User talk:Valereee

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

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale/status

I made this page for you to update the status for both Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/AfD at scale at the same time. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:11, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

You are AWESOME! Thank you so much! Valereee (talk) 14:20, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

What is going on?

Did I do something to offend you? I was trying to have a good faith argument. And I have been making a good faith effort to learn. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

@Cielquiparle, no, not at all, and my apologies for coming off that way. The discussion has gotten very convoluted. Valereee (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

This is the wildest AfD discussion I've seen in quite a while, at least for an entry for which I'm the primary author. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a bit nuts. I hope you know how much I value your vast contributions in food & drink, AB. Valereee (talk) 23:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Won't be the end of the world if the page is deleted. I'm a bit disappointed by some editors' behavior but oh well, we'll see what happens! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Then I saw the name
'Another Believer'
Not a trace
Of doubt in my mind
'Created by
Another Believer'
I couldn't delete it
If I tried
- Levivich (talk) with apologies to Neil Diamond 01:29, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

@Levivich I've waited my whole life for someone to write a song about me! :p ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:52, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Is it normal for source assessment tables to only assess 1/2 the sources used in an article? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I assessed (almost*) everything that was in the article when I created the table. For the nth+1 time: Any editor is free to add to the table.

*I think there were 22 at the time, I set up the table for 22, but I ended up with 20, because somehow I got off count somewhere, which I noted when I copied it into talk. Valereee (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I was hopeful after the Arb Com discussions in July that BLUDGEONING was being strongly discouraged, and I generally have tried to keep my comments in AfD discussions to a minimum, but in practice I know not everyone follows that principle – and when this happens, what can you do? (Actually, what I said during that workshop was that if this happened to me again, I would post something to the Deletion project Talk page, so I guess I could do that...? And we just have an uninvolved admin intervene?) Cielquiparle (talk) 01:24, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I get it now! @Valereee I think you thought at least one of the other comments in the thread (made by KingofLettuce) was made by me. So that was what set you off. If you re-read that thread, you'll see, there were multiple participants. Personally I think it's important to maintain a level of professionalism and politeness and respect in deletion discussions that get archived forever. I wasn't trying to inflame things further. Cielquiparle (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Contentious topics procedure adopted

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions review process.

The Arbitration Committee has concluded the 2021-22 review of the contentious topics system (formerly known as discretionary sanctions), and its final decision is viewable at the revision process page. As part of the review process, the Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The above proposals that are supported by an absolute majority of unrecused active arbitrators are hereby enacted. The drafting arbitrators (CaptainEek, L235, and Wugapodes) are directed to take the actions necessary to bring the proposals enacted by this motion into effect, including by amending the procedures at WP:AC/P and WP:AC/DS. The authority granted to the drafting arbitrators by this motion expires one month after enactment.

The Arbitration Committee thanks all those who have participated in the 2021-22 discretionary sanctions review process and all who have helped bring it to a successful conclusion. This motion concludes the 2021-22 discretionary sanctions review process.

This motion initiates a one-month implementation period for the updates to the contentious topics system. The Arbitration Committee will announce when the initial implementation of the Committee's decision has concluded and the amendments made by the drafting arbitrators in accordance with the Committee's decision take effect. Any editors interested in the implementation process are invited to assist at the implementation talk page, and editors interested in updates may subscribe to the update list.

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Contentious topics procedure adopted

'Tis the season

Happy Yuletide!

Merry Yuletide to you! (And a happy new year!)

Schazjmd (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! And to you! Valereee (talk) 15:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Dangers of the Mail

On 16 December 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dangers of the Mail, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that critics objected to Dangers of the Mail in the 1930s for government support of lewdness and in the 2000s for creating a hostile work environment? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dangers of the Mail. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Dangers of the Mail), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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) 00:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Safe resource for NYT xword cheats

The NYT crossword yesterday had four cryptic clues:

• Two pounds, peeled and chopped NEWPOTATOES
• Five cups, after lengthy simmering CHICKENSTOCK
• One cup, after cooling HEAVYCREAM
• Four cups, cleaned and sliced SAUTEEDLEEKS

And then:

• Soup made with this puzzle's ingredients VICHYSOISSE

The fifth clue was the easiest to solve because of an exceptionally easy clue (Kilmer of "Batman Forever) showing the soup started with V and was yonks long, so obv vichyssoise. The other clues are now fairly easy for anyone who is familiar with that soup and also has some knowledge of cooking techniques/recipe format, but for those who don't, yesterday's page views: here. Valereee (talk) 12:28, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 51, 2022)

Zenica is the largest city in the Central Bosnia subregion Hello, Valereee. The article for improvement of the week is: Central Bosnia Please be bold and help improve it! Previous selections: Telephone line • Human history Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI •

Feeling dizzy!

Sorry, my Wikipedia navigation skills are not the best and I'm finding it quite hard to keep up with all these threads. Thank you for taking the time to civilly engage with my rants and I apologise for poking fun at the "hit rate" thing a bit too much (although I genuinely interpreted it as an attempt at making my !vote seem somewhat less valid).

Anyhow, I just want to establish whether or not the specific course of action Scope creep has taken constitutes Wikihounding, because it sure looks like that to me, and all my recent statements have been premised on this assumption.

I agree with you that it's fine to scrutinise an editor's edits, etc. but sending so many of them straight to AfD with no compunction, and so horribly as in the Acadia mass nom, must cross some line in the sand. Moreover, if hounding is defined as targeted behaviour that causes the supposed victim distress, then AB has expressly made clear that he feels targeted.

Now Scope creep has the nerve to threaten me with some frivolous ANI action! I don't care how long he's been here or how well he can grasp notability. If whatever he's doing is acceptable, in your view, I rest my case and I'll go gallavanting elsewhere. Otherwise I hope he can apologise for all this hullabaloo. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 00:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

No worries, I understand the misinterpretation. It's a very convoluted discussion.

I don't think what SC is doing is hounding. If you have a concern about a specific possibly ongoing issue with an editor's edits you absolutely should check. And, yes, we do care that the other editor is upset, but being upset doesn't necessarily mean you're being hounded, either. And I understand why they would be upset: it's not fun to find out that your understanding of something is maybe not as clear as you'd thought. AB is a good editor, but they need to stop creating and then defending poorly sourced articles. It's making things worse for them. They need to pivot to not moving to article space until they've proved the subject notable. Multiple instances of significant coverage in independent RS that aren't just local or industry-niche is what's required.

Hounding would be if Editor X had an argument with Editor Y at article A regarding issue Z, so they followed them around to a dozen completely unrelated articles to see if they could gotcha them about something completely unrelated to issue Z. This really isn't that, though I do understand why it would feel like it when a couple dozen articles are AfD'd.

Diff for the threat? Valereee (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fenouil KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 02:30, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Actually they're correct. You really have been warned multiple times, just at the Daily Dozen AfD, about making personal attacks and not assuming good faith. And now you're doing it at other AfDs. SC is telling you that a trip to ANI is quite possible, whether they do it or not. It doesn't actually have to even go to ANI, any admin could get fed up with the fact you don't seem to be taking these warnings onboard and just indef from wikipedia space. You should take what SC is saying as a warning, not a threat.

Me, I tend to just want to keep telling you, as I don't think you're ill-intentioned here, but this really is something you're going to have to internalize: you cannot keep calling people names and questioning their motives at AfD. You absolutely are going to have to focus only on the edits and not the motives of other editors. Valereee (talk) 13:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I stand corrected if what he did wasn't technically Wikihounding. My comments were premised on that assumption and I thought I was justified to make the same comment on half a dozen AfDs, insofar as he had the right to make those half a dozen AfDs in the first place! Regardless, I still think that the Acadia mass nom (at the very least) should be closed without further discussion. I don't know why I became so invested in this in the first place, maybe I woke up from the wrong side of the bed. Think I've said my piece and I'll just watch things unfold from a distance now. Cheers, KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 13:26, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Now what do you make of this [1]? And this? [2] Shrugs (insert view that should remain private here). KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 19:22, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

First example, I'm not sure what you're questioning...they're right that there are bare URLs and possible non-RS. What were you seeing that concerned you?

Second example looks to me like two experienced editors, both of whom should know better, behaving badly. Hard to say which is more at fault since they're both doing and saying stupid shit. Now one of them has removed an entire exchange. Valereee (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

It sounds a bit like your criteria of "Editor X had an argument with Editor Y at article A regarding issue Z, so they followed them around to a dozen completely unrelated articles to see if they could gotcha them about something completely unrelated to issue Z." Just look at the edit history [3], this wasn't something that SC randomly stumbled across. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 19:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

That editor can bring a hounding complaint if they want to, but as someone working at AN/I I'd want to see more than just a couple reasonable tags placed at a single article before someone brought a hounding accusation there.

And importantly: an accusation of hounding should be made at ANI with diffs to support that accusation. It shouldn't be something thrown out -- and in an edit summary, where they can't just think better of it! -- so really, IMO, in that exchange it's the editor making accusations of hounding who is actually wrongfooted. Valereee (talk) 20:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Fair enuf. Whatever it was then, at least it was nipped in the bud. I also see that the Daily Dozen page has finally been deleted, so that seems to be the end of this brouhaha, for better or worse. (That said, I have submitted the closure for review, given that the !votes were split 10-12, which does not seem like a "clear majority" to me.) KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 21:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I was surprised the discussion was closed when four votes were cast just in the last few hours. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:30, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

AN/I is a dramaboard that has failed me numerous times. Valereee, you can check - Scope Creep improperly abused their page patroller rights to unreview 14 articles I've written/largely contributed to. This abuse and hounding action is clearly an actionable offense, and I request that you act. ɱ (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Had no idea about that, only saw the Toldeo station tagging. Wow that's just (insert private thought here) KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 22:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Butting in to say I saw this discussed on a page on my watchlist, verified it myself, and cannot see it as anything besides a blatant and obvious misuse of NPP perms that would justify their immediate, unilateral removal. One of those articles was from 2014! Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I am appalled. ɱ (talk) 23:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@Valereee: are you going to act on this? ɱ (talk) 13:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Another admin is already discussing it at SC's talk. Valereee (talk) 13:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

They're only discussing, they said on their talk they don't know how to go about it and an NPP admin there doesn't understand the convoluted context enough to act. Great. Bullies can 'punish' me, get away with a little talking to, and get to keep on harassing. ɱ (talk) 13:41, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ɱ, this isn't something that is currently happening that needs to be stopped. It's something that can be discussed. Let it play out before you decide you've been treated unfairly. Valereee (talk) 13:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Lmao whatever, yeah, because fucking tagging the shit out of a ton of my work, simply because I take the other side of an AfD, totally okay... You're making me want to quit Wikipedia as well. ɱ (talk) 13:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, I looked at Lazarus House. It does have some very weird citations...#4-7 are bare urls that simply link to a login page for the Columbus library, which meant I couldn't convert them from bare urls. Certainly that's something we'd want to fix. Does it mean we should mark the article as unreviewed? I have no idea; not that familiar with NPP. Epicgenius has already marked it as reviewed, EG can you provide some input on only that question, leaving aside the question of motivation?

@Ɱ, re: Lmao whatever, yeah, because fucking tagging the shit out of a ton of my work, simply because I take the other side of an AfD, totally okay. No, it would not be okay. But as I said, let's let it play out. SC has not yet answered that question. Valereee (talk) 14:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

No problem. Regarding Lazarus House, the bare-citation issues are indeed an issue, but that was the only one I found; there's not enough, in my opinion, to mark that page as needing additional review. A patroller could have tagged the entire article with the banner {{Cleanup bare URLs}}. However, there are already {{bare URL inline}} templates for the citations affected, which were added months ago, so tagging the entire article wouldn't have helped (and @Ɱ arguably would have already been aware of the bare URLs because these citations are already tagged). – Epicgenius (talk) 16:14, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Valereee (talk) 16:17, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Valereee, it's one thing to add maintenance tags (when I re-reviewed one of the articles scope unreviewed, I actually added a maintenance tag); it's another to unreview them. One can add tags without unreviewing, which would have been the correct action had scope been concerned about the quality of the articles. Unreviewing them was quite frankly ridiculous. When adding tags to a reviewed article, the default behavior of pagetriage is not to unreview the page; to unreview requires you to manually uncheck a box, so it's a conscious decision, not just something done unintentionally when adding maintenance tags. I have no horse in this race and as far as I'm aware have never interacted with ɱ or scope before. I simply saw something egregious and want it to be dealt with appropriately. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:53, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Hear, hear. I'm all for peace and love but methinks a slap on the wrist won't be enuf for a proud old-timer like SC. Some concrete sanctions would send the message home, that with great power comes great responsibility! KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 14:58, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

The only reason it's not currently happening is that our rule violation system is broken. Nobody acted to stop it and apparently nobody will now either. ɱ (talk) 13:55, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

So you think someone should have noticed it was happening while it was happening, instantaneously knew exactly what was happening and why it was happening, and immediately put a stop to it? Like, who, WikiGod the Omniscient, Omnipresent, and Omnipotent? Valereee (talk) 14:04, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

That's why you can't argue it's fine because it already passed. It wasn't fine while it was happening, and nobody did anything. ɱ (talk) 14:06, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't know why you're now reading into one of these unreviews. It's clear as day a bad-faith target of me, and these aren't new pages. It's a violation on multiple levels. ɱ (talk) 14:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ɱ, you've accused me of being involved in an ongoing dispute with SC, so I can't really try to further help. Take it to ANI. Valereee (talk) 14:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Alright. ɱ (talk) 14:46, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Block

Valeree, you are acting as an administrator against me while also voting and commenting in these AfDs against me? Is that not a violation of your position? ɱ (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I have not voted at either AfD, and I've barely commented at the cafe one -- to agree with EEng suggestion that perhaps just tagging the articles and giving AB a chance to work on them was an option. Hardly "against" you, and not "against" SC, either.

Here's how it looked to me:

14:05 12-19 Special:Diff/1128316303 accusations of bad faith from MJ

17:42 12-19 Special:Diff/1128348802 accusations of COI from SC

18:24 12-19 Special:Diff/1128355002 SC ups the ante with a PA: You seem to be incoherent.

18:31 12-19 Special:Diff/1128355882 MJ fires back with namecalling

18:44 12-19 Special:Diff/1128357805 SC removes MJ’s namecalling

18:56 12-19 Special:Diff/1128359630 MJ removes an entire exchange among multiple people in order to rem SC’s earlier PA. We now have a discussion that can’t easily be followed.

19:44 12-19 Special:Diff/1128367066 I ask MJ to stop making personal attacks and assuming bad faith

19:46 Special:Diff/1128367355 MJ pushes back on that, makes further accusations

19:50 Special:Diff/1128367960 SC pings me to let me know they’ve removed a PA, possibly thinking I hadn’t seen it

20:25 Special:Diff/1128373102 I get to the end of my own personal rope. Both editors have made their positions clear. All they are doing here with their various personal attacks, namecalling and assumptions of faith, and retaliatory removals of each others’ posts is generate heat. Valereee (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ɱ, if you'll stop commenting at that AfD, I'm happy to unblock. The exchanges had just become very disruptive for absolutely zero purpose. You literally removed like five different posts from multiple people at one point; no one can easily follow that discussion any more.

(I'll probably be more in than out out than in for the rest of the evening, so anyone should feel free to unblock.) Valereee (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps I was wrong about voting in particular. However, you have made over a dozen comments in the DDD deletion discussion, oftentimes directly countering Keep votes (which can negate them to the eyes of a closer), and the source analysis which is somehow allowed at the top of the AfD is apparently at least partially your work? That does not strike me as the move of an impartial admin. When I commented above, I had thought you just blocked me, though I agree more with us both blocked. Though given your involvement, I would have suggested another admin take action. ɱ (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ɱ, the DDD AfD isn't really relevant. Even there, though, a source assessment is productive work that can be helpful to any !voter; it's a neutral contribution, and I must have said ten times some version of 'all please feel free to edit/contribute' to it. Requesting clarification on which sources support a claim of notability is also helpful to any !voter; when you simply !vote "clearly notable", someone asking "which sources do you believe support notability?" is not countering the !vote. It's asking for clarification. I did not !vote there because I actually have no clue at this point whether that subject is notable or not. I actually suspect it might be; to me the fact the shop is at least mentioned in non-local sources tells me it's worth investigating further. If we could have found even one instance of sigcov outside the local area, I'd have likely !voted keep. I tried to but simply couldn't find support for notability from the sources provided. In general I am hoping an article creator has proven notability before moving to article space, as I hate to see anyone's work be wasted. I have probably dozens of drafts in my user space that I haven't yet gotten over the notability hump but hope I will eventually. But again, the simple fact the two AfDs are for articles by the same creator isn't relevant to this AfD. At this AfD, I made one pretty neutral comment that simply agreed that maybe there was a better way than a multi-article AfD to handle the articles in question: for the time being, tag them.

All I want here is for the disruptive behavior at the second AfD to stop. There's a difference between clarifying your !vote/asking for clarification of someone else's and bludgeoning. If you disagree with someone on policy, make that argument. If you find you need to clarify your argument, clarify it. But talk about the edits, not the other editors in the discussion. You may privately believe they are acting in bad faith, but the AfD is not the place to make that accusation. ANI is, with diffs.

If you'll stop making personal attacks, assuming bad faith, removing others' comments etc. there, I'm happy to unblock. Valereee (talk) 13:00, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe you. You can explain out in a wall of text all you want. You challenged keep votes incessantly. An admin doing that is putting power to the several others that did the same, which turned a simple AfD into a clown fiesta. Even if your intentions were good, you helped support the delete vote and cause a mess. ɱ (talk) 13:58, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ɱ, all right, I've unblocked you in response to the accusation, which you clearly feel is justified. Valereee (talk) 14:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy holidays

Fairies dangling on and frolicking around flowers	Seasons greetings!
	Wishing you joyous holiday spirits, Valereee! and best wishes for the New Year	Illustration of dancing fairies, 1914, taken from the poem “A Spell for a Fairy,” by Alfred Noyes

Beccaynr (talk) 23:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Valereee (talk) 23:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Moving forward

Valereee, I am unfamiliar with the noticeboard process but remember your name as trustworthy. If you can't do this, no worries, I'll copy it to another person listed. ANI says "don't" and AN says it's for administrators. So I am following up on the ANI note "Want to skip the drama?". I have a long term problem with another editor. WP:DRN didn't help; I did my part but this editor did not. I have said things I regret and understand that boomerang will blame me too.

This would have been written up as my first ANI incident. Yesterday inexplicably, this editor posted to a page out of the blue telling me to "please assume good faith" stating that he'd had to warn me about that before. This interrupted a delicate conversation with a member of WP:FOOD who I am trying hard to learn from and please. That stopped my work for yesterday, and smeared my reputation in front of a stranger. (Remarkably, discussion with the WP:FOOD member continues.)

Background: This editor works hard to improve Wikipedia. He's pointed out problems in Minneapolis that led to improvement. He is sort of a demolition genius, who likes to pluck things out without making repairs. As I near an extended featured article review, these actions can seem like intrusions. It's hard to concentrate and make forward progress. A short recent history:

• I proposed constraining himself to a personal Day (to which he took offense in scathing terms)
• Then I wished him a Happy Thanksgiving. He said, "go away."
• We had a recent success! with a group deciding on a new photo.
• Since then deterioration: game playing (don't own it followed by revert)
• he continues to make fun of a violation of WP:NPOV since October [4].

Thank you for listening. I appreciate that you volunteer to arbitrate outside of ANI (if that's what you do). That's an important kindness that will benefit everybody. Going forward, I will have to assume I'm dealing with an adult who normally has good manners but who cannot always be trusted (a third party called his behavior hounding).

• Is there any way you can gently tell him not to post warnings out of turn?
• Is there any way to ask him to respect WP:NPOV? (It sounds serious: "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.")

Best wishes, -SusanLesch (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Hey, Susan! Thank for the kind words. Yes, it's always better to try to solve problems without resorting to AN/ANI.

First, I wouldn't worry about your reputation being smeared in front of TB or AB. They're both experienced editors, in all likelihood the driveby comment from M677 looked as strange to them as it looked to you. It's unlikely they're going to put much weight on it.

Re: the personal day. Eh, I don't love the idea, either. If you're looking to avoid edit conflicts, or simply don't enjoy possibly collaborating involuntarily, put Template:In use on an article when you start editing and remove it when you're done.

Re: unnecessary visits to M677's user talk: I'd avoid that. They clearly aren't interested in making friends.

Re: making fun of a vio of NPOV...not seeing what you're talking about?

I'm afraid to me this all looks...well, a bit like you've irritated someone and they're continuing to act irritated and maybe enjoying tweaking you a bit. By reacting, you give them what they're looking for: confirmation they're getting under your skin. And it looks a bit like you've tried to tweak them a few places, too.

I'm not actually seeing anything I could talk to them about at this point, although you could ask them in a dedicated section on their talk to please leave warnings to you on your talk with a diff and an explanation of wtf they're even talking about rather than cryptically in the middle of other conversations. If they do repeat the driveby, respond with "I've asked you before to please take this to my talk rather than interrupting conversations." And save the diff. Valereee (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Wow, did you help! So much better than going through DRN or ANI (I imagine). Thank you very much, Valereee! I will remember the template "in use." That's a grand idea. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:11, 21 December 2022 (UTC)