User talk:Valereee/Archive 44

You blocked Nimmmad (talk · contribs) a few weeks ago - they are back and still at it. Time for indef? GiantSnowman 16:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe an indef from article space with a custom message, again hoping they'll see it? How do you feel about those for someone who has never edited a talk? I kind of like them, but I know some people don't. valereee (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, worth a try... GiantSnowman 20:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

You know how lost I am without Yoninah and I am hoping you can help me. I have worked up an article that I am planning to get through the GA nomination in time for International Women's Day on March 8th. At any rate, I always seem to have trouble with hooks. Since I won't have a lot of time as it needs both a GA and DYK review, I thought perhaps I could approach you before it is reviewed and get your take. Do you think this is interesting enough and has broad appeal? "DYK...that South African nurse, Stella Madzimbamuto, filed an appeal in 1968 with the British Privy Council on her husband's detention which resulted in the Rhodesian government being declared illegal?" "In consequence, the usurping government in Rhodesia is not a lawful government, and all its acts and decrees are invalid." p 95 It's right at 197 char and though it seems kind of long, I am not sure how I could shorten it. I thought it was interesting that she challenged the Rhodesian government, but she was South African. I also am not sure if the last word would be better as unlawful, though my thesaurus says illegal is a synonym, but I don't want to end up at errors, either. I totally understand if you don't have time or interest. Thanks! SusunW (talk) 22:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@SusunW, oh, I think that's totally interesting. I think I would go with unlawful, although for the quirky slot illegal might also work. For International Women's Day I would recommend nominating it asap. It looks like it's qualified for you to nom it today as a new creation? Do it! Totally happy to help you through the process.

To shorten...maybe

• ALT 0a ...that South African nurse Stella Madzimbamuto filed an appeal in 1968 which resulted in the Rhodesian government being declared illegal?

(That's without actually reading the article, so I don't know how important the deleted part of the hook is. But shorter tends to be better.) valereee (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay that was weird, my whole response went away. Thank you so much, I truly appreciate your input. I hadn't even thought about doing it before it was reviewed for GA. I'll see what I can do about a QPQ. I definitely want it for March 8th and I think, but I'm pretty OCD ;), that the British Privy Council is important and gives it even more of an "international" scope. SusunW (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

SusunW, if you think the part about the British Privy Council is important, definitely keep it! LMK when you've made the nom and I'll try to make time to review in the next day. Make sure in the comments to put the date request!

This would shorten it a bit:

... that South African nurse Stella Madzimbamuto's 1968 appeal with the British Privy Council on her husband's detention resulted in the Rhodesian government being declared illegal?

You could also remove the part about her husband's detention to make it shorter, and still keep the BPC:

... that South African nurse Stella Madzimbamuto's 1968 appeal with the British Privy Council resulted in the Rhodesian government being declared illegal? valereee (talk) 13:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

It's here Template:Did you know nominations/Stella Madzimbamuto if you want to review it. Or if you want to just bookmark it to keep an eye out, that's fine too. Totally appreciate your help. SusunW (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Looking at your edits here, I think you meant to lift the block on that user but forgot to do so. Looks like they also have one more outstanding unblock request from last month. --Yamla (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I feel like I'm getting worse at this instead of better lol... valereee (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

 

On 14 February 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Amish in Ohio, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the population of Holmes County, Ohio, is approximately 50 percent Amish? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Amish in Ohio. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Amish in Ohio), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 6,223 views (518.5 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of February 2022 – nice work!

Bruxton (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

• AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
• The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

  An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Michelle Davis (blogger) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 17#Michelle Davis (blogger) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/The Links is now in prep 1 for February 28. Please let me know if you want an earlier date and I can do some switching. SL93 (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@SL93, thanks so much! Feb 28 is fine! Actually if it couldn't have gone into Feb, that would have been fine, too, but I appreciate it getting slotted when it was so late! valereee (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

You marked the as under review a goodly while ago. Just a nudge 😇 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 14:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Timtrent, ugh, thank you! I had completely forgotten! I'll set up a w-ping for myself! valereee (talk) 14:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

~giggles~ Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 14:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red Mar 2022, Vol 8, Issue 3, Nos 214, 217, 222, 223, 224, 225 Online events: New: Women's History Month Art+Activism | Feminism and Folklore | Dutch Caribbean Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman | Women in sport (Feb/Mar) Other ways to participate: Encourage someone to become a WiR member this month by registering in the box at the top of our main page. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media:   Facebook |   Instagram |   Pinterest |   Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

 

On 28 February 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Links, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that members of The Links, an elite organization of upper-class Black women, include Betty Shabazz, Marian Wright Edelman (pictured), and Kamala Harris? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Links. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, The Links), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2022).

Administrator changes   Modussiccandi   BOZ • Brookie (deceased) • Jackmcbarn • Jamesday • Jonathunder • Master of Puppets • Saravask

CheckUser changes   Callanecc   Oversighter changes   Callanecc

  Guideline and policy news

• A RfC is open to change the wording of revision deletion criterion 1 to remove the sentence relating to non-infringing contributions.
• A RfC is open to discuss prohibiting draftification of articles over 90 days old.

  Technical news

• The deployment of the reply tool as an opt-out feature, as announced in last month's newsletter, has been delayed to 7 March. Feedback and comments are being welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project. (T296645)
• Special:Nuke will now allow the selection of standard deletion reasons to be used when mass-deleting pages. This was a Community Wishlist Survey request from 2022. (T25020)
• The ability to undelete the talk page when undeleting a page using Special:Undelete or the API will be added soon. This change was requested in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey. (T295389)

  Arbitration

• Several unused discretionary sanctions and article probation remedies have been rescinded. This follows the community feedback from the 2021 Discretionary Sanctions review.

  Miscellaneous

• The 2022 appointees for the Ombuds commission are Érico, Faendalimas, Galahad, Infinite0694, Mykola7, Olugold, Udehb and Zabe as regular members and Ameisenigel and JJMC89 as advisory members.
• Following the 2022 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AntiCompositeNumber, BRPever, Hasley, TheresNoTime, and Vermont.
• The 2022 Community Wishlist Survey results have been published alongside the ranking of prioritized proposals.

Hello, Valereee. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome!

And so ends the first round of the WikiCup. Last year anyone who scored more than zero points moved on to Round 2, but this was not the case this year, and a score of 13 or more was required to proceed. The top scorers in Round 1 were:

•   Epicgenius, a finalist last year, who led the field with 1906 points, gained from 32 GAs and 19 DYKs, all on the topic of New York buildings.
•   AryKun, new to the contest, was second with 1588 points, having achieved 2 FAs, 11 GAs and various other submissions, mostly on the subject of birds.
•   Bloom6132, a WikiCup veteran, was in third place with 682 points, garnered from 51 In the news items and several DYKs.
•   GhostRiver was close behind with 679 points, gained from achieving 12 GAs, mostly on ice hockey players, and 35 GARs.
•   Kavyansh.Singh was in fifth place with 551 points, with an FA, a FL, and many reviews.
•   SounderBruce was next with 454 points, gained from an FA and various other submissions, mostly on United States highways.
•   Ktin, another WikiCup veteran, was in seventh place with 412 points, mostly gained from In the news items.

These contestants, like all the others who qualified for Round 2, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews of a large number of good articles as the contest ran concurrently with a GAN backlog drive. Well done all! To qualify for Round 3, contestants will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two participants.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Anything that should have been claimed for in Round 1 is no longer eligible for points. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

And so ends the first round of the WikiCup. Last year anyone who scored more than zero points moved on to Round 2, but this was not the case this year, and a score of 13 or more was required to proceed. The top scorers in Round 1 were:

•   Epicgenius, a finalist last year, who led the field with 1906 points, gained from 32 GAs and 19 DYKs, all on the topic of New York buildings.
•   AryKun, new to the contest, was second with 1588 points, having achieved 2 FAs, 11 GAs and various other submissions, mostly on the subject of birds.
•   Bloom6132, a WikiCup veteran, was in third place with 682 points, garnered from 51 In the news items and several DYKs.
•   GhostRiver was close behind with 679 points, gained from achieving 12 GAs, mostly on ice hockey players, and 35 GARs.
•   Kavyansh.Singh was in fifth place with 551 points, with an FA, a FL, and many reviews.
•   SounderBruce was next with 454 points, gained from an FA and various other submissions, mostly on United States highways.
•   Ktin, another WikiCup veteran, was in seventh place with 412 points, mostly gained from In the news items.

These contestants, like all the others who qualified for Round 2, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews of a large number of good articles as the contest ran concurrently with a GAN backlog drive. Well done all! To qualify for Round 3, contestants will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two participants.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Anything that should have been claimed for in Round 1 is no longer eligible for points. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

 

Category:Vegan fine dining restaurants in the United States has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I wanted to prevent a certain article from being deleted as I consider it very important to remain open. Can you help me in how I can contribute to ensure it remains online? This one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marina_Ovsyannikova --Chveiga (talk) 22:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

 

On 20 March 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lillian Eichler Watson, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Lillian Eichler Watson created "Again She Orders – 'A Chicken Salad, Please'" (pictured) to advertise her 1921 Book of Etiquette? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lillian Eichler Watson. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Lillian Eichler Watson), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red Apr 2022, Vol 8, Issue 4, Nos 214, 217, 226, 227, 228 Online events: New: Gender studies | French overseas territories New Contest (Apr/May/Jun): Translation contest Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman Other ways to participate: Encourage someone to become a WiR member this month by registering in the box at the top of our main page. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media:   Facebook |   Instagram |   Pinterest |   Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

  The Wikipedia Library

 

Books & Bytes
Issue 49, January – February 2022

• New library collections
• Blog post published detailing technical improvements

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi valereee, just wanted to follow up on User talk:L235/Archive 16 § uninvolved statements – apologies for the delay. Community statements are very important to me, but in many circumstances, statements do not meaningfully contribute. There was a fairly high share of those unhelpful statements at the case request in question, as you're probably able to see. (I wasn't trying to call anyone out in my note! I was just trying to set better expectations for what would be most impactful in the future.) I don't personally treat statements at ARC as a good reflection of community consensus unless the sentiment is truly overwhelming, because that is a very skewed sample; instead, statements are most helpful when they help us contextualize the dispute or provide more information that we had not considered. Hope this resolves your concern but happy to talk more. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• (Non-relevant comment) but IMHO Beeblebrox had the best line of that case  :) SN54129 16:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

@L235, it wasn't so much that it was a concern as that I wasn't sure I was interpreting correctly. I do get that the most helpful statements are those that address something that hasn't been touched on rather than saying the same things everyone else has said, totally. And that there's the arbcom case statement equivalent of silly questions at RfA, which I've expressed my own frustration over. :D But, well...how would the committee be aware that a sentiment was truly overwhelming if people don't comment? We ask everyone to comment in their own section, so we're actively discouraging people from just dropping a +1 under someone else's statement. Er, not implying I have an answer. :D valereee (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2022).

Administrator changes   Firefly • Sdrqaz   Ad Orientem   Geschichte • Ryan Postlethwaite • Sabine's Sunbird • Wassupwestcoast

Interface administrator changes   Evad37

  Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open proposing a change to the minimum activity requirements for administrators.

  Technical news

• Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)
• When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)

  Arbitration

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Opening of proceedings has been updated to reflect current practice following a motion.
• A arbitration case regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing has been closed.
• A arbitration case regarding WikiProject Tropical Cyclones has been opened.

  Miscellaneous

• Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines has closed, and the results were that 56.98% of voters supported the guidelines. The results of this vote mean the Wikimedia Foundation Board will now review the guidelines.