User talk:Valereee/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

UTRS Access

You are being messaged because there was a bug in UTRS that made it look like you had access to no appeals in the system. This has now since been patched and will be tested more before fully implemented again. You can track the progress if you wish here. I appreciate your patience and wanted to stop by to say try again, and let me know if anything else is wrong. Please also ping me if you reply here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

DeltaQuad, hey, Amanda! Thanks so much for following up, I'll go check it out! —valereee (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Police abolition movement

Hello! Your submission of Police abolition movement at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Help at DYK for Lycian Way

If you have a moment, the nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Lycian Way could use some ALT hooks proposed. The nominator appears to be struggling. Flibirigit (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

George Floyd

As per WP:BRD, editors discussed the criminal history section and a majority of the editors stated it should be included. The current version meets the points raised in the discussion. WP:BRD states that after a reasonable period of time, to go ahead and make the edits. Please stop edit warring and removing content you personally do not agree with after other editors voted for its inclusion. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Simple majority doesn't matter. Strength of argument matters. —valereee (talk) 22:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

The strength of the arguments is to include. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Octoberwoodland, I don't see that at all. Most of the support arguments don't show thoughtful argument about policy. —valereee (talk) 22:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I reverted the close to allow more time to discuss, which is a reasonable request. I am notifying you that this article is under 1RR, which you have now reverted the same edit twice. You need to leave it to others to revert this content again or I will take you to the 3RR noticeboard for edit warring if you keep reverting content that other editors have stated should be included. All of us need to follow the rules, including me. You seem very adept at posting discretionary sanctions notices on other users talk pages but you seem to behave as though the rules apply to everyone else, yet you can violate 1RR at your whim. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Octoberwoodland, the article is under 1RR? When did that happen? Also, where did I revert the same content twice in succession -- I only made two edits in the past three days, and one of them had nothing to do with this content. —valereee (talk) 12:14, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020

Hello Valereee,

Your help can make a difference

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.

Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate

In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.

Discussions and Resources

• A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
• Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
• A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
• Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

zscaler

Note that proxy blocks prevent users from editing for 24 hours. Once that person disables zscaler, they should be good to go 24 hours later. If they need to use zscaler (though... look, I work in the computer security industry, and I'd generally advise against it for privacy reasons; this is not a statement on behalf of Wikipedia), WP:IPBE may be an option. --Yamla (talk) 19:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

(admins automatically get IPBE, I believe) --Yamla (talk) 19:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Yamla, it's a computer issued by his company, must be something they installed. I'll have him look into IPBE, thanks! —valereee (talk) 19:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

DYK for The talk (parenting)

On 21 June 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The talk (parenting), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that for generations, black parents in the United States have felt compelled to instruct their children about how to de-escalate encounters with the police? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The talk (parenting). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, The talk (parenting)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Worldometers

Your input would be helpful at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Worldometers.info. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 26, 2020)

William Mariner was an Englishman who lived in Tonga from 29 November 1806 to (probably) 8 November 1810. He later published Tonga Islands, an account of his experiences that is now one of the major sources of information on Tonga before it was significantly influenced by European culture and Christianity. Pictured is Mariner in Tongan attire. Hello, Valereee. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: William Mariner (writer) Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Ship canal • Anna Holmlund Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI •

You've got mail

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. Funcrunch (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Funcrunch, no relation to any FB page manager. If there are concerns, we probably should discuss at the article talk? —valereee (talk) 17:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, there are privacy issues involved, I explained in a follow-up email. Funcrunch (talk) 19:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I've emailed the person, but if there are privacy issues we probably should be dealing with OTRS? I haven't written anything that required a deep dive. In fact I left things out. —valereee (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Please stop

Please stop misunderstanding my talk posts. Please stop making personal comments and attacks. Please stop blocking me, seemingly in retaliation and/ or just as an abuse of authority. Pasdecomplot (talk) 05:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

As an example, this is a personal comment:"Pasdecomplot to me seems an obviously well-intentioned editor who is having a hard time figuring us out" Pasdecomplot (talk) 06:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Another example: You don't build consensus by censoring or silencing certain individuals in an active discussion thread: "I am ready to archive this discussion. If anyone but Pasdecomplot objects, please speak up." Pasdecomplot (talk) 06:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Another example of inappropriate use of blocking: "Another discussion topic mentions the abrasions found on Floyd's left side of body. Could be related but YES, there still seems to be a lack of acceptable RS, at this point, except for the oxygen RS. Any other comments Levivich? (And, my excuses, I thought OS was part of the lexicon (a term from academic research=Original Source)). Pasdecomplot (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

[No indentation below b] Ai yi yi. —valereee (talk) 18:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

[Uses a bullet] EEng We've now thoroughly confirmed that there is not consensus to write "dragged" based on the sourcing brought forward to date, and I think this can be archived. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 19:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC) Thanks for trying to help build a consensus. If RS chose to report on it, I'll propose the edit. Hopefully I won't be blocked - again - in retaliation. BTW, I see no one is indenting. The • is a better system IMO Levivich but be careful! Pasdecomplot (talk) 05:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC) Pasdecomplot (talk) 06:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

[Disregard last message, replace with this message]

Here's the thread before, during, and after the block. There's a threat from valereee of blocking above this response, but it WAS NOT in the thread when I began the response below:

[discussing topic:] "...Another discussion topic mentions the abrasions found on Floyd's left side of body. Could be related but YES, there still seems to be a lack of acceptable RS, at this point, except for the oxygen RS. Any other comments Levivich? (And, my excuses, I thought OS was part of the lexicon (a term from academic research=Original Source))". Pasdecomplot (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

[No indentation below by valereee, as she was blocking me for not indenting:] "Ai yi yi." —valereee (talk) 18:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

[A bullet added to indentation below; was not blocked by valereee] "EEng We've now thoroughly confirmed that there is not consensus to write "dragged" based on the sourcing brought forward to date, and I think this can be archived." Levivich [dubious – discuss] 19:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

[My final comments on thread after block is removed] "Thanks for trying to help build a consensus. If RS chose to report on it, I'll propose the edit. Hopefully I won't be blocked - again - in retaliation. BTW, I see no one is indenting. The • is a better system IMO Levivich but be careful!" Pasdecomplot (talk) 05:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC) Pasdecomplot (talk) 06:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Any issue understanding the topic? This message is a courtesy message. Thanks for your attention. Pasdecomplot (talk) 06:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot, to be honest, yes, I'm having quite a few issues understanding the topic, but I'll try to deal with the parts I can figure out.

I didn't make any personal attacks. I didn't block in retaliation or abusively. I blocked you because you were editing disruptively.

You said Pasdecomplot to me seems an obviously well-intentioned editor who is having a hard time figuring us out is a "personal comment." I'm not sure what the complaint is here. You are both clearly well-intentioned and having a hard time (or simply refusing) to learn our policies. I chose to assume you were having a hard time learning them, as I hope you aren't simply refusing to. It wasn't a personal attack, but a description of the situation so that other editors would know that you weren't badly-intentioned and that I thought the disruptiveness of your editing wasn't intentional.

You said You don't build consensus by censoring or silencing certain individuals in an active discussion thread: and quoted me when I said I am ready to archive this discussion. If anyone but Pasdecomplot objects, please speak up. Consensus doesn't mean everyone agrees. It means most of us agree. I wanted to see if there was more than one person who was still trying to beat the dead horse.

Re: My "Ai yi yi", which as you point out, I didn't indent. You indent when you're replying to someone by inserting one more colon before your post than appear before their post that you're replying to. I've both explained this to you before and directed you to the page where that policy and the reasons behind it are explained, and so have other editors. The Ai yi yi was not a reply to anyone. It was a brand new comment, a statement of exasperation, because I'd been BOLDSHOUTING at you to please learn to indent and in your very next post, FOURTEEN MINUTES LATER, replying to AzureCitizen, you didn't indent.

That's why I blocked you. And your complaints above show me clearly that you still haven't bothered to read our policy on indenting. Levivich didn't indent incorrectly by using a bullet. You weren't blocked for indenting incorrectly; everyone does that occasionally. You were blocked because you seem to be absolutely refusing to even try to learn how to indent correctly, just as you've been refusing to learn any of our other policies, and that is disruptive. And if you continue to refuse to learn these simple rules for making talk pages comprehensible to other editors, I will block you again, again for editing disruptively.

Please, Pasdecomplot, PLEASE learn the policies we've been pointing you at. I can tell you are well-intentioned and you could probably do some good here if you'll learn these three pages: WP:RELIABLESOURCES, WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, WP:TALKPAGE. Have you even clicked to any of those pages? I feel like you're approaching Wikipedia as if it must all just be intuitive and a smart person can pick it right up; I assure you it's not. I've been editing for fifteen years and am still learning things that come as a complete surprise.

I'm willing to keep talking, but not until you can tell me you've at least clicked to each of those pages and skimmed through. There's even a handy little 2-minute video at the one about Talk Pages. —valereee (talk) 11:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

George Floyd again

Hi Valereee, thanks for your message. I read through the 'notes' area in George Floyd's article and thought that since his murder was so horrific, that 'if' he had had previous issues with the police, it was beside the point. Is it necessary to have that info there. Some police departments have real serious racial issues and therefor how do you know they are in fact telling the truth? Some of their documents could be false. Just my two cents.

Gabby 17:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vedlagt (talk • contribs)

Vedlagt, you can discuss whether it should or shouldn't be included at the article's talk page in the section Talk:George_Floyd#Abdominal_pains, which is where other editors are discussing these issues. When you're working on a highly contentious article (which this one is) it's always best to go read the talk page before making a major change, as it's quite common that there has been significant ongoing discussion of whatever change you want to make. Be aware that as a very new editor, it's often best not to edit contentious articles until you learn more about our policies. For instance, the fact his death was so horrific has nothing to do with whether or not he'd had previous issues with the police, so it's currently not even mentioned at the article Killing of George Floyd. However, George Floyd is his biography, and the fact he had multiple convictions that have been mentioned at length in reliable sources does mean that information may belong in his biography, just as his height and weight and age and jobs and family belong in his bio. —valereee (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much for informing. I will go to the articles talk page first and see before doing any editing. Yes , I am new at this!

Gabby 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vedlagt (talk • contribs)

Vedlagt, you're welcome! And I hope you like it here, I think it's a ton of fun! If you put four tildes at the end of your talk page posts, like this: ~~~~, it'll sign at date your posts for you. That helps other editors follow conversations. The ones above were signed by a robot. —valereee (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Valereee. Is this correct? Gabby 17:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it -- when it's correct, it'll put your username and a link to your talk page in automatically. (That's so other editors can contact you easily.) It looks like you might have written Gabby and then put five tildes instead of four. :) —valereee (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Perish the thought!

Just to say that if Vaselineeeeeeee is your sockpuppet, it's the least cunning case of sockpuppetry in history. EEng 22:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I was drunk that night. —valereee (talk) 23:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Sectioning to archive

@Stayfree76: do not shout. Do not CAPITALIZE!?!?!? to prove your point. Childish and not effective.

Zezen (talk) 07:47, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Queue 7

Valereee, it looks like you omitted a "|" separator between the DYKbotdo and your sig; the "the hooks below" box isn't showing up because of the omission. Please add it when you get the chance. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, doh! Thanks, did I fix it? —valereee (talk) —valereee (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thank you! BlueMoonset (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Just FYI

... removing the ping [1] doesn't unring the bell. It's kind of like trying to take a fax back [2]. EEng 02:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. But for future readers of the exchange it makes me look less like an idiot. Until they investigate, or someone calls it out. :D Always trying to protect my image. —valereee (talk) 02:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Well trying to remove a ping didn't exactly paint you as Einstein either. EEng 02:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Shhhhhh —valereee (talk) 02:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

"The talk (parenting)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect The talk (parenting). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 24#The talk (parenting) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 15:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

The Stunt Girl

Hi, I noticed you added a redlink to this film in my Lila Shanley article, so I went ahead and drew up a stub. Now I find out that it's an 11-minute short! I'm so embarrassed. It should probably be included in the list of shorts that appeared in the Unusual Occupations documentary series, but I don't have a lot of motivation to work on that. Yoninah (talk) 20:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Yoninah, I don't think there's any need for embarrassment, but I'm sorry if that's something I caused! I'm not someone who usually works on film, but maybe someone else will be interested. I LOVE the Lila Shanley article, btw! What an interesting woman! —valereee (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. I'm leaving this note, as the editor who started the thread has failed to notify you. Smooth sailing, CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

July 2020 at Women in Red

Women in Red / July 2020, Volume 6, Issue 7, Numbers 150, 151, 170, 171, 172, 173 Online events: New: July Julies / Disability / Women from Where? ... and starting for an extended period: BLM/Anti-discrimination Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman / Sports! Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

The Signpost: 28 June 2020

• News and notes: Progress at Wikipedia Library and Wikijournal of Medicine

• Community view: Community open letter on renaming

• Gallery: After the killing of George Floyd

• In the media: Part collaboration and part combat

• Discussion report: Community reacts to WMF rebranding proposals

• Featured content: Sports are returning, with a rainbow

• Arbitration report: Anti-harassment RfC and a checkuser revocation

• Traffic report: The pandemic, alleged murder, a massacre, and other deaths

• News from the WMF: We stand for racial justice

• Recent research: Wikipedia and COVID-19; automated Wikipedia-based fact-checking

• Interview: What is wrong with rebranding to "Wikipedia Foundation"?

• Humour: Cherchez une femme

• Opinion: Trying to find COI or paid editors? Just read the news

• On the bright side: For what are you grateful this month?

• In focus: Edit Loud, Edit Proud: LGBTIQ+ Wikimedians and Global Information Activism

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Black Lives Matter

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 27, 2020)

Apelles painting Campaspe, an artwork by Willem van Haecht, circa 1630, depicting people surrounded by fine art Hello, Valereee. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Fine art Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: William Mariner (writer) • Ship canal Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI •

African-American

Just curious, where was the discussion you referred to in your edit to George Floyd which changed African-American to black? I'm not necessarily on top of all the discussions, and was also unlear about reference to "parent article". Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 13:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Considering also that this is the lead sentence, the nationality is now missing, which is contrary to MOS:CONTEXTBIO.—Bagumba (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba, hm, I noticed it from edit summaries while going through the history in search of something else, clicked to read the diffs, but didn't notice the topic heading. I can probably recreate my path if you like? I have no objection to you reverting and we can open a discussion! The edit summaries I first noticed were from Trillfendi and said something like 'African-American with no cultural reference is incorrect, listen to the actual black person' or similar. I think calling Killing of the parent article is probably me and Levivich coming to that conclusion between us lol that may need actual discussion. :D —valereee (talk) 13:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

What? Why would we need actual discussion? This is how all decisions on Wikipedia are made: by consensus, of valereee and levivich. @Bagumba: the black/AA discussion I remember is Talk:Killing of George Floyd/Archive 2#Black versus African American. I'm not sure if there have been others. The parent article discussion (really more like brief mention) is buried in Talk:George Floyd#length of time. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both for your responses. It was recently changed to "black American man" from "American black man", which I can live with.—Bagumba (talk) 05:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Lynching victims in Ohio

Today I created the article for Lynching of Christopher Davis, but I suspect that many such articles have yet to be created (in fact, there's a whole 250 pg book called Lynching and Mob Violence in Ohio, 1772-1938). This could be a project worth undertaking, in my opinion. Let me know if you want to help, since you have an interest in Ohio. Enwebb (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Enwebb, I have a little difficulty with such subjects as I tend to be so deeply affected by them that I have recurring nightmares, but I do feel a responsibility to help create those articles. So my answer is yes, I would like to help, but I might need to protect myself from photos and descriptions. I'm sorry if that's not particularly helpful! :) —valereee (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, Valereee, I truly sympathize and can relate to what you described which is why this comment had such an adverse effect on me. As a permanent resident of Bonaire, I have developed such close and loving relationships with some of the people here that I consider them my island family, and that intensifies my feelings when I just see the words. Be well, my WikiFriend. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I understand! Maybe I can start a sandbox to compile a list of names of victims? That would be the most logical starting point anyway, and hopefully wouldn't be as emotionally taxing as photos and descriptions. I went ahead and requested that book from the library, which is due in mid-July. I wouldn't think any less of you if you decided you did not want to be involved for any reason, especially not if you did so to protect your health. Enwebb (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Enwebb, not wanting to see photos and read descriptions seems a poor excuse when people lived those things. I will try to work with you on it. —valereee (talk) 18:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Sandbox link where I've started to compile some names and sources. I've also started a draft. Enwebb (talk) 01:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Enwebb, I've ordered that one, too, but I'm 3rd of 3 for a single copy. I'm 1st for Thirty Years of Lynching in the United States and American Lynching. —valereee (talk) 13:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

If it's Cincinnati Public Libraries, you're probably in line behind me! I can find a way to scan pages and share it with you once I get it. Enwebb (talk) 13:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Enwebb, lol, yep! —valereee (talk) 16:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

If you want to get a sense of lynching in America, look at Without Sanctuary: Lynching Photography in America (2000) by James Allen. It's a series of postcards that people made of the lynchings, and they give a very good sense of the scale of it and the involvement of local people, who stood for photographs and sent the postcards to family members. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, thanks! Coincidentally there's a discussion at Killing of George Floyd right now about whether to include the current main image or find a different frame of the video because of concerns the current image is too like lynching postcards. I don't feel I can contribute to that discussion right now, but it's a fair question. —valereee (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I've requested it. I'm probably behind Enwebb in line again lol... —valereee (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

If you're sensitive about these images, you'll find it tough and maybe you should look at it in stages. I was stunned when I saw it. I had understood lynching to be more furtive, not so much of a public spectacle. There is a lot to learn from the images. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's quite likely I'll have a very hard time with it. —valereee (talk) 17:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

You can see small versions of some or all of the images at https://withoutsanctuary.org/. But the book itself (a hard copy) is the most helpful because it shows clearly, in the large crowds, who is carrying it out and who is supporting. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I found this helpful too: Wood, Amy Louise (2009). Lynching and Spectacle: Witnessing Racial Violence in America, 1890–1940. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2020).

Administrator changes

Malcolmxl5

John • TheCoffee • Tim!

Creffett → GeneralNotability

DeltaQuad → AmandaNP

CheckUser changes

Bbb23

Interface administrator changes

TonyBallioni

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is in progress to remove the T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) speedy deletion criterion.

Technical news

• Protection templates on mainspace pages are now automatically added by User:MusikBot II (BRFA).

Arbitration

• Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold an RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. The RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC and is open to comments from the community.
• The Medicine case was closed, with a remedy authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup 2020 July newsletter

The third round of the 2020 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it into the fourth round each had at least 353 points (compared to 68 in 2019). It was a highly competitive round, and a number of contestants were eliminated who would have moved on in earlier years. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

• Epicgenius, with one featured article, 28 good articles and 17 DYKs, amassing 1836 points
• The Rambling Man , with 1672 points gained from four featured articles and seventeen good articles, plus reviews of a large number of FACs and GAs
• Gog the Mild, a first time contestant, with 1540 points, a tally built largely on 4 featured articles and related bonus points.

Between them, contestants managed 14 featured articles, 9 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 152 good articles, 136 DYK entries, 55 ITN entries, 65 featured article candidate reviews and 221 good article reviews. Additionally, MPJ-DK added 3 items to featured topics and 44 to good topics. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 710 good article reviews, in comparison to 387 good articles submitted for review and promoted. These large numbers are probably linked to a GAN backlog drive in April and May, and the changed patterns of editing during the COVID-19 pandemic. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

DYK help at Canadian Hockey Association (1968–1970)

I am struggling to think of any response at Template:Did you know nominations/Canadian Hockey Association (1968–1970). I think I need an outside opinion on this one. Are you able to help? Flibirigit (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Flibirigit, it looks like you've resolved this? —valereee (talk) 13:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

It's approved, but I am not happy with the outcome. I am tired of fighting. I want to move on. I appreciate you following up. Flibirigit (talk) 13:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Killing_of_Rayshard_Brooks#Reversion to Investigation and Charges July 05 2020

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Killing_of_Rayshard_Brooks#Reversion to Investigation and Charges July 05 2020. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 17:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 28, 2020)

Hello, Valereee. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Russian Academy of Natural Sciences Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Fine art • William Mariner (writer) Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI •

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Thanks, I totally wouldn't have realized. For some reason I was thinking it was a few weeks from now. I can't seem to keep track of the passage of time these days. :D —valereee (talk) 13:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Some help please

Hi Valereee (talk · contribs), sorry to bother you but I would like to get your advice on a few things.

• The way I have presented some proposed changes in Talk:Killing_of_Rayshard_Brooks#Proposed_changes seems to have confused people. How can I fix this? And what is the best and clearest way for me to respond and propose compromise changes? Is it under my original proposals, under BetsyRMadison's copy of the proposals, or in a different section?
• Replying to threads: I was under the impression from Help:Talk_pages#Replying_to_an_existing_thread that the way to respond to a thread was in-line using indentation, but BetsyRMadison seems to suggest that this is not the case, and moved an indented reply from me to one of her comments with the edit summary "Moved comment by FirstPrimeOfApophis because it does not belong smack dab in the middle of my comment". I used to be active on WP a few years ago, but I understand that rules can change over time. What is the current right way to reply to an existing thread in the Talk page?
• An editor with a sense of humor has decided to create a new section Talk:Killing_of_Rayshard_Brooks#Summary_of_Proposed_Edits_by_FirstPrimeOfApophis with absurd mischaracterization of the changes I am proposing e.g. a 12-word sentence becomes "a condensed history of the Georgia Bureau of Investigations". Given the existing formatting issues, I wonder if this section is really adding clarity for editors. Is it acceptable for me to delete it?

FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 06:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, FirstPrimeOfApophis, thanks for reaching out! I think the problem originated with the length of your initial post. It was very very long and included five subsections, including ones explaining your understanding of policy. Generally what we want to see is a very brief (like ideally no more than a few sentences) post. In this case you could have simply opened a section and written something like, "This edit (with a link to the diff) was reverted for (whatever the edit summary said.) Can we discuss?"

Then Levivich would have explained his reasoning. You could have responded. Other editors, reading along, would chime in. But with that long complex opening bid, you made it impossible for anyone to respond to you without either adding their own incredibly long complex response, ignoring you altogether, or asking you to restate briefly.

Re: replying. Generally you don't reply within someone else's reply. It confuses other editors because they don't know who's talking. That's another reason we don't prefer long involved opening bids.

Re: the summary section. I don't know whether she's mischaracterizing, because the discussion is so long and complex that I don't want to try keeping up. You can object to those characterizations briefly (and I do mean briefly; it will do you absolutely no good if you reply to any of them with more than a single sentence that states what you actually were proposing that differs from her summary.) Under no circumstances should you delete it, per WP:TALK, which I recommend you read thoroughly.

You're new here, so you may be looking at that talk page and seeing some very very long discussions and assuming that's typical. It's actually not. This is a highly contentious article. Most articles never even get one comment on their talk page. And you couldn't know that opening bids that were longer than most talk pages weren't the way things work; as long as you're trying to learn, other editors will try to be patient, but I will say that a brand new editor and a highly contentious article is generally a bad combination. Unless you feel incredibly strongly that you are the only person who can present your arguments, it's best to edit less-contentious articles while you figure out how we work, and only make occasional brief comments at the contentious ones. Please feel free to continue this discussion or come back any time. —valereee (talk) 12:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, thank you, this is very helpful. Yes, I fully accept that the confusion is down to my opening screed. I now know to post much shorter comments in future. And point taken about editing less-contentious articles, too.

I have some more questions, if you have time - with regards to WP:BRD for the Brooks article, I want to address BetsyRMadison's responses and offer some compromise proposals in another 24 hours or so, after everyone has had time to contribute. First, is this the right time-frame for discussion? in WP:BRD I cannot find anything about how long you should leave a discussion open before trying to determine consensus based on existing comments. Second, where should I post these compromise proposals? Should I create a new section under BetsyRMadison's reply, or somewhere else? FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC) Valereee (ping) FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

FirstPrimeOfApophis, you don't need to create a new subsection. Just indent like you did here and post your as-concise-as-possible response. Realize that no one has much patience with lengthy text, which is probably why BRM decided to summarize. Consider only responding to the counts that you feel most misinterpret your arguments and leaving the rest; not everything is worth battling over. Assume good faith; I doubt very seriously that she intended humor or disrespect. In all likelihood she was doing her best to accurately reflect what she understood your points to be, even if to you it feels like she was intentionally misinterpreting. Always assume good faith; I'd recommend you read that policy at WP:AGF before responding to her, if you haven't read it already. It's crucial policy. You don't need to wait 24 hours to allow others to respond, and you especially shouldn't if you have reasonable clarifications to make. —valereee (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

BTW, you broke the above ping to me; click it to see where it takes you. The correct markup is {{u|Valereee}}, that is: two curly brackets, u|username, two curly brackets. Also, you don't need to ping someone when you're on their talk page, they'll get an automatic notification whenever anyone posts to their page. —valereee (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

an' I hayalped

Made me laugh. Good to know someone else remembers those commercials. --Khajidha (talk) 16:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Khajidha, I wasn't sure anyone else would get that :) —valereee (talk) 16:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Truce

Hi, what would you say to calling a truce? I hate it when things get so accusatory and uncivil, it's no fun for anyone involved. Sorry for being a bit rude, there was no need for that. I'd prefer to discuss things in a friendly manner. I'll leave the 2020 racial reckoning article and related AfD alone. Cheers Bacondrum (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Bacondrum, I have zero interest in any uncivil interactions with any other editor ever. You don't need to leave the article and AfD alone; discussion at AfD is fine, though in general unless you're clarifying your own position for others because it looks like they've misunderstood you or asking others for clarification of their position because you think you might be misunderstanding them, it's not really worth much. If you feel you've stated your own case clearly and that no one is actually misunderstanding it, and if you feel you're understanding others' positions correctly (even if you think they're being wrongheaded), it's generally best to let the closer assess the arguments. Most closers will approach an AfD -- especially one like that one, which has multiple experienced editors commenting on different sides -- pretty carefully. —valereee (talk) 12:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. All the best. Bacondrum (talk) 23:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Bacondrum, and to you! Oh, and you don't need to leave the article alone, either, feel free to try to improve it even if you were the one who AfD'd it, I've done that twice, I think. :) It didn't work on the most recent one, it ended up truly being not notable, though I still have hopes it will be someday. I don't consider myself an inclusionist, but I've attempted rescue on more articles than I've !voted to delete. —valereee (talk) 10:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, and sorry again for being a twit, you've been really cool about it all. Bacondrum (talk) 21:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Bacondrum, you aren't a twit at all! As far as I'm concerned we're all good! —valereee (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

DYK help wanted

I have nominated Template:Did you know nominations/Ken McKenzie, but I feel like I am just not hitting the nail on the head. Could I borrow your hammer? Flibirigit (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Flibirigit, I kind of feel like there's something in ... that Ken McKenzie co-founded The Hockey News with less than CN$400 and sold most of his share for $4 million? —valereee (talk) 10:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Size of my comments

Hello Valereee - Just want to let you know that I'm not ignoring your suggestions & in the few months I've been here, I've been working on (trying) to get my thoughts across with fewer words. I've made progress -- but still work-in-progress. BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

BetsyRMadison, no worries, as long as you appear to be trying and appear to be making progress, other editors will try to be patient. :) You don't need to explain everything you're thinking or make every argument you can come up with. Just pick your one strongest argument/one most important point. The problem with long posts is that many editors will get lost interpreting them, others will cherrypick and address only your weakest points, and others will ignore your posts altogether. Write, preview, and edit ruthlessly to strip out anything unnecessary. It takes longer to write short, but it's worth it. —valereee (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the tips! BetsyRMadison (talk) 14:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

De nada! Please feel free to continue the discussion any time! —valereee (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: June 2020

This Month in GLAM – Volume X, Issue VI, June 2020 Headlines Albania report: Wikigap 2020 in Albania Australia report: Taking training online Brazil report: Wikimedia in Brazil in times of pandemics France report: Association des archivistes français Mexico report: México free and diverse representation Netherlands report: Wiki goes Caribbean meetup and media donation & Making references to Dutch newspapers in Wikipedia more sustainable North Macedonia report: More than 130 new articles about insects Serbia report: June Highlights - Let’s make new agreements Sweden report: Free music on Wikipedia Switzerland report: Diversity in GLAM Program Taiwan report: Research Case of the White Paper Cooperation Writing Between Taiwan Gallery and Wikidata Taiwan UK report: New project on Islamic art USA report: Juneteenth2020 +Pride Special story: Creative Commons invites Open GLAM stories from underrepresented communities WMF GLAM report: Departure of Sandra Fauconnier Calendar: July'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 15:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Cancel culture

I invite you to look at this brief draft as a possible article that could be further developed with the right sources.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:42, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Hey, Vchimpanzee, there is a Cancel culture redirect to online shaming...are you see this as enough to support another article? —valereee (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

As I have explained on other talk pages, it is not about online shaming. That is just one example. I just don't have the sources to prove it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 29, 2020)

The phrase "omakase" is most commonly used when dining at Japanese restaurants where the customer leaves it up to the chef to select and serve seasonal specialties. Pictured is omakase at a restaurant. Hello, Valereee. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Omakase Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Russian Academy of Natural Sciences • Fine art Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI •

This week's article for improvement (week 30, 2020)

Hello, Valereee. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Teenage rebellion Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Omakase • Russian Academy of Natural Sciences Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI •

Kudos re my proposal to Mr Floyd article

Please self assign yourself a WikiStar or such. You read my Talk pasted proposal right. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Levivich#Us_mobile_editors and ff. why I do not praise you further when on mobile :)

Bows and such from car on way to work

Zezen (talk) 07:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Zezen, thanks! If I'm hearing Cullen right, we need to start telling anyone who is trying to use the mobile site to scroll down and use the desktop site instead. I wish I'd known that a few weeks earlier, it might have made a difference in how things went with another new user. —valereee (talk) 10:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

This is what it means

the nytimes article states says "By combining videos from bystanders and security cameras, reviewing official documents and consulting experts, The New York Times reconstructed in detail the minutes leading to Mr. Floyd’s death."

per WK:RS > Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy (see junk food news). IT CANT BE USED.

the BBC source says "After approaching the car, one of the officers, Thomas Lane, pulled out his gun and ordered Mr Floyd to show his hands.

so why does the article say "Lane drew his gun and ordered Floyd to put his hands on the steering wheel; Floyd complied and Lane holstered his weapon."? both of these articles are used for this entry and one is worthless and the OTHER DOESNT SAY WHAT THE WIKI SAYS??????????

how many editors does it take to read their own sources and ctrl c, ctrl v????????????? Stayfree76 (talk) 01:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Stayfree76, seriously, I'm trying to understand what your point is. I really am. But you're assuming I've been following your entire opus, and that's...well, not a good assumption. What can't be used? What does OTHER DOESNT SAY WHAT THE WIKI SAYS?????????? even refer to? You are very new here, and we try to be patient with new editors. Please be patient with us as we try to figure out what you're talking about.

I gave you a template. Use it. Don't assume we have been following. Use the frickin' template I gave you. —valereee (talk) 01:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

val, i have already tried to use the template. i am a very educated person and understand formal discussion, debate, citing sources, etc. i am not assuming to have been following me since the big bang, but i am assuming you can read. this is WHAT IT MEANS. the Killing of George Floyd wikipedia page says "Lane drew his gun and ordered Floyd to put his hands on the steering wheel; Floyd complied and Lane holstered his weapon."?

the supportive source says "After approaching the car, one of the officers, Thomas Lane, pulled out his gun and ordered Mr Floyd to show his hands."

the other supportive source is ANALYSIS and is therefor not a RELIABLE SOURCE.

the WIKI page is WRONG is what it means and you tried to invalidate one of the sources i used, WHICH IS CURRENTLY USED IN THE WIKI AS A SUPPOSED "RELIABLE SOURCE". Stayfree76 (talk) 01:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, the fact that a source is analysis does not make it unreliable. Analysis is only excluded if it is the Wikipedia editor who is doing the analysis. --Khajidha (talk) 02:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Stayfree76, so you're saying we need to replace "ordered Floyd to put his hands on the steering wheel" with "ordered Floyd to show his hands" because the complaint and the body cam footage agree that's what actually happened, even though the May 31 NYT article got that detail wrong? Before I go any further, let me know if I'm understanding your point correctly. —valereee (talk) 10:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

no valereee i am saying it needs to be along the lines of "After approaching the car, one of the officers, Thomas Lane, pulled out his gun and ordered Mr Floyd to show his hands." because the BBC article cited by the wiki for that statement does not say anything remotely close to what is stated on the wiki itself... i have said this 100 times now. Stayfree76 (talk)

Right now it says Lane drew his gun and ordered Floyd to put his hands on the steering wheel and you're saying we need to say Thomas Lane pulled out his gun and ordered Mr Floyd to show his hands instead? Again, let's get agreement that that's what you want. —valereee (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)