This is an archive of past discussions. 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 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 35

Once again, I wish you'd address the issue in a more effective way. This is unbelievably counter-productive. To characterize the propaganda as such is both accurate and well-sourced. Anyone can see what's going wrong with this ridiculous situation. Do you disagree? Why? I don't understand. What is the point in continuing? GPinkerton ( talk) 17:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, as I've said, now multiple times, I cannot get involved in the content dispute. I'm not sure why you aren't willing to accept that. I understand that you are desperate for someone to come in to help with the content disputes, but Levivich has been helping with that? —valereee ( talk) 17:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I do understand; sorry about that! This is awfully frustrating. GPinkerton ( talk) 19:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, believe me, I do understand. I've been there. Even without getting involved on a content level I can see that you're trying to make productive change at that article, and that you probably feel like you're under siege. I would recommend 1. just ignore walls of text (but you can only do this if you aren't creating any of your own). You are not required to read walls of text. 2. be Spock. :) —valereee ( talk) 20:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, I am required to read them because the article is locked because of this insanity and will not be unlocked until it can decided what it should say, which will only be when one party to this dispute is banned as WP:NOTHERE, as should now be evident. As I keep saying, this is well beyond content and much bigger than me. Blocking me for stating the well-evidenced facts of the matter, from my perspective and very likely from others', is an involvement in content. To me it looks as though you have judged the reliable sources inaccurate on the point of whether the myth was created as part of the Arab Belt ethnic cleansing policy, and you have blocked me for repeating that. I cannot stress enough, it is a racist malicious lie, and reliable sources say so. I can't be blamed for that surely? GPinkerton ( talk) 20:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, you really aren't. If people can't make their arguments in a short easily-read statement, you can simply ignore it. They cannot force you to read walls of text. It's disruptive. You literally can tell them, "I'm not reading that. Say it in five sentences." I mean, don't be a dick, if it's seven sentences, fine, read it. But you are not required to read walls of text. —valereee ( talk) 20:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

And no, as I've repeatedly stated, I have not judged the sources. I do not intend to try to judge the sources. That is part of the content dispute. Admins don't settle content disputes. Editors do. Serious as a heart attack, here. No admin is going to come into that article and make a decision on sources. Once an admin weighs in, they're no longer an admin. They're an editor. —valereee ( talk) 20:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, how then is tendentious editing to be dealt with? Is that a freely breakable policy? Blocking me is giving sanction the others.

On another point, that majority article (not an RS!) appears to be badly at variance with the Oxford English Dictionary's definitions; in other words 50%+ is needed for some definitions of "majority" (and for some definitions of "plurality") but not for others. GPinkerton ( talk) 20:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, re: plurality, you're talking to a statistician here. :) A plurality is the largest group among a group of 3 or more; if it's not more than 50%, in "common" terms it's not called a majority. There may be a few circumstances in which some entity uses them interchangeably; that doesn't affect the "common" usage (I put the term in quotations because most people don't understand the difference, so not sure how "common" it is) but none of your sources in extended content support the opposite except for the Scottish usage, which apparently says they're used interchangeably? But is this really the hill you want to be dying on?

Tendentious editing is something dealt with by admins. It's extremely difficult to see if there's also ABF/personal attacks going on. Once we peel that away, which is what we're trying to do now, we will be able to more clearly see the tendentious editing. You can help by scrupulously not engaging in anything that could be considered a personal attack, ABF, commenting on motivations, etc. This is what multiple editors have been trying to tell you for days if not weeks: When there is ABF going on, it obscures the tendentious editing. Yes, that may very well be the bigger problem at that talk. We can't see it if you're all throwing up a smokescreen of ABF. —valereee ( talk) 21:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Valereee No, the first meaning of majority states that >50% is still a majority. As I have said, I haven't done anything of the kind you suggest. I honestly don't buy that it's "obscured". Why can I see it? Why can many who contributed to discussions outwith the talkpage? How can I be blamed for "obscuring" others' poor behaviours when that behaviour is visible throughout the project and can be seen in the archives of that page and noticeboards longs before I filed my first of now five ANI reports on the subject and before I ever made an edit on that page. I ask again, what is the point of allowing it continue? What further proof is required? How many more times are you going to block me for stating the obvious? GPinkerton ( talk) 21:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, it's obscured by all the bullshit that's going on. I don't think anyone is saying you're the (only) one obscuring it. They're saying OMG WTF is even going on here? I can't tell because there's so much bullshit. And it's hostile aggressive bullshit. Stay away! Stay away!

You can see it because you're there, you've been following it for weeks, and you know what's going on. It seems crystal clear to you. To someone coming into that article, it's just chaos. Again, I've been there. I'm actually there right now, but that's beside the point.

Yes, >50% is a majority. <50% is not a majority. If there are three or more groups, and one that is <50% is the largest group, it's the plurality. And if you'd like to discuss that further, please discuss with someone else, I'm done. This is a concept I'm extremely familiar with. —valereee ( talk) 21:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, WTF is even going on here? how can I make it simpler to you? It is a racist lie. Numerous reliable sources state as much. It's not uncivil to say so. GPinkerton ( talk) 22:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, how can I make it simpler to you: in my role as an admin, it doesn't matter. Find an editor. —valereee ( talk) 23:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Valereee You have blocked me in your role as an admin, but I have only stated what reliable sources say. You blocked me either for that or for another reason. GPinkerton ( talk) 23:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, please go to your talk and file an unblock request. I have done what I judged in the best long-term interest of that article. You are free to disagree and try to convince someone else I'm wrong. —valereee ( talk) 23:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

collapsed subsection was breaking the page

majority, n., 1. 3a.
The greater number or part; a number which is more than half the total number, esp. of votes; spec. (in a deliberative assembly or electoral body) the group or party whose votes amount to more than half the total number, or which has the largest share of votes; the fact of having such a share. Frequently with of. Also more generally: a substantial number, a significant proportion. Usually with plural agreement. Cf. plurality n. 3, 4.

and

plurality, n., 3.
Originally Scottish. More than half of the whole or of the total number (esp. in an election, referendum, etc.); majority n. 1.3a. In early use also: the fact of there being a majority (obsolete).

and

plurality, n., 4. Originally and chiefly U.S.
*a. The fact of having the largest share of the votes cast, when this is less than an absolute majority.
*b. The amount by which the vote of such a winning candidate, party, etc., exceeds that of the next (or another specified) candidate. Cf. majority n. 4.

and

absolute majority n. [compare French majorité absolue (1789)]
a majority comprising more than half of all votes cast or (rarely) more than half of the total number of registered voters; a government majority comprising more than half of all the seats in a legislature.

Thanks for your welcome to Wikipedia. Aghore ( talk) 11:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Aghore, so I should have blocked you for edit-warring instead of assuming you simply didn't know the policy and giving you a kindly warning? —valereee ( talk) 11:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

You could have, but I was boldly editing in good faith to protect the encyclopedia from obvious vandalism and off-wiki coordinated sockpuppetry. Aghore ( talk) 11:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Aghore, how were those edits obvious vandalism? Those editors to me seemed to be acting in good-faith -- though going about it the wrong way -- to remove an incorrectly-drawn map. —valereee ( talk) 12:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

You recently partially blocked this user, but I believe his account User:Andrewlumbo1998 indicates he evaded that block. Could you please block this other user? NASCARfan0548  ↗ 18:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

NASCARfan0548, least competent socking ever? Thanks! —valereee ( talk) 19:07, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, You're welcome! NASCARfan0548  ↗ 19:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for jumping the gun on the notification, I did not read their talk page in full. CaradhrasAiguo ( leave language) 00:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

CaradhrasAiguo, no worries! —valereee ( talk) 01:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I thought I put that part of the code to rest a while back...somehow it just came back. I've nuked it hopefully for the final time. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

AmandaNP, I was just letting my inner proofreader be a jerk. :) —valereee ( talk) 10:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Some traditional foods in Bengali cuisine Hello, Valereee. The article for improvement of the week is: Bengali cuisine Please be bold and help improve it! Previous selections: Latin music (genre) • Industry Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions

Fascist or Not? ^FBDB

	Keir Starmer	Vladimir Putin	Kim Jong-un	Saddam Hussein	User:valereee
Lifetime appointment?	N	Y	Y	Y	Y
% of vote won	65% ( 2019)	77% ( 2018)	100% ( 2014)	100% ( 2002)	97% ( 2019)
Example use of official powers	Prosecuted someone for tweeting a joke about destroying an airport	Imprisoned a band for singing protest songs	Executed his education minister for bad posture and falling asleep in meetings [1]	Executed prisoners by putting dynamite in their pockets, then sold videos of it for 50 cents each [2]	Blocked an editor for not indenting
FASCIST?	N	?	Y	Y

Nahhh... who would ever call you a fascist? :-) Levivich  ^harass/ _hound 00:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Not a shining moment for me. How am I doing so far? :) —valereee ( talk) 01:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

AND IT WASN'T FOR NOT INDENTING! IT WAS FOR REFUSING TO LEARN TO INDENT! —valereee ( talk) 01:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, of course, Dear Administrator! I think you're doing a fantastic job, Most Benevolent Administrator!

Kim said something similar about the education minister's execution: the official charge was "bad attitude" (NOTHERE to build a dynasty). Plus, he had already tried "revolutionary education" (lvl4 template) and "revolutionary punishment" (partial block), but apparently nothing could improve the minister's bad attitude. [3] Heavy hangs the head that wears the crown, eh? Levivich  ^harass/ _hound 03:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm probably going to have to change my username or something. —valereee ( talk) 11:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I suggest "valerfff". None will be the wiser. Levivich  ^harass/ _hound 18:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Probably get blocked as a fart joke. —valereee ( talk) 18:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

18:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

... to get involved with the periodic table discussions. That would put the cat among the pigeons for sure. E Eng 12:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I wonder if he has an opinion on what is the best graphical representation of that? —valereee ( talk) 12:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Also Oxford would seem to have a lot of explaining to do. —valereee ( talk) 03:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

It is not the institution I thought it was. Levivich  ^harass/ _hound 05:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM – Volume X, Issue XI, November 2020 Headlines AfLIA Wikipedia in African Libraries report: Launch of Wikipedia in African Libraries Project Pilot Cohort Brazil report: Accessibility through audio descriptions, GLAM tutorials, WikidataCon 2021 and more updates on Brazilian GLAMs Canada report: Taking a tour of CAPACOA workshops and some recent example sets from commons Germany report: German symphony orchestra releases audio samples under free license India report: Re-licensing of content on water & rivers in India Indonesia report: #WikiSejarah WPWP Campaign Netherlands report: Wikipedia and Education, Funding granted for two projects in 2021, KB completes collection highlights project Serbia report: GLAM in Serbia makes important steps in the digitization of cultural heritage Spain report: Edit-a-thons on women scientists and painters Sweden report: Music, UNESCO and Wikidata UK report: Hundreds of Khalili images USA report: Black Lunch Table & Museum Computer Network Calendar: December's GLAM events Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

I guess my conclusion is that if India (or any country) wants to block WP, they can always find a reason. The hope is that they wont, partly because international reactions in the direction of "Ah. One of those countries." Time will tell. If you haven't read A vicious culture war is tearing through Wikipedia, it's quite interesting. More at WP:PRESS 20. Have a nice weekend! Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 10:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I had read that with some alarm, lol. India's government/political parties -- on both sides -- getting involved in making accusations of intentional malicious bias could become pretty disruptive because we have so many readers and editors in India. And like in this situation so many of them really don't understand how WP works or how to address issues of incorrect or incomplete information. If nationalistic politicians in India are going to start treating honest error as an act of bias, which I guess they've decided they are...Jeez. I guess we need to keep Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics on our watchlist, eh? —valereee ( talk) 11:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Yikes. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 20:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, yeah. That went to ugly fast. —valereee ( talk) 21:31, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

'I have been asked to summarise the changes I have asked for.

Title change from Killing of George Floyd to Death of George Floyd References employing killed such as was killed changed to suitable alternatives such as died The facts of the autopsy don't support emphasis on Derek Chauvin's knee. Please shift the emphasis towards those suggested by the autopsy findings A summary of the autopsy results to be placed near the topAre.u.sure (talk) 11:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC) The link: https://m.startribune.com/hennepin-county-commissioner-challenges-reappointment-of-medical-examiner/571146502/ strongly points to attempts to politically manage this case. The article should cover this aspect and downplay the other narratives. I look forward to seeing these improvements.Are.u.sure (talk) 11:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)' Are.u.sure (talk) 04:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC) Are.u.sure ( talk) 04:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 00:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I cannot believe that hook got all the way through review and MP appearance without a single person even mentioning the double entendre. —valereee ( talk) 11:57, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

For some reason I wasn't consulted. I'm sure I could have made it significantly more suggestive. E Eng 12:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

for an hour. fiveby( zero) 23:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey, Fiveby, glad to see you back. I hope you saw my apology at AN a couple of weeks ago. I wish I had handled it differently, possibly with a partial from that article talk for a couple of weeks instead of an hour full block. I hope you're well. —valereee ( talk) 23:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

No, you should not have handled it differently with a partial block for a week. If you didn't understand what was going on then you should have just stayed out of it. fiveby( zero) 23:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree 100% with fiveby(zero). -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 08:06, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

What I saw was an article talk out of control, with multiple editors making personal attacks on one another and creating an editing environment so hostile that well-intentioned editors were reluctant to come in and help. I understood very well what was happening, and I could have made a better choice for handling it. —valereee ( talk) 23:59, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, whatever happened to that COI that you opened about the Brigham Young University editors?

This article has been written by a friend of the family. Should a COI declaration be placed on the talk page? Yoninah ( talk) 18:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Yoninah, the BYU discussion has staled. The program coordinator has announced her intention to step out of that position, but she and other WiRs were vehemently opposed to themselves placing COI tags on article talks for articles they have a COI with, so I guess the rest of us will have to keep track of which articles they're writing could be considered to be COIs. Which I find really dismaying and a complete time-waster. It makes me really question the ethics of the entire program.

Yes, if Remember is a friend of the family, they need to WP:DISCLOSE on their user page and place a COI disclosure at article talk. If they don't, the article itself should be tagged for COI. —valereee ( talk) 19:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I've tagged the article; Remember, you can untag it when you've disclosed at your user and on the article talk using the instructions linked above. —valereee ( talk) 19:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The COI issue was resolved by User:Wehwalt and others. Was there a new issue about the matter that you wanted to bring to people's attention that we can address? Remember ( talk) 19:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey, Remember! Yes, there needs to be disclosure on your user and at the article talk, as explained in the above section. —valereee ( talk) 19:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I added it previously to the article page. User:Wehwalt deleted it. Happy to re-add. Remember ( talk) 20:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Done. Can we delete the COI tag now? Remember ( talk) 20:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Remember, ah, I see. I asked them about it there, but yes, you can remove the tag! Thank you for disclosing! —valereee ( talk) 20:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Can you please remove. I feel it looks weird if I remove the tag about me. Remember ( talk) 20:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Remember, sure, will do now! —valereee ( talk) 20:39, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Remember ( talk) 20:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

A Christmas ham Hello, Valereee. The article for improvement of the week is: Christmas ham Please be bold and help improve it! Previous selections: Bengali cuisine • Latin music (genre) Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions

Regarding the SPI you filed (now moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kaleodu) - for future reference have a look here (the gray collapsed table) for the "official" list of situations where checkuser is recommended. In short - if you think there are sleepers (or more accounts that you haven't found), or if you have a group of accounts which you're fairly confident are related but the evidence isn't quite strong enough for a block on behavior alone, that's the time to request checkuser. Of course, a clerk (or another user) can request checkuser or a checkuser can do a technical check even if you didn't ask for it originally, so you don't "lose" anything by not requesting checkuser. GeneralNotability ( talk) 01:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

GeneralNotability, thank you! Always something new to learn on Wikipedia. And I'm really not learning as fast as I used to. So, since I thought one or the other of these might be sleepers, possibly of another sockmaster, checkuser request not necessarily wrong, but also not necessary? Someone else would have seen those same things (and likely been much more capable of correctly interpreting)? —valereee ( talk) 02:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

valereee, yup, exactly, and in this case it hit paydirt since Tony turned up two other socks. In this case it wouldn't have helped tie them to Champaign Supernova - the latter hasn't edited in years, checkuser data is only stored for three months, and I can't find any of Champaign Supernova's socks even though they're checkuser-blocked. We can have a "chain" of checkuser evidence (sockmaster A has confirmed sock B, A goes stale but we can still check suspected sock C against B) though there may be gaps in the chain (there aren't socks of A for a long time, then obvious sock D is blocked on behavioral evidence...we can check possible sock E against D, but the checkuser evidence can't prove that E is A, only that E is D), but I don't see anything we could have checked against in this case. GeneralNotability ( talk) 02:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm hoping the situation at Mike DeWine & Gretchen Whitmer, will eventually be resolved :) GoodDay ( talk) 01:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

GoodDay, I'm sure it will, eventually. I really think these are storms-in-a-teacup w/re long-term importance. And if it turns out they're actually important, we'll include them! :) —valereee ( talk) 01:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Beethoven in 1803

Thank you for contribs to the birthday display! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, thank you for working to make it happen! —valereee ( talk) 16:31, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

And BTW, I still haven't forgotten about you-know-what. I actually have while I think is a very simple solution, when I get around to writing it up. E Eng 17:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

EEng, I can't seem to help myself. :) And yay on a simple solution! That would be a happy departure. —valereee ( talk) 18:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		Thank you so much for that tip of the Wall Street Journal. I really appreciate it. Elijahandskip ( talk) 18:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Elijahandskip, you're so welcome! I use the WSJ to check the NYT and vice versa. If they're both saying basically the same things, I figure we're good to go. :) —valereee ( talk) 18:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Howdy hello! I've been seeing Syrian Kurdistan issues around and hadn't gotten in on it, but now seems the time. Since you've been in the area, could you give me a sparknotes version of the current items of disagreement? If not no worries, but it would be helpful :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 19:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

CaptainEek, lol. Okay, the term "Syrian Kurdistan" is seen, especially by Syrians (and maybe others?) who are not Kurds, as extremely politically charged. Those who oppose the idea would prefer to have the article at something like "Kurdish areas of Syria" or something. Complaints that it's a "modern" rather than historical term used to serve a political agenda. The areas it refers to are vehemently disputed, to the point people are willing to argue whether there's a majority or only a plurality of Kurds in the area, and whether that makes a difference as to whether the entire area can be called a Kurdish area, or only those districts where Kurds are an actual majority. Accusations of "malicious nationalistic lies" are common. Complaints that these Kurds actually migrated from Turkey at some point in their family history and therefore aren't actually Syrian are voiced. Complaints that calling it a place when it doesn't have an official governmental designation means it's all just a belief system, not a place. Oh, and many of the scholars are accused of being Kurdish themselves or pro-Kurd, which means we shouldn't consider them reliable. Sorry for not organizing this better, I just spewed it out as I remembered it. :D —valereee ( talk) 19:30, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, Thanks, it would have taken me forever to read through all the talk page nonsense. I'll see if I can't help moderate things. I knew it was bad, but this is like four kinds of nationalism in one...Makes me think of Star Trek..."its worse than that, its nationalism Jim"! CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 19:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

CaptainEek, lol, yep. It's POV-pushing on a level I've seldom seen. I can't pretend to understand why it's so vicious at that article, but it truly is ridiculous. If you could have seen the talk before I set up 15-day archiving...yikes. —valereee ( talk) 19:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

File:Christmas tree in field.jpg	Merry Christmas Valereee
	Hi Valereee, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very happy and prosperous New Year, Thanks for all your contributions to Wikipedia this past year, like this tree, you are a light shining in the darkness. Onel5969 TT me 12:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Hey- I am planning to contest that the clear consensus you saw on the DPP talk page is consistent with Wiktionary Neutrality policy. Note of course that I don't plan to challenge that the consensus exists: yes, you can string together some users to oppose Wikipedia policy sometimes. I plan to challenge the content of the concensus itself based on the contradiction with Wikipedia policy in the content of the consensus. My goal is to get to dispute resolution where I'm pretty sure I will get the non-Taiwanese foreign language content removed from the article. [4] Geographyinitiative ( talk) 16:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC) (modified)

Geographyinitiative, no worries, contest away! :) —valereee ( talk) 16:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Geographyinitiative ( talk) 16:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Here at ANI, you assisted in an issue with the editing of Seiko888 ( talk · contribs) at Robert O'Neill (Navy SEAL). That discussion has been closed since my thanks, so I thought it best to come here to speak to you. It appears to me that the same person is now performing the same disruptive edits under the account Doom959 ( talk · contribs). What is the next step of recourse? Thanks for your help, — Fourthords | =Λ= | 05:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Fourthords, hm. It certainly looks suspicious. That article is the only one they've both edited, though. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Seiko888 —valereee ( talk) 14:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the assistance, again! Wow, there was more going on there than I realized. Is there a protocol for reverting such "sockpuppet" account edits? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Fourthords, yes, it's basically assume they need to be scrutinized. Some people just revert any edits by a blocked editor, but I try to see if they might actually have been good edits. Not all sock edits are bad edits. —valereee ( talk) 02:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

At the O'Neill article they've just been replacing the title "SEAL Team Six" (used by most of the sources and the location of our own article on the subject) with the official title in an argument for rightness or absolute correctness and in contravention of WP:COMMONNAME. Thus far, only that editor and I have been involved in the back-and-forth. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 01:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

May I ask of you once again? Since there's only been the one edit warrior at that article previously, it is my assumption that this edit by 72.234.105.182 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) is one and the same, evading the blocks that have been put in place. What is the next step of recourse? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 03:32, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Fourthords, goodness, that is one single-minded sockpuppet. I can put a short protection on the article, but you're likely going to need to keep it on your watchlist lol! —valereee ( talk) 10:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist! If it recurs, should I pester you again, or is there a different, more-appropriate, venue I should be approaching? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:42, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Fourthords, it's fine if you come here, but I'm thinking SPI would be more effective. They'll know whether it's appropriate to block an IP, they'll recognize a sock better than I will. I think since we know for sure there's socking happening, that's probably your best bet for a longer-term fix? —valereee ( talk) 17:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Got it, thanks! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations! With 15,257 views, your hook for "The Girls in 3-B" is one of the most viewed hooks for the month of December. All the more impressive since it registered this total in a 12-hour queue. Accordingly, it has been included at DYKSTATS December. Keep up the good work! Cbl62 ( talk) 19:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Cbl62, thanks! —valereee ( talk) 20:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Some (hopefully) edible things Hello, Valereee. The article for improvement of the week is: Edible Please be bold and help improve it! Previous selections: Christmas ham • Bengali cuisine Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions

Your description of how you call my editing disruptive uses a lot of metaphor like bludgeoning and nitpicking.

Could you clarify what area of policy you are describing and how it is that my statements fit this description and others' do not?

I do not recognize how I should be singled out as argumentative given that others are arguing with me.

Only those supporting a certain interpretation are free to make heard opinion? WakandaQT ( talk) 05:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Responded at your talk. —valereee ( talk) 11:51, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply on my talk.

A tendency to ramble and difficulty summarizing points to a length you would prefer is something I can see as a shortcoming though I'm not sure how difficulty expressing myself efficiently is considered disruption. People are free to "TLDR" if they lack the patience right? ::That's also why Simple Wikipedia exists.

Section creation times were 4:28/5:09/4:57/6:59/7:18 so the 4th/5th sections happened more than two hours later.

• I grok your overall point/intent that it was in a relatively short span of time (within 3 hours) but that's because multiple ideas of how to improve the article occurred to me while reading through it's many details.

I do not agree that sections were repeats. The closest to come to that is one section highlighting the removal of sources from the page. My complaint about the removal of those sources was related to the shin issue (a pre-existing source was removed because I used it) but I still felt it was a distinct enough issue to make a new section for: that said I should've made more effort to keep that clear and I did fail there as it got muddled in discussing the merit of Derrick Rose.

I disagree w/ "it didn't" because I think things should be done, and I'll make an effort to summarize those for you:

1. see if any RS gives uncuff time and add it
2. see if any RS gives other 2 officers' standup times and add them
3. introduce clearer anatomical positioning language (prone) already supported by RS
4. introduce clearer anatomical part language (shin) already supported by RS

Why I'm more rambly than the above 4 lines when making sections is I like to link to sources and quote them, which necessarily takes up more space, which is why I split them into sections as I separately thought of them.

Which part of WP:TALK do you think I should be focusing on in this review, aside from the obvious be concise at WP:TPYES ?

I believe I was abiding by the Use separate subsection headings to discuss multiple changes guideline, which aids in keeping what I want to say concise since those separate sections are shorter and more legible than if I were to just dump all 5 points into a single run-on section.

Comment on content, not on the contributor seems like a very good guideline here too, and I can't help but feel like the content of my proposals might be receiving less attention than it's clumsy wrappings. WakandaQT ( talk) 05:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

WakandaQT Okay, a lot to cover here. Your policy/guidelines questions first: One of the things you should be taking in at WP:TALK and pages it links to is how to indent on talk pages and the reasons it's considered very important. I've indented your post above for you to show you how it's done. More information at Help:Talk_pages#Indentation.

Re: separate subsections. Yes, we do separate discussions into separate sections. That doesn't mean you go into a talk page and open five sections because you've got five semi-related thoughts on minute details like using prone/facedown and knee/shin and knee, and how long the cuffs were on/officers were standing. You could have opened one section headed Minor Details.

Okay, now to the way you presented your proposal. You were rambling and writing in one-sentence paragraphs, which is just annoying. We use paragraphs for a reason: they tell other people which sentences form a complete thought. You can see I've grouped this post into paragraphs, and when I move on to the next point, I start a new one. They were also a lot of you wondering whether RS said anything about whatever. No one else is going to look up that answer for you. Go find out yourself. If you find that information in a reliable source, you can certainly bring it back and see if other people agree it belongs in the article, but I suspect other editors would conclude meh, for the same reason "shin and knee" was a meh: just because something is true doesn't mean it's noteworthy enough to include. Some things are just minutiae. Policy on that: WP:VNOT.

No one was arguing with you at that talk. A couple of people replied sincerely in your first couple of sections, but by the third section they were sounding annoyed, by the fourth they were making jokes, and the only response the fifth section got was "How effective ARE you finding it to open THREAD after THREAD of fragmented one-sentence paragraphs wondering things OUT LOUD?" That should have made it pretty clear your approach was not working.

You say the content of my proposals might be receiving less attention than its clumsy wrappings and people are free to TLDR. Well, yes, exactly. Both of those are why you need to learn to write short for your own sake: it will get more people to listen. But the problem for Wikipedia is that just the fact posts are on the page means someone is going to spend some amount of time on them. Volunteer time is our most precious and limited resource. Editors' time is already wasted at contentious articles because of all the other crap they have to deal with there. You do not want to be the person making that worse.

You're pretty new here. Wikipedia has a very steep learning curve. In addition to learning how to interact with other editors and how to write succinctly, there's policy. A contentious article is the absolute worst place to try to learn any of those things. I strongly advise you to edit somewhere else while you're learning. —valereee ( talk) 12:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I figure if we kept indenting indefinitely it'd get pretty big, it seems more important for conversations where it's more than 2 people than for 1-on-1 convos.

Not sure what you mean about semi-related thoughts except that they relate to an article and using accurate language, but they're still different issues potentially supported by different sources. The problem is I had several complete thoughts (paragraphs) about each separate issue, so there would be no clear division if grouped together.

What makes a true thing noteworthy is RS mention which was given for shin, and since "the back of the knee" is a thing it also makes it noteworthy to specify which side (front) lest people picture this as some kind of harmless Hogan leg drop.

No one was arguing with you at that talk

Perhaps you overlooked the instances?

1. Gobonobo insinuated it was OR after reverting an edit to remove the source I supplied, and asked me not to change the page.
2. Levivich insisted "all of the reliable sources say" facedown which I think insinuated a lack of support for 'prone' even though there was some

Or is "replied sincerely" some kind of code for "won't recognize disagreement as disagreement" ?

It's very apparent my sections weren't vandalism to anyone who does a quick skim (which spacing may aid with, it's harder for some to skim thick paragraphs) so it doesn't seem like a waste of time.

The thing about saying not to edit contentious articles is there's probably not as much to do on non-contentious ones because people will agree on changes, or there would be no need to use the talk page because there's not enough activity that you need to be worried about rapid reverts.

never want to intentionally disrupt valid inquiry, even if I think it's ultimately wrongheaded

I have reflected upon the "disruptive editing" warning you issued ("other editors" being yourself... they should have a singular first-person version of that warning template, perhaps?) for use of the word intimidation. In the narrow sense of "fear injury or harm" as defined on Wikipedia it clearly is not appropriate, but broader definition includes "deterring by threats" in which case issuing any threat of blocking a user is by that definition intimidation.

Your reply did not actually list the consequence, but you did use the term "disruptive" which I was aware via WP:DISRUPTIVE is a loaded term associated with block threats, as evidenced by your subsequent use of the "you may be blocked" template when I described the accusation-of-disruption as intimidation.

I would think a better way to avoid a sense of threat would be to not use vague buzz-terms like disruption and be more specific about the nature of objection. I would like to thank you for subsequently doing this in response to my request, and I hope this is something people can open with in the future when warning users because it builds a foundation of trust and understanding instead of paranoia and confusion.

If I could explain why I may have jumped to that subconsciously defensive/fearful state (feeling intimidated) it could have to do with EEng's use of five all-caps words (ARE / THREAD after THREAD / OUT LOUD) in his 7:23 reply, though upon re-examining my sections tonight I think I am calmer because it occurs to me that this might have been intended as a humorous jab of my own avoidable use of caps in my replies to Gobonobo at 5:09 ("contact as SHIN") and 6:37 ("it is not OR since").

When writing them the policy against caps did not come to mind though I subsequently noticed it and changed it to italics instead on some new ones I was writing. WakandaQT ( talk) 04:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

WakandaQT, when the convo gets too indented, we outdent a comment. Outdenting isn't needed in 99% of conversations, though. It is less important here in a convo with two, but it's still helpful as when we start a new point, we also outdent. Like this:

First point

first response to first point

second response to first point

response to second response

response to response to second response

response to response to response to second response

response to response to response to response to second response, outdented

response to outdented comment

Second point

So basically all of your one-sentence paragraphs above look like new points. —valereee ( talk) 15:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

—valereee ( talk) 15:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Gråbergs Gråa Sång, and to you! —valereee ( talk) 13:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	For stepping in to help an IP out with Template:Did you know nominations/LaVon Mercer. CMD ( talk) 14:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, thank you, Chipmunkdavis! :) —valereee ( talk) 15:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Valereee,

I hope that this is the way to reach you.

I have a wikipedia page that I believe you edited a couple months back, including leaving a note that reads "This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages) This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification. (September 2020) A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (September 2020)"

I would like to resolve whatever issues you think remain on the page, and also discuss with you the reasons for eliminating many of the entries.

I am not sure how to communicate with you, or if it is even possible. I will try to check back on this page.

Thanks, Harry Litman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.88.126.150 ( talk) 22:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey, Dr. Litman! Thanks for reaching out! So, when we're dealing with editors who have a conflict of interest, we ask that they post to the article talk page to request edits rather than editing directly. That allows Wikipedia to have a layer of scrutiny between the person involved and the article. If you go to the article talk page at Talk:Harry Litman and open a discussion section, I'll try to watch for it, although with 5000 articles on my watch, I can miss even things I'm watching for, so if for whatever reason I don't respond within a day or so, feel free to leave a message here to noodge me. :) —valereee ( talk) 22:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey back! I think I went to the right place -- a talk section on my page. I left a note -- doesn't cover everything I think b/c I don't have the old version, but does cover the things I noticed offhand. Thanks, Valeree — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.88.126.150 ( talk) 00:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Pasdecomplot ( talk) 15:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Please use WP:RUC for striking the comment. Pasdecomplot ( talk) 16:48, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot, sorry, what did I post that was a personal attack? —valereee ( talk) 17:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

NM, figured it out and struck, with apologies. —valereee ( talk) 18:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Lee Vilenski! And to you! —valereee ( talk) 18:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC)