Jump to content

User talk:Valereee

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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

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

RFC Jewish Chronicle

[edit]

Thanks for closing the Jewish Chronicle RFC, given the contentious nature and heat of some recent RSN discussions all closes are much appreciated. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, AD. I tried to be very careful, literally put together a spreadsheet. Valereee (talk) 21:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not surprised, it was a complicated RFC and even if I did closes it would be one I would've avoided. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee I totally agree with your comments regarding the complexity of this RfC, so thanks for your time and efforts on this. Indeed my concerns at interpretation led me to do exactly the same as you did and place the 'votes' in a spreadsheet. It confirms your comment of consensus that the JC was unreliable in PIA areas. However, it also suggests no consensus for the earlier time periods and non PIA areas. This is because a significant number of editors didn't parse periods whilst giving an overall 3 or 4, whilst the others were split between options 1 and 2 for that category. I'm happy to show you my workings on this.

However, without going into those details, you wrote on closure 'The majority of participants thought the designation needed to be much more nuanced than a simple "generally reliable" or "generally unreliable/deprecated", especially with regard to certain topics and with regard to certain time periods' This sentence seems like a good summary, so would a yellow label 'additional considerations' be more accurate than the present green label 'generally reliable' as it is at present? Andromedean (talk) 11:13, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely think the color at RSNP should be yellow at this point, and this discussion should be linked in the table, and the close summarized.
Always happy to look at someone else's work! Valereee (talk) 12:12, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Revised, I actually am not familiar enough with criteria for colors, so I'm not going to make assumptions about that. Valereee (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could post you a link to the google spreadsheet I produced, but I need to make it a bit easier to understand first. Perhaps, later today or tomorrow.
A useful exercise might be to repeat the spreadsheet exercise with another source with a yellow rating as a comparison such as Huffington Post political which has been through a similar exercise.Andromedean (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the spreadsheet. The average option number is in bold. I've additionally calculated it used your method of calling option 4, option 3. The issue of some editors choosing different cut off dates and relying on earlier RfCs complicates things. However, I suggested that earlier RfCs should be judged with special caution due to the discovery of sock puppets in the 2021 RfC. That's an additional reason why I think the views of media experts, IPSO and legal cases should be given weight. The depreciated Daily Mail simply used a note to denote that some editors found it reliable in the past. Andromedean (talk) 08:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, looks interesting. I'm not thinking it changes anything about whether the close feels appropriate, but I guess you think it does? Valereee (talk) 11:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee It's less to do with the closing comments than the colour label. You said earlier 'I actually am not familiar enough with criteria for colors'. Wikipedia's definition of the green colour legend is
"Generally reliable in its areas of expertise: Editors show consensus that the source is reliable in most cases on subject matters in its areas of expertise. The source has a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction, often in the form of a strong editorial team.
I've little doubt the JC would consider themselves 'experts' on their frequent front page content of Israel, Palestine and the ME. Some Wikipedia editors giving the JC positive reviews, consider 'antisemitism and the Left' another of their front page areas of expertise. Yet the RfC on reliability in this specific area was split (after certain editors were disqualified). Also considering the extent the JC has been criticised by academics and even their own journalists who decided to leave the paper, a green label would appear distinctly odd. Perhaps, the instigator of the last RfC User:Selfstudier who occupied a median position of views on that spreadsheet might wish to comment if this is worth pursuing, or perhaps I need to go to a different board to do this? Andromedean (talk) 12:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely wp:rsn, that's where the experts are. Valereee (talk) 12:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've started it here Andromedean (talk) 14:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, JC should not be 100% green, that would not represent the consensus at all. Perhaps the entry should be split to different colours like some others have been, see Rolling stone or The New York Post for example. Selfstudier (talk) 12:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per discussion raised here here have updated RSP. [1] Please feel free to improve summary etc. CNC (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hate to see a desysop,

[edit]

We do seem to be slouching in that direction. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope not. Given their username, they're probably ~75. They've been a sysop for nearly 20 years. They're winding down their contributions, but they still are actively editing, it's not like they're playing the one-edit-a-year game to keep the hat. I'd really hate to see them feel shamed. Valereee (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
story · music · places
Thank you. The request is already a reason to feel shamed. I miss RexxS. - Different topic: I placed another call for help on my talk page, as you recommended, hours ago, to no avail. Walter Jacob. I feel strongly that he deserves to be mentioned, an American Rabbi whose family escaped Germany, and he initiated and presided the first rabbinic seminary in Central Europe after the Holocaust, in Germany of all places. - Some bright pictures in places, and food further up there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know, I get it. More shamed, I guess? Beautiful photos, as usual, thank you for sharing!
I wish RexxS had never run for admin. He wasn't really temperamentally a good fit, and instead of being gone, he'd have remained a great contributor as an editor. I voted for him, and his demeanor as an admin really woke me up to the whole idea of just how crucial temperament is. I mean, obviously anyone can have a bad day, I've certainly had my share.
It looks like every other nom you made in October was posted? I'd call that a win, really. No one seems to be opposing at ITN, can't it just be marked as ready for posting? Valereee (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for looking into the photos ;) ... and the RD. The two latest were posted (together) with just one support, without ever marked ready. The marking might help (if only arguing tomorrow if needed) but I'm not the one doing it ;) - These three died within two days, and all were difficult to update, so one had to arrive at the noms page late ... - Usually an admin comes around towards midnight, but Wikipedia's midnight is when I'll sleep. - Completely different topic: blank lines in a threaded discussion confuse the screenreader for the blind. There's an essay on my user page, look for asterisks. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know that! I wish our software could just automatically optimize everything. Valereee (talk) 20:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know it either. Trying to get today's cantata ready for GAN, for a change of subject. I wish people would not die when I have the house full of dear company. I would have preferred to have the cantata in shape when the 300th anniversary began, not towards the end ;) - Did you see the film The Pianist - featured in yesterday's story? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Pianist was out during my raising toddlers years. I have zero knowledge of anything to do with popular culture from those years. It's like they never happened. I can, however, remember the lyrics to most of the themes from Nickelodeon from that period.
You seem to have an amazing life, Gerda! So full of travel and visitors! Valereee (talk) 11:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! - Jacob came to the Main page 2 minutes before midnight but they graciously left another one from that day open for further discussion. Relief. - I praised a rich day on my talk, and then learned that Franz Kamphaus died. I saw him in the service on 6 October, which was held up for several minutes for him to arrive, assisted by two people. A blessed soul, I am sure. - I didn't take a pic inside because I was late myself, here's an earlier one of the place partly decorated by disabled people. He always sat second row far right. I was left, fifth or so row. He looked attentive throughout, God's time is the best ... (recorded). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy whatever you celebrate today, - more who died, more to come, and they made the world richer. Greetings from Madrid where I took the pic of assorted Cucurbita in 2016. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I celebrate Halloween in the sense that I put a pumpkin on my porch and buy a bag of candy to hand out to trick-or-treaters. I'm an atheist, but I participate in the more secular Christian holidays. Madrid, I'm sure it's beautiful this time of year! Of course, pretty much everywhere is beautiful in October. Valereee (talk) 16:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Farewell

[edit]

I can provide examples of many editors and admins regarding numerous improper actions that could definitely harm the credibility of Wikipedia as well as the community in the long run.

You warned me and threatened to block me for my "in general" accusations, but I told you repeatedly that I don’t want to make enemies by taking names. I guess that was inevitable. I don't know how long these forces will tolerate my views on this platform, but I see you have a clean heart. So maybe all is not lost in this world. I’ll be happy to see that there are still some editors and admins who have a little conscience left.

Also, the editor who raised that complaint about me is now so rattled after my reply that they are trying to fix their blatant POV pushing by making it seem like they are, in fact, neutral. I hope you all will see through this and the timing involved. Although I still don’t have much hope, some actions by community members (although rare) make me believe there is some hope.

Regards and farewell—like the final farewell. DangalOh (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2024-44

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 20:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red November 2024

[edit]
Women in Red | November 2024, Vol 10, Issue 11, Nos 293, 294, 321, 322, 323


Online events:

Announcements from other communities

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 20:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

MUEW

[edit]

You've inspired me to create WP:MUEW: "multi-user edit war". Usage example: Now everybody's muewing at that article. Levivich (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hahahahaha...I'm totally using Muewing. Valereee (talk) 22:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I like that! I've been a victim of muewing in the past, as well as unintentionally participating in it. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2024 November newsletter

[edit]

The 2024 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round being a very tight race. Our new champion is AirshipJungleman29 (submissions), who scored 2,283 points mainly through 3 high-multiplier FAs and 3 GAs on military history topics. By a 1% margin, Airship beat out last year's champion, Delaware BeanieFan11 (submissions), who scored second with 2,264 points, mainly from an impressive 58 GAs about athletes. In third place, Generalissima (submissions) scored 1,528 points, primarily from two FAs on U.S. Librarians of Congress and 20 GAs about various historical topics. Our other finalists are: Sammi Brie (submissions) with 879 points, Canada Hey man im josh (submissions) with 533 points, BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 432 points, Arconning (submissions) with 244 points, and Christmas Island AryKun (submissions) with 15 points. Congratulations to our finalists and all who participated!

The final round was very productive, and contestants had 7 FAs, 9 FLs, 94 GAs, 73 FAC reviews, and 79 GAN reviews and peer reviews. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!

All those who reached the final will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2025 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement!

If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2024

[edit]

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

Administrator changes

readded
removed

CheckUser changes

removed Maxim

Oversighter changes

removed Maxim

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


Request

[edit]

Can you open yet another thread (I kinda sound stupid but okay) with the response that you pasted? It is the most salient bit of info and is currently buried within replies. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it appears that Joe lied when he told (and no less in boldface) that We have not shared any user data. He was (and is, even now) technically correct when he made that statement but *sigh*. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can assume "lied". I sometimes find emails in my wikipedia file that are weeks old and go "Oops". Valereee (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This week's article for improvement (week 45, 2024)

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

Slow living

Please be bold and help improve it!


Previous selections: Space Age • Image


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


Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • Opt-out instructions[reply]

Tech News: 2024-45

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 20:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]