each other and the Wikimedia Technical Documentation Team, at the Documentation hub on MediaWiki.org. This page links to: resources for writing and improving documentation, a new #wikimedia-techdocs IRC channel on libera.chat, a listing of past and upcoming documentation events, and ways to request a documentation consultation or review. If you have any feedback or ideas for improvements to the documentation ecosystem, please contact the Technical Documentation Team.

Updates for editors

Layout change for the Edit Check feature

• Later this week, Edit Check will be relocated to a sidebar on desktop. Edit check is the feature for new editors to help them follow policies and guidelines. This layout change creates space to present people with new Checks that appear while they are typing. The initial results show newcomers encountering Edit Check are 2.2 times more likely to publish a new content edit that includes a reference and is not reverted.
• The Chart extension, which enables editors to create data visualizations, was successfully made available on MediaWiki.org and three pilot wikis (Italian, Swedish, and Hebrew Wikipedias). You can see a working examples on Testwiki and read the November project update for more details.
• Translators in wikis where the mobile experience of Content Translation is available, can now discover articles in Wikiproject campaigns of their interest from the "All collection" category in the articles suggestion feature. Wikiproject Campaign organizers can use this feature, to help translators to discover articles of interest, by adding the <page-collection> </page-collection> tag to their campaign article list page on Meta-wiki. This will make those articles discoverable in the Content Translation tool. For more detailed information on how to use the tool and tag, please refer to the step-by-step guide. [11]
• The Nuke feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, now has a multiselect filter for namespace selection. This enables users to select multiple specific namespaces, instead of only one or all, when fetching pages for deletion.
• The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions. Thanks to Chlod and the Moderator Tools team for both of these improvements. [12]
• The Editing Team is working on making it easier to populate citations from archive.org using the Citoid tool, the auto-filled citation generator. They are asking communities to add two parameters preemptively, archiveUrl and archiveDate, within the TemplateData for each citation template using Citoid. You can see an example of a change in a template, and a list of all relevant templates. [13]
• One new wiki has been created: a Wikivoyage in Indonesian (voy:id:) [14]
• Last week, all wikis had problems serving pages to logged-in users and some logged-out users for 30–45 minutes. This was caused by a database problem, and investigation is ongoing. [15]
• View all 19 community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week. For example, a bug in the Add Link feature has been fixed. Previously, the list of sections which are excluded from Add Link was partially ignored in certain cases. [16][17]

Updates for technical contributors

• Codex, the design system for Wikimedia, now has an early-stage implementation in PHP. It is available for general use in MediaWiki extensions and Toolforge apps through Composer, with use in MediaWiki core coming soon. More information is available in the documentation. Thanks to Doğu for the inspiration and many contributions to the library. [18]
• Wikimedia REST API users, such as bot operators and tool maintainers, may be affected by ongoing upgrades. On December 4, the MediaWiki Interfaces team began rerouting page/revision metadata and rendered HTML content endpoints on testwiki from RESTbase to comparable MediaWiki REST API endpoints. The team encourages active users of these endpoints to verify their tool's behavior on testwiki and raise any concerns on the related Phabricator ticket before the end of the year, as they intend to roll out the same change across all Wikimedia projects in early January. These changes are part of the work to replace the outdated RESTBase system.
• The 2024 Developer Satisfaction Survey is seeking the opinions of the Wikimedia developer community. Please take the survey if you have any role in developing software for the Wikimedia ecosystem. The survey is open until 3 January 2025, and has an associated privacy statement.
• There is no new MediaWiki version this week. [19]

Meetings and events

• The next meeting in the series of Wikimedia Foundation discussions with the Wikimedia Commons community will take place on December 12 at 8:00 UTC and at 16:00 UTC. The topic of this call is new media and new contributors. Contributors from all wikis are welcome to attend.

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

MediaWiki message delivery 22:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your close at RSN

Just to say thanks for closing the TOI discussion at RSN. Closes, especially those dealing with contentious topics, are always appreciated. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: November 2024

This Month in GLAM – Volume XIV, Issue XI, November 2024 Headlines Albania report: Minigrant and Photowalk Projects in Albania Brazil report: Winners of WLM 2024 Brazil Canada report: WikiConvention francophone 2024 Croatia report: deGrowth in N0vember Czech Republic report: Visual memory presented with collections of East Bohemia Museum in Hradec Kralove India report: Digitization starts at Rammohun Library and Free Reading Room Italy report: Wrap up the nine projects funded by 2024 GLAM call and Italian Wikidata Days New Zealand report: NZ Species Editathon, OEGlobal 2024 and Auckland Museum's Summer Students Poland report: What's up in GLAM-Wiki in Poland Portugal report: Summary of Wikidata Days 2024: Librarians don’t need hammers, they need Wikidata Switzerland report: Swiss GLAM Programme UAE report: Highlighting the Impact of Wiki Loves Monuments 2024 in UAE Wikimedia UAE and Librarians report: Empowering Knowledge: Librarians and Wikimedia at DILC 2024 UK report: Middle-Eastern history and interfaith education USA report: November meetings Biodiversity Heritage Library report: BHL-Wiki Working Group November monthly highlights AvoinGLAM report: Winter Festival Memory of the World report: Wikidata and Wikipedia improvements Calendar: December'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.

About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 21:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Just talk

Well like you said, their hands are in the way! I don't know if this is your kind of humor, but Gervais had some trouble making that scene. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

hahahaha Valereee (talk) 13:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Please do not bite the newcomers 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 16:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 December 2024

• News and notes: Arbitrator election concludes

• Arbitration report: Palestine-Israel articles 5

• Disinformation report: Sex, power, and money revisited

• Op-ed: On the backrooms

• In focus: Are Wikipedia articles representative of Western or world knowledge?

• In the media: Like the BBC, often useful but not impartial

• Traffic report: Something Wicked for almost everybody

• Opinion: Worm That Turned's reconfirmation RfA debriefing

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Contemplating another essay

Happy Holidays V., I write with an inquiry, to take advantage of your wisdom and expertise in essay writing... (I noted your patience with our recent project was admirable.) I was recently involved in an article name change discussion with the article Third siege of Girona (Peninsular War). One of the requests was to change the article name from the Catalan "Girona" to the Spanish "Gerona". I have run into that language issue before in the article Empúries (Ampurias in Spanish); see those articles' talk pages. I am local to the region, and prefer the Catalan spelling, generally. But both these articles have had a back and forth with the name. It is potentially confusing, yes, but it also plays into Spanish politics, with Catalans naturally preferring their own spelling, and Spanish nationalists preferring, say, the Spanish words; a recipe for conflict. In the siege of Girona article, there were those working on the Peninsular/Napoleonic War project preferring "Gerona" to harmonize their set of articles, and those such as myself preferring the local usage. Its a touchy subject. Recently I noticed the article on the Catalan painter Ramon Casas was spelled without an accent, but research turned up it has an accent in Spanish (Ramón) but not in Catalan. Spanish: Rah-MOHN, Catalan: RAH-mon. I could easily see a minor skirmish in the future with those wanting to add the accent. There does not seem to be any guidance to resolve such conflicts. Seems obvious they will continue to occur. So I've begun to contemplate another essay, perhaps as a positive contribution to resolving such issues. What do you think of this idea? Can anyone start an essay? Would it be helpful? Perhaps a question for the Village Pump, but I hoped for a sounding board. A long term project, in any case. Thx, Bdushaw (talk) 13:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Hey, Bdushaw! Yes, anyone can write an essay, and you don't need to ask permission anywhere. Once you've placed it in WP space, anyone can edit it.

Consider WP:ENGVAR, which basically recommends using whichever language the first stable version used unless the article subject has a clear connection to a particular variety. But just as WP prefers no variety of English, we also don't prefer any variety of Spanish. One thing we absolutely don't want is any disruption caused by editors arguing over whether to use the Catalan, Spanish, or any other variety of Spanish to decide to spell Girona/Gerona. Valereee (talk) 14:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful. I was aware of the usefulness of the policy wrt varieties of English. But you raised a lightening rod with "variety of Spanish"... Catalan is its own language, perhaps closer to Italian or Portuguese than Spanish (more different from Spanish, than Danish is from Norwegian, for example). I will let the issue stew on the back burner, but it may be starting to come to a simmer. Bdushaw (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

UM Question

Hey Valereee. Per this edit here. I'm not sure how one should approach it. An editor re-added it with the tag for questioning. No source added, no discussion on the talk page. What would be the best approach for me to do here? (Bring it up on talk page again? rv per previous discussion?). I'm not sure whats the best approach as the editor has not really shown anything to suggest what they have re-added. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I think -- and this is one admin's opinion, so you'd be taking the risk that some other admin would disagree -- that you could probably take that 'discuss' as a direct request to do so in a discussion you'd already contributed to (and so without such a direct request, you wouldn't be able to. You could post with a link to the edit in that discussion and a ping to the editor, plus maybe other editors in that discussion since it's a bit stale, something like "DMH, you've asked for discussion on this edit?" Then you could, when they post their rationale, make a single response to it. And then you have to let it go and let other editors there deal with it. The article doesn't have to be exactly what you think it should be. If it's going to bother you that it isn't, take it off your watch list.

And again, to be very clear, this is just my take on it, and I am not even the blocking admin. If someone else disagrees, I am not going to dispute their interpretation or any action they take. This is what makes this editing restriction so difficult and why we'd been suggesting you wait several months and appeal rather than accept a conditional unblock based on a custom restriction. Valereee (talk) 13:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)