User talk:Valereee/Archive 31
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Valereee. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 25 | ← | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | → | Archive 35 |
Administrators' newsletter – January 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Speedy deletion criterion T3 (duplication and hardcoded instances) has been repealed following a request for comment.
Technical news
- You can now put pages on your watchlist for a limited period of time.
Arbitration
- By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized
for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes)
. The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason). - Following the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, BDD, Bradv, CaptainEek, L235, Maxim, Primefac.
- By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized
Extended protection on 2021 United States Capitol protests
Hi Valereee, could you clarify why this article was EC-protected? The log states as being due to persistent vandalism. Is this correct? Thanks, Arcturus (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- hm, I thought I checked the box for disruptive editing. —valereee (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- It is tagged as that, but I don't see any disruptive editing. However, I've just based this on there being no edits tagged as Reverts. If there is no disruptive editing, then really it shouldn't be flagged as such. ECP is a pretty severe restriction and it's causing a bit of a backlog of edit requests on the Talk page. Might be worth considering lowering protection to semi to see how things go, but your call, of course. Thanks, Arcturus (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- No objection to any admin working there reducing. —valereee (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- It is tagged as that, but I don't see any disruptive editing. However, I've just based this on there being no edits tagged as Reverts. If there is no disruptive editing, then really it shouldn't be flagged as such. ECP is a pretty severe restriction and it's causing a bit of a backlog of edit requests on the Talk page. Might be worth considering lowering protection to semi to see how things go, but your call, of course. Thanks, Arcturus (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your extended protection of 2021 United States Capitol protests
Hey Valereee. I actually came here specifically to thank you for making that page extended protected. We were getting 4+ edits a minute there for awhile even with extended protection, so I can only imagine what it would have been like with IP's editing, and with people reverting the IP's. I think the article came out really high quality considering how breaking this news is. Less than 12 hours after it happened, we already have a lengthy article, of good quality, and multiple sub-articles. Also, I checked the last 500 edits, and there were only 3 undos or reverts. It is quite a treat to work on an article with other experienced editors, who rarely make bad edits, rarely revert, and don't vandalize at all. So anyway, thank you, I think you made a great judgment call and I really appreciate it. See you around. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Novem Linguae: See Wikipedia:Protection policy and in particular, search for the word "preemptive". Arcturus (talk) 10:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- I disagree. Clearly more pros than cons in this scenario. WP:IAR. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- "It is quite a treat to work on an article with other experienced editors". It seems you find the underlying principle; "Wikipedia is built around/with the principle that anyone can edit it" a bit problematic. My view is that the protection applied to this article strikes right at the heart of Wikipedia. Something else to consider. It's well known that articles like these - fast moving recent events - are great for pulling in new editors. Well they would be, if they could actually edit them. Arcturus (talk) 11:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Lobby her in your own section please. You're making the vibe of my section dramatic, when my intent was to give a genuine compliment. Please resist the temptation to respond to this. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll resist. Arcturus (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Lobby her in your own section please. You're making the vibe of my section dramatic, when my intent was to give a genuine compliment. Please resist the temptation to respond to this. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- "It is quite a treat to work on an article with other experienced editors". It seems you find the underlying principle; "Wikipedia is built around/with the principle that anyone can edit it" a bit problematic. My view is that the protection applied to this article strikes right at the heart of Wikipedia. Something else to consider. It's well known that articles like these - fast moving recent events - are great for pulling in new editors. Well they would be, if they could actually edit them. Arcturus (talk) 11:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- I disagree. Clearly more pros than cons in this scenario. WP:IAR. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Question from a noob
Hello Elder Wikipedia Entity, you seem like the person to ask my question to: is there a way to find articles that specifically need copyediting or other specific fixes? For a while, when I started editing, a little bar would pop up at the top of my screen and say 'edit another article' or something like that after I finished editing the last page, but I've lost that little bar and it won't come back. I've just been hitting the random article link to find articles with a flag for copyediting, but that's inefficient. Can I get that bar back or is there a button for that? Any help is appreciated! Cheers and please take care in these trying times. JoePhin (talk) 08:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- JoePhin, I can answer that: Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors GPinkerton (talk) 09:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- GPinkerton, That is just what I was looking for! Thank you good sir, I shall be joining this Guild of Copy Editors posthaste. (Thanks for letting me use your talk page as a medium for this Valereee, sorry if it was a bother. JoePhin (talk) 09:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- JoePhin, Category:All articles needing copy edit may also be of interest. CMD (talk) 09:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Chipmunkdavis, Aw, you're all too nice. That's also helpful, thanks! JoePhin (talk) 11:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- You're always welcome to ask questions here, and my friendly talk-page stalkers are always welcome to engage. :) —valereee (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Cheers Valereee, let me know if there's anything you need, maybe I could help. Now, I'm off to some copyediting! JoePhin (talk) 08:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- You're always welcome to ask questions here, and my friendly talk-page stalkers are always welcome to engage. :) —valereee (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Chipmunkdavis, Aw, you're all too nice. That's also helpful, thanks! JoePhin (talk) 11:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- JoePhin, Category:All articles needing copy edit may also be of interest. CMD (talk) 09:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- GPinkerton, That is just what I was looking for! Thank you good sir, I shall be joining this Guild of Copy Editors posthaste. (Thanks for letting me use your talk page as a medium for this Valereee, sorry if it was a bother. JoePhin (talk) 09:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
My edit at Kingdom of Judah
Hi, this is just a message to let you that I added a link at Kingdom of Judah. Feel free to review my edit. Thank you. Firestar464 (talk) 10:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
Should the T-Bans of Fiveby, Amr Ibn and Supreme Deliciousness also be noted at the Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant? Also, seeing those general sanctions already existing and that most blocks were enforced for 3/1RR violation. Couldn't there be imposed also blocks for ISIS-Erdogan or Assad POV pushing? We are on Wikipedia where consensus is supported, and POV of authoritarian regimes doesn't seem to have a lot of academic consensus but cause a lot of disruption to Admin attention. I mean, Admins do really have better things to do than to figure out if areas liberated from ISIS are or were Kurdish occupied or not. ISIS is the most classified terror organization and very well known for their fierce opposition to women's rights thanks to their multiple front page appearances in reliable news outlets. If wonder what would happen if anyone would call the Warsaw Ghetto Jewish occupied.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 03:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- The ISIS-Erdogan-Assad POV is vilifying a gender-egalitarian, women empowering, multi-cultural, direct-democracy based Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria. The policies in the AANES are similar to the ones of Wikipedia.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 03:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- PC, if someone has t-banned them under GS, then yes, they should be logged, but as far as I know they've not been t-banned. I have no opinion on the subject of the article and other articles in the area. —valereee (talk) 12:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Kurdish ArbCom Case
I've seen your interest in a broader case, and your amusement over the resistance to accept the case filed by GPinkerton. I was actually attempting to file a case on the broader Kurdish issue and viewing that one of the resistance is based on that it was filed by GPinkerton, could you quickly check on what I've prepared at User:Paradise Chronicle/ArbComCaseand see if this could actually find some approval? I've added some more diffs than GPinkerton, but the issues are mainly the same.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- PC, bemusement, not amusement, and more over the assumption that because the evidence is a bunch of diffs of content disputes that means the case is content dispute at heart when it's actually a case of overwhelming POV-pushing. I don't actually have a strong opinion about whether the committee should accept a full case or simply provide minor clarification of policy. I'm afraid I'm the wrong person to ask about what works well as an arbcom case, I have practically zero experience in the area. —valereee (talk) 12:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the answer and we keep on trying:) We should really be able to make it happen.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
RS/NPOV/MOS issues related to past RSN/ANI discussions
You may want to review the policy and MOS violations that were reinstated at Dudjom Jigdral Yeshe Dorje and its talk page discussion, since you are experienced and have dealt with similar RS and NPOV issues in this area. — MarkH21talk 20:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll take a look. —valereee (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
 | |
| Two years! |
|---|
- Have a good new year! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, @Gerda Arendt! Here's hoping both our years will be much better than the last! :) —valereee (talk) 14:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 2, 2021)
Hello, Valereee. The article for improvement of the week is:
Please be bold and help improve it! Previous selections: Pork chop • Fishing industry Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • |
|---|
This Month in GLAM: December 2020
| ||||||
This Month in GLAM: December 2020
| ||||||
DiscussionTools
Hi, Valereee,
The Editing team has scheduled a major update to mw:Extension:DiscussionTools (the new Reply tool) for next week's deployment train. Since you invoke the feature from a script (I do, too), you're probably going to see that update next week, before it's officially released in the mw:Beta Feature system. The new update will use a similar system for starting a ==New discussion==. As before, full-page wikitext editing will not be affected. There is more information on the project page at mw:Talk pages project/New discussion.
You don't have to do anything about this; I just didn't want you to be surprised. If you encounter problems next week, please ping me or leave a note on the talk page for the project. Thanks, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Whatamidoing (WMF) thank you, I look forward to seeing whatever changes there are! Oooh, we'll be able to start a new discussion? Cool! —valereee (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, that's the plan. It should appear whenever you click the "New section" (or anything else that results in
&action=edit§ion=newin the URL). I believe that the last bit of code is on its way to QA soon, so there's still plenty of opportunity for things to go wrong/get delayed, but it should be nice whenever it gets here. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 04:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, that's the plan. It should appear whenever you click the "New section" (or anything else that results in
Question 2
Levivich accused me of "cheery picking" here:[1], Are you going to block him for that or does that only apply to me? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not confident I'm an admin at that article any more. You'll have to ask someone else for help while I figure that out. —valereee (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- In that case, you should lift the source restriction you imposed on the article. You also didn't gather consensus for it at the AN thread.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- There's an open discussion on that. —valereee (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Actually, the normal rules for DS, in line with Bbb23’s close as well, are that there needs to be a “clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved editors” at AN to overturn/modify a DS sanction placed by another administrator. If there’s no consensus that generally means the status quo prevails. Strictly speaking, it’s on you to gather consensus to remove it. By my rough count, the support is 7-4 for retaining the restriction for the time being. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- The SK article is not under DS and valereees rule is not a DS sanction.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- See Talk:Syrian Kurdistan. Specifically:
The article Syrian Kurdistan, along with other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, is currently subject to discretionary sanctions authorised by the community. The current restrictions are: [...]
. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- See Talk:Syrian Kurdistan. Specifically:
- The SK article is not under DS and valereees rule is not a DS sanction.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- In that case, you should lift the source restriction you imposed on the article. You also didn't gather consensus for it at the AN thread.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion at AN is now archived. There was no consensus for it. Can you now remove the source restriction? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- Interesting determination. 7-4 editors in support last I counted (that's about 65%, in support). Whether you call this a consensus in favour, or no consensus, is irrelevant, as either way there was no consensus to overturn the restriction. It seems to be working, too. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- Its not a vote. But if we remove the involved editors, I see 1 in support and 1 against, the rest are unclear. The source restriction failed to get support.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- What?? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- Even if we accept the 1-1 count as accurate, that's still no consensus to overturn the restriction, which means the restriction stays in place, as explained up above. And anyway, what source is it that you want to include in the article that the restriction is preventing you from including? There are now more than 30 recent academic works cited in the article, what non-academic source could we possibly need? Levivich harass/hound 06:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- There are some well sourced historical texts and maps that needs to be restored into the article and attributed to those historical sources, to show a historical view. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- The maps (specially the ones depicting a Kurdistan outside! of present-day Syria, one even depicting one in Arabic script at lake Urmiah far away from Syria, giving the impression Syria span all over to Urmiah) were simply included by a never-ending edit-war which now finally stopped thanks to the measures taken.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- There are some well sourced historical texts and maps that needs to be restored into the article and attributed to those historical sources, to show a historical view. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- SD, you can unarchive and request a formal close. It may be moot if arbcom accepts a case. —valereee (talk) 12:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Vandal User
@Valeree Hi, I would like to report a vandal user User: 2405:201:2:E939:A4E8:5949:7AB5:A921 who vandalized the page 2020–21 Coppa Italia at 18:49 of 14 January 2021. Have a good day Dr Salvus (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Dr SalvusDr Salvus (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Dr Salvus why do we think it's vandalism rather than simply a good-faith but incorrect edit? —valereee (talk) 13:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Dr Salvus ah, I see. Then yes, it's vandalism, although rather pointless vandalism on English wikipedia. :) It doesn't look like they're on a spree, that's the only edit they've made, so I'll just warn them at their user talk. You can also warn other users at their user talk for things like this. —valereee (talk) 15:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
WP 20
 |
Thank you for providing alt texts for the lead images for DYK! - Happy Wikipedia 20, - proud of a little bit on the Main page today, and 5 years ago, and 10 years ago, look: create a new style - revive - complete! I sang in the revival mentioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, @Gerda Arendt! I see that on the MP today! Cool on the revival -- I see your upcoming image hook that shows musicians socially distanced, and I'm thinking about mentioning that in the alt —valereee (talk) 18:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, good observation! Next on Sunday, hopefully. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I know you blocked this user last month, so just wanted to point you out to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Band1301... I reported a user there at the start of the month, but now it's highly likely a WP:DUCK case, exact same editing style as Band1301. Magitroopa (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, Magitroopa. —valereee (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
As-Sajda
Hi, pinging you again about As-Sajda and related articles (previous thread here). JorgeLaArdilla is doing it again [2] [3], multiple editors pointed out problems in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#JorgeLaArdilla's_edits_on_Quran_suras those problems are still not fixed, and in the discussion no one seems to agree with the user's edits. Could you take a look again? Sorry for troubling you. HaEr48 (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- @HaEr48 I've posted to their talk. I'm wondering if a p-block from the article is what's needed, although based on the WP Islam discussion, perhaps what they need is to stop editing articles about Islam directly? Does it feel to you as if they're not able to be neutral around Islam articles? —valereee (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Valereee, What is a p-block? I'm not a good judge of character to see if the they're able to be neutral. Some of their incremental edits are fine, the problem is that there is a set of articles about Islam (more specifically about Quranic chapters/suras) that they're editing in a similar pattern and those edits have similar problems. I have tried to explain the problem in that WP Islam discussion as well as in some of the articles talk pages, but sometimes it does get tiring if they don't seem to get the point and insists to restore the edits without consensus or fixing the problems mentioned. HaEr48 (talk) 20:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Update: I found out about WP:PBLOCK. If such thing is possible, the problematic area where I interacted with them is the articles in this category: Category:Chapters in the Quran. I don't know if they make disruptive edits elsewhere. HaEr48 (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Unfortunately we can only do like 10 pblocks at a time, I think. Which unfortunately means the next thing to try would be a topic ban for Chapters of the Quran. That may be what's necessary. —valereee (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- I see, thank you for the suggestion. What kind of evidence do people need for a topic ban proposal? Would a temporary block with a warning to not repeat the behavior be a lighter next step? HaEr48 (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Really what we need to see is that an editor can't seem to get or refuses to get neutrality in a particular area. I don't know if we're there yet, but if JLA doesn't offer an extremely compelling explanation for the repeated reversions, certainly a p-block from that article will be necessary. —valereee (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- My second edit is my first piece of evidence in my defence. I believe the improvement is the removal of confusion to the reader. The removal of a second Arabic script and it honorific-style counterpart means it is easier to recognise the Arabic script in foreign texts. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Really what we need to see is that an editor can't seem to get or refuses to get neutrality in a particular area. I don't know if we're there yet, but if JLA doesn't offer an extremely compelling explanation for the repeated reversions, certainly a p-block from that article will be necessary. —valereee (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- I see, thank you for the suggestion. What kind of evidence do people need for a topic ban proposal? Would a temporary block with a warning to not repeat the behavior be a lighter next step? HaEr48 (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Unfortunately we can only do like 10 pblocks at a time, I think. Which unfortunately means the next thing to try would be a topic ban for Chapters of the Quran. That may be what's necessary. —valereee (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Update: I found out about WP:PBLOCK. If such thing is possible, the problematic area where I interacted with them is the articles in this category: Category:Chapters in the Quran. I don't know if they make disruptive edits elsewhere. HaEr48 (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Reply Tool so far
hi Valereee – I'm Peter, one of the people at the Wikimedia Foundation working on the new Reply Tool for talk pages.
When looking over recent changes to see how the Reply Tool was being used at en.wiki, I saw your username quite a bit. This led me to wonder: what do you think of the tool so far? Is it at all changing how you think about and/or use talk pages? No worries if nothing immediately comes to mind. Although, if something does strike you at some future point, we'd value you letting us know (I see you've already talked with Whatamidoing (WMF) at mediawiki.org: https://w.wiki/tZq). PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 00:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Hey, @PPelberg (WMF)! I really like it. One of the things I wish I could do is use it to edit a reply I've made -- sometimes, one of the best things about it is that I don't have to scroll up through a very long convo, click edit, then scroll down looking for my reply so I can fix a typo. Also it would be nice to be able to see the preview without having to toggle to source -- I've multiple times had to re-edit because I put markup in, then realized the reply tool surrounds it with nowiki. :) This is all just me, though. Probably most people are more nimble/learn faster. :)
- I don't think it's changing how I think about or use talk pages. I'm a fairly experienced user, though, so I guess I wouldn't have expected it to? I was using reply-link before @Levivich let me know I could use this tool instead. I like that I can toggle between VisEd and source, and I like that it doesn't automatically ping but instead gives me the option to choose who to ping. Also I understand it actually works at User talk:EEng which is pretty astonishing. —valereee (talk) 02:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- The Editing team is talking about a tool for quick edits. I was skeptical of this idea, but after using the Reply tool for ... um ... a lot of edits, I have changed my mind. If I didn't want to slog through a long section to find the right place to post my comment in the first place, then I still won't want to slog through it to fix a typo. I love the link feature in the visual mode, so I almost never have to edit to fix a link now.
- (EEng archived several threads recently.) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to share what you think of the tool so far, @Valereee. It looks like @Whatamidoing (WMF) shared details about the plans we have for editing specific comments (thank you, Sherry). If you'd like to know when there are updates about this functionality, I'd recommend watching this Phabricator ticket: T245225.
- A couple responses to other things you mentioned...
Also it would be nice to be able to see the preview without having to toggle to source -- I've multiple times had to re-edit because I put markup in, then realized the reply tool surrounds it with nowiki.
- Ah, is this because you are expecting the Reply Tool's
visualmode to support wikitext? If so, do you have any ideas for how you might've developed that expectation? I really like it.
- The team will be glad to hear this. If any other thoughts/questions come up as you're using it, please just ping @Whatamidoing (WMF) or me. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- PPelberg (WMF) Ah, is this because you are expecting the Reply Tool's visual mode to support wikitext? I assume because in VisEd, I can type {{ and it opens a box in which I can call up a template? Also maybe that I've copied source and inserted it in VisEd and it's worked. It's not that big a deal, I got used to it pretty quickly and just try to remember to toggle to source when I need to insert markup, but it would still be nice to see the preview in Visual. It's just really handy to have it right there in real time. Thanks for the Phab ticket, I'll watch it! —valereee (talk) 14:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 3, 2021)
Please be bold and help improve it! Previous selections: Lumbersexual • Pork chop Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • |
|---|
DYK Queue 1
I'm not sure what you mean by your edit summary of, "alt, not sure describing these evil-looking things is really what's needed?". SL93 (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- @SL93, I was trying to come up with an alt for people who have low vision. I couldn't decide whether describing the weapons was helpful. —valereee (talk) 03:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying. I thought that you meant the hook itself probably shouldn't describe it. I contacted you in case you had an idea for an alt hook. SL93 (talk) 03:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- @SL93, an alt text is created simply to provide to those with low vision anything that's conveyed to sighted people by the image. Sometimes there's something clearly conveyed. I was looking at this image and thinking, "Is the fact they're really scary looking part of what's being communicated to sighted readers?" :) I'm still not sure. —valereee (talk) 04:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying. I thought that you meant the hook itself probably shouldn't describe it. I contacted you in case you had an idea for an alt hook. SL93 (talk) 03:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
DYK Hook
Hey Val. Wondering if you see a good DYK hook in here by any chance? Financial Conduct Authority v Arch Insurance (UK) Ltd & others. It's a recent UK legal case to do with whether insurance companies need to pay out for business interruption cover due to the COVID-19 pandemic -- pretty much insurance companies being insurance companies. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- @ProcrastinatingReader, maybe something around the leapfrog appeal thing, since it's relatively rare and has an interesting name? —valereee (talk) 17:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- How's:
- ... that in a rare leapfrog appeal the UK Supreme Court decided that insurance companies are liable for business losses arising due to the COVID-19 pandemic. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- @ProcrastinatingReader I think that sounds like a winner, actually -- and that's not easy for court cases lol. —valereee (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- And you know what? If you can 5x expand leapfrog appeal, which is really short right now, you could do a double hook. If you want to do that, you can go ahead and submit this DYK, then in the comments at the nom just mention you're trying to expand leapfrog appeal. —valereee (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- This seems interesting! I need to do some more research on leapfrog appeals, I wonder how much can be written on the matter. It’s a bit harder to lookup with a quick search but I imagine there’s more in literature. Maybe a section on the regular appeal process / background, a section on usages. Have a few days on the DYK for the case I think, so I’ll try do some research in the next few days and figure out what I can dig up. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- FWIW, you don't need to get the leapfrog expanded in the same timeframe. If you tell DYK you're working on it and you'd like to delay promotion of the other hook, you're good. You can take weeks and no one will think anything of it. —valereee (talk) 23:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, neat. done. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- @ProcrastinatingReader slight clarification: you can take weeks to do the expansion, but you have to do the expansion within 7 days from start to finish of the expansion. So if you think the actual work (rather than simply the research) going to take longer than that, don't start on it in article space but instead in your sandbox or userspace. DYK rules are a bit arcane. :) —valereee (talk) 13:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- Gotcha. Yeah, the DYK pages feel a bit confusing and the stuff is a bit all over the place. At least in the eyes of someone not very active in that part of the wiki. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, believe me, it's sometimes confusing to at least one regular worker there. :) It is however very common for people to cheerfully agree to IAR, especially for newer contributors to DYK. —valereee (talk) 19:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- Gotcha. Yeah, the DYK pages feel a bit confusing and the stuff is a bit all over the place. At least in the eyes of someone not very active in that part of the wiki. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- @ProcrastinatingReader slight clarification: you can take weeks to do the expansion, but you have to do the expansion within 7 days from start to finish of the expansion. So if you think the actual work (rather than simply the research) going to take longer than that, don't start on it in article space but instead in your sandbox or userspace. DYK rules are a bit arcane. :) —valereee (talk) 13:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, neat. done. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- FWIW, you don't need to get the leapfrog expanded in the same timeframe. If you tell DYK you're working on it and you'd like to delay promotion of the other hook, you're good. You can take weeks and no one will think anything of it. —valereee (talk) 23:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- This seems interesting! I need to do some more research on leapfrog appeals, I wonder how much can be written on the matter. It’s a bit harder to lookup with a quick search but I imagine there’s more in literature. Maybe a section on the regular appeal process / background, a section on usages. Have a few days on the DYK for the case I think, so I’ll try do some research in the next few days and figure out what I can dig up. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- And you know what? If you can 5x expand leapfrog appeal, which is really short right now, you could do a double hook. If you want to do that, you can go ahead and submit this DYK, then in the comments at the nom just mention you're trying to expand leapfrog appeal. —valereee (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- @ProcrastinatingReader I think that sounds like a winner, actually -- and that's not easy for court cases lol. —valereee (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Need help
I have submitted an article Mohand Margbut not I am getting deletion warnings please help me out Hashim Tariq bhat (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Hashim Tariq bhat the discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohand Marg. —valereee (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
The Hong Kong stuff
One significant early edit is this one; I'm not familiar with the SPI, but you are I see there's a new report. Blocking this range, 219.76.16.0/20, is probably a good idea; I'm just going to go ahead and do that. If you or someone could draw up a list of IPs, in order, we can get busy. Drmies (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- I looked at them for the last SPI, there were fifteen of them at that point, and except for two extremely minor overlaps, all were used serially, which is what made me think it was socking from dynamic IPs. Now I'm not sure any more, it's been too long, and I think there's also meatpuppetry. I'll make a new list. :) —valereee (talk) 23:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- Look at my log to see what I did. Happy days! Drmies (talk) 23:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, hope it helps! The number of different ranges has been pretty extraordinary. I've hated to semi a talk, but it's just been nuts. —valereee (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- Look at my log to see what I did. Happy days! Drmies (talk) 23:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Kurds and Kurdistan case opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 5, 2021, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 16:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 4, 2021)
Hello, Valereee. The article for improvement of the week is:
Please be bold and help improve it! Previous selections: Mountain pass • Lumbersexual Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • |
|---|
Ref added
Hello, this is just a message to let you know that I added a reference in Cuisine of the Midwestern United States. Feel free to review my edit. Firestar464 (talk) 03:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Hey, @Firestar464! Yes, that ref looks good -- I can't get to the entire book, and I assume you couldn't either, but the description at google books fully supports the assertion, even without being able to access the whole book. Thanks for your diligence in keeping me in the loop! —valereee (talk) 13:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Books & Bytes - Issue 42
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 42, November – December 2020
- New EBSCO collections now available
- 1Lib1Ref 2021 underway
- Library Card input requested
- Libraries love Wikimedia, too!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 20
News and updates associated with user scripts from the past month (January 2021).
Hello everyone and welcome to the 20th issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter:
|
|
|
Open tasks
- As a reminder, the legacy javascript globals (like accessing
wgPageNamewithout first assigning it a value or usingmw.config.get('wgPageName')instead) are deprecated. If your user scripts make use of the globals, please update them to usemw.configinstead. Some global interface editors or local interface administrators may edit your user script to make these changes if you don't. See phab:T72470 for more.
Miscellaneous
- For people interested in creating user scripts or gadgets using TypeScript, a types-mediawiki package (GitHub, NPM) is now available that provides type definitions for the MediaWiki JS interface and the API.
- A GitHub organization has been created for hosting codebases of gadgets. Users who maintain gadgets using GitHub may choose to move their repos to this organization, to ensure continued maintenance by others even if the original maintainer becomes inactive.
Pending requests
- A script to ease reviewing Good Article nominations
- A script to help manage Z number templates
- ...and many more, all available at Wikipedia:User scripts/Requests
As always, if anyone else would like to contribute, including nominating a featured script, help is appreciated. Stay safe, and happy new year! --DannyS712 (talk) 01:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
February 2021 at Women in Red
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
FYI
Regarding this: There's no way I would reopen that matter after a few months; it was either blockworthy at the time of the report as recent back-to-back disruption, or it wasn't [barely]. If that editor needed a return to AE later, it would have to be for something new. I can't see a rationale for me or anyone else to bring up the same request after a bunch of time had passed, barring new issues, with these by-then-old diffs just as background if relevant at all. That is, no one's on the warpath (not me, anyway). I was even going to let the original post of that pair slide; it was the doubling-down reply that triggered the report. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- @SMcCandlish I didn't actually expect anyone would. Total agreement about the doubling-down reply. Just was hoping that the filing plus the request to table plus a tabling/closing would have the intended effect without ever having to open again/untable. Maybe I was overthinking lol... —valereee (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Overthinking on WP? It's almost a "job" requirement of being an editor here. >;-) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello. Could you please turn the 2019–20 Coppa Italia Serie C Group D page into a template? Dr Salvus (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Dr SalvusDr Salvus (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Dr Salvus I'm so sorry but I would have absolutly no idea how to turn anything into a template...there literally have to be hundreds of admins who are more qualified than I am at anything like that! :D —valereee (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Question about category change
Hi Valereee, We worked together a bit on the Paul Elias Alexander article and DYK a few months ago. This has nothing to do with that but I've noticed something and need to ask an admin.
Over the course of the last few days a user has been replacing hundreds of Death by Year categories with Suicides by Year. Mykola Khvylovy is a recent example. Is this appropriate? Although I know that categories should be as specific as possible, I thought that (for example} Category:1933 deaths was a standard defining biography category and should be there regardless of the means of death. That's how I read Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#N. Am I wrong?
I also sort of wonder what's up with this user... There's no User page and only one Talk page message, a welcome dated January 2018.
Thanks! HazelAB (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- @HazelAB hm...I'm not a real expert in categories, but I do know there are certain ones that the article appears in both the cat and the subcat. I'm afraid I'm not even sure where to find that policy. I think what I'd do is ask the editor who made the change, they may be expert in this. —valereee (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Valereee. I've left a message on the talk page at WP:DEATH hoping someone there can clarify this. HazelAB (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- @HazelAB I think that's a good place to ask! —valereee (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- @HazelAB, yeah, now that I look at that editor's history, this is very weird, and my feeling is that you're right, the suicide category should be added but the death category should stay, too. I've asked at the editor's talk if they're following some policy. —valereee (talk) 15:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks! I found this, from earlier this month, stating that the practice of categorizing biography articles with "YYYY deaths" is "longstanding and stable".HazelAB (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- @HazelAB, yeah, I think this is probably a case of someone not understanding that we don't always remove the parent category when we find a more-specific category. I can't remember the exact categories that applies to, but I'm guessing this is one of them. —valereee (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks! I found this, from earlier this month, stating that the practice of categorizing biography articles with "YYYY deaths" is "longstanding and stable".HazelAB (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- @HazelAB, yeah, now that I look at that editor's history, this is very weird, and my feeling is that you're right, the suicide category should be added but the death category should stay, too. I've asked at the editor's talk if they're following some policy. —valereee (talk) 15:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- @HazelAB I think that's a good place to ask! —valereee (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Valereee. I've left a message on the talk page at WP:DEATH hoping someone there can clarify this. HazelAB (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Don't want you to run outta things to do
- will you please PP the redirect CBS_Corporation_(1997) but before you do, make sure it's set-up to as a redirect to CBS Corporation. Atsme 💬 📧 16:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- PS: I went ahead and made a formal request for PP, and I also asked wbm1058 to give it a look & see if it might be better to just AFD that article and end the problem once and for all. Hope everything's cool on your end. I'm feeling a little guilty about the nightmare the lighthouse list created, and what that whole ordeal has become.
I'll try to make it up to you somehow. 
In the interim, I've been venting on my UTP via a silly little humor. Works every time! Atsme 💬 📧 23:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC) - Oh, hey - I'm going steal a phrase from Indedible Hulk, "waste time well", I love it because that is what just happened to my request for PP but it wasn't time well wasted. Instead of following through with my request for PP against an edit warring, reverting IP, the admin obliquely accused me of not AGF and edit warring with them - the nerve! But worse, he moved the unneccessary stub to draft space, which I could have done myself if such a move was warranted. Admins are not suppposed to get involved in content issues. Now that stub will continue to haunt us at NPP/AfC (we currently have a 2500+ backlog of redirects alone) but maybe we'll get lucky and it will actually die in draft space 6 months from now. *sigh* Seasoned NPP/AfC reviewers need admin support not resistance to act on IP's/editors who have exhibited bad behavior and are edit warring. Your talents are in high demand Ms Valereee, so if you're taking a little Wikibreak, enjoy it, but hurry back!! Atsme 💬 📧 12:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
You stole "Indedible" from Jimbo! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)- Though it seems WhisperToMe is the original content creator this time, 163 days Before Jimbo. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- No wait, it was Basemetal, chopping liver on a reference desk all the way back on November 6, 2014. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Apologies yet again, Feedback started the fire that August 30, deep down in Talk:Viscera (wrestler), look what you've done! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, IRL stuff going on, found 35 pings just now and I don't have time to deal with all. Is this something I still need to look at?
- Nothing to see in my four, particularly sorry if my minor edits pinged more, moving along forever. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- @InedibleHulk don't move along forever! I'm happy to interact, just a busy couple days IRL for me! —valereee (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- I'm good - I chose to just fuhgeddaboudit. As evidenced above, my eyesight is failing, and/or I can neither spell well nor waste time well - but I'm working harder on the latter. The spelling errors are indelible and inedible...and InedibleHulk has too much to do to be gone forever. I will be left with too few who can assist me in deciphering the uncritical thinking that comprises today's acronymous dialect.See there, I can create a few words and phrases myself - and SpellCheck didn't catch it! Atsme 💬 📧 16:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- @InedibleHulk, and I wasn't complaining at all about multiple notifications, I was actually glad to see as I went through them that they weren't 1. all separate discussions or worse 2. all about something I'd screwed up! :) —valereee (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- You're welcome, then! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I added a few sources I found on Gale. If you can't access them, let me know and I'll email you. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 January 2021
- News and notes: 1,000,000,000 edits, board elections, virtual Wikimania 2021
- Special report: Wiki reporting on the United States insurrection
- In focus: From Anarchy to Wikiality, Glaring Bias to Good Cop: Press Coverage of Wikipedia's First Two Decades
- Technology report: The people who built Wikipedia, technically
- Videos and podcasts: Celebrating 20 years
- News from the WMF: Wikipedia celebrates 20 years of free, trusted information for the world
- Recent research: Students still have a better opinion of Wikipedia than teachers
- Humour: Dr. Seuss's Guide to Wikipedia
- Featured content: New Year, same Featured Content report!
- Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2020
- Obituary: Flyer22 Frozen
This week's article for improvement (week 5, 2021)
Hello, Valereee. The article for improvement of the week is:
Please be bold and help improve it! Previous selections: Viral phenomenon • Mountain pass Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • |
|---|