User talk:Valereee/Archive 27

Hi, you blocked this user User talk:T5r4e3wnc for persistent vandalism. I think they have resurfaced under these profiles User talk:Pformenti and Special:Contributions/212.86.42.213 - apologies if I haven't linked them properly.

While the Pformenti account is two years old, they only began posting regularly after the T4r4e3wnc/Yellow-billed Loon account got banned. The T4r4e3wnc account previously targeted the pages Dasha Nekrasova and Red Scare (podcast) repeatedly with bad faith nominations for deletion, and Pformenti has once again submitted the Dasha Nekrasova page for deletion using the same language (but have messed up the formatting, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dasha Nekrasova (3rd nomination)). They've also been vandalising this page Thunder Road (2018 film) by repeatedly removing the reception section without warning, and their other contributions on various political pages seem a little suspect. What do you think? Pinchofhope (talk) 07:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Pinchofhope, it certainly looks possible, but I'm not expert in detecting socks. I think I'd go to WP:SPI with it and ask a checkuser to take a look. I did warn the user for the blanking at Thunder Road. That's just weird. —valereee (talk) 12:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Pardon my saying, but for an administrator, you sure take liberties with our rules. It's a waste of time for a reviewer to review a hook without a QPQ; I'm surprised this editor chose to do so. Next time, please list your nomination properly, including QPQ, and ask that it be held for a while until you can locate a picture. We do that often. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 20:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, I'd argue that it's only a waste of time for a reviewer to review a hook without a QPQ if there's a likelihood the QPQ won't be forthcoming. I was surprised to have it reviewed so quickly without one, too, and I'd have preferred not to have it reviewed at all until I had a photo, as for this article the photo makes the hook. I didn't see any harm in slowing the roll until we figured out whether a photo was going to happen, but if it's something that causes a problem for you I certainly wouldn't want to do it. I've provided the QPQ, which of course I would have done regardless. —valereee (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

... my ping from Wikipedia:Teahouse#Is_replacing_a_TfD_template_with_a_different_non-TfD_one_ok_-_or_not?? I conflicted with the bot and it was all kinds of mess; I didn't get the notification I get when a ping is successfully sent. So, I need to know whether to resend them. Hope this finds you well, and best regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:16, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Usedtobecool, I did not! —valereee (talk) 11:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- See section "Pasdecomplot continued WP:OR and other conduct problems" CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

CaradhrasAiguo, thank you, I'd seen what was happening on PDC's talk. I'll watch at ANI, but frankly that editor decided I have some sort of grudge against them, so unfortunately I don't think my weighing in would be productive for anyone. I'd really hoped that getting them out of contentious current events would give them a chance to learn how to be useful. —valereee (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I had not noticed that El C has been inactive for more than 48 hours, but, as I outlined to him, I believe PdC's last edit at 11th Panchen Lama controversy (about Gedhun Choekyi Nyima) is a violation of their BLP topic ban in place until 29 Sep. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 23:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

CaradhrasAiguo, hm, I'm not sure we can expect Pasdecomplot to see that, since as of now there is no BLP banner on that article talk. I do actually think you're right, though, so for now I'm going to put that banner there. —valereee (talk) 10:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

The page is not BLP but WP "Category: Biographies without living parameters". The process for page protection is here [1] and WP:CON is needed. The policies do not mention an administrator adding a note as a form of officially changing a page's category. So, yes, I did not "see" that. Hum. (cc @El_C ) Pasdecomplot (talk) 13:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot, answered at your talk. —valereee (talk) 13:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

		The Veganism and Vegetarianism Barnstar
		Thank you for your contributions to the visibility of vegan and vegetarian historical developments on Wikipedia! MaynardClark (talk) 17:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Maynard! —valereee (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, and thanks for merging two similar pages which is painstaking work.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarnon (talk • contribs)

You're more than welcome, and thanks for doing that kind of helpful gnomish work! —valereee (talk) 15:44, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

 

On 16 September 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jackie Summers, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Jackie Summers (pictured) quit his corporate job to pursue a "lifelong dream of day-drinking professionally"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jackie Summers. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Jackie Summers), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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) 12:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Wow! Another record views! I'm glad I put it in the lead slot! Congratulations, Yoninah (talk) 17:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Yoninah, Right? I thought the 'lifelong dream of day-drinking professionally' might be a winner lol. Plus I think that selfie's a killer, he just looks like a guy having a ton of fun. Thanks! —valereee (talk) 17:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not so smart. I picked up on the reviewer's comment that he looks like a pretty fun guy. Our readers agree! Yoninah (talk) 18:02, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

(I'm laughing, not blaming) I didn't know leaving the link to RBG's death on the ITN blurb would lead to AfD bureaucracy.—Bagumba (talk) 09:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba, I didn't either lol...when I saw that, it was with a bit of chagrin, as I'm sure someone out there thinks it must have been deliberate sneakiness on the part of yet another US editor. —valereee (talk) 10:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

What else are you going to backdoor?—Bagumba (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba, I'm keeping a dead pool and drafting up Death of articles. As soon as the next notable American dies, I'm going to try to replicate this process. I'm thinking it only takes three successful campaigns to set precedent. —valereee (talk) 10:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Chickens come home to roost. Even their former subjects Australia, Hong Kong and India won't protect US-WP EN-WP while they sleep. Moohaha.—Bagumba (talk) 10:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Women in Red | October 2020, Volume 6, Issue 10, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 179 Online events: Annual Ada Lovelace Day celebration: Women in STEM Contest (Oct-Nov-Dec): Women in Asia Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman | BLM/Anti-discrimination Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications Social media:   Facebook |   Instagram |   Pinterest |   Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Thank you for touching bases on my Talk page. And, thank you for your article references to Abbie Conant. What an amazing story! Yes, there is racism and sexism in classical music today. We should work on these topics together! Maryphillips1952 (talk) 22:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

• The Occupational Sexism article has Sexism in Academia heading. What do you think about adding heading Sexism in Classical Music and linking Abbie Conant to this section at some point? Maryphillips1952 (talk) 23:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Maryphillips1952, yes, I think the sources at Abbie Conant would support that, and in fact that's a good way to see if the subject warrants an entire article: Add that section, start expanding it from the Conant sources, and start looking for other instances that could be included. At some point it may have enough content to split it off into its own article. You really only need enough content that the original article's balance is starting to be affected negatively because of the weight being placed in the section. —valereee (talk) 11:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I think someone removed ==Sexism in Academia== from Occupational Sexism section of the article. Not really sure what to do. I want to clarify...Do I create a new heading in the article == Sexism in Classical Music == and add a

See also: Abbie Conant

link? Then, editors can begin to fill in? Maryphillips1952 (talk) 16:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

It's still there. Yes, create a section, perhaps below Sexism in Academia, and you can probably just copy the lead+sources from the Abbie Conant article. In your edit summary, note that you copied content/sources from Abbie Conant. That's allowed, but you have to attribute it so that we have a complete edit history. —valereee (talk) 18:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Impeachment Articles against Mike DeWine, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impeachment Articles against Mike DeWine until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your help to find and upload photos.Maryphillips1952 (talk) 00:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Maryphillips1952, you're welcome! Do be cautious about possible copyright violations. If you find a photo that looks to you like it's out of copyright but you aren't absolutely sure, you can ask a question at teahouse and provide a link to where you found it. There are people there who are expert. —valereee (talk) 11:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Great idea! I will ask through the Teahouse site. Maryphillips1952 (talk) 13:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

what in the birthday celebration that was at 8am in the morning what in tarnation is wrong with you, and yes u did dmake mistake kind person P10n3rr (talk) 11:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

P10n3rr, sorry, not following? —valereee (talk) 11:43, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

It's about your revert, which seems perfectly reasonable to me. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Had an off-wiki request complaining that patty isn't a very good article. As you're a food and drink article enthusiasts, maybe you can advise what to do? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Ritchie333, yeah, that's a pretty sad article. I was actually wondering if we even really needed it, but it does get over 200 daily views. I'll take a look! —valereee (talk) 11:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Cheers, I've worked out it's Smirkybec who'd like us to have better food and drink articles, which I'm in agreement with. I don't have much in the way of sources, I learned to cook from Delia Smith's Complete Cookery Course, Madhur Jaffrey's Indian Cookery (copy destroyed by practical demonstrations of recipes in it landing on the pages too often) and guesswork, none of which really provide any substance to be able to write encyclopedia articles. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:24, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Hey all! I'm going to take a look at it in about half an hour as part of a Twitch live stream :) I'm going to focus on the Irish variants - the batter and spice burgers, so in doing that I might overhaul the structure a bit and add a few headings. Looking forward to seeing an improved article at the end! Smirkybec (talk) 11:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Smirkybec, no kidding! Is that something anyone can join in on? —valereee (talk) 11:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

With the pandemic/lockdown, I have been using Twitch as a form of Wiki outreach for our user group here in Ireland, Wikimedia Community Ireland. The idea of that newbies or anyone with an interest in editing can follow along or learn new things as I edit. My Twitch is here (going live now!) and some of the better or foundational videos are also up on our YouTube :) Smirkybec (talk) 12:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Ritchie333, I'd like us to have better food and drink articles, too. Hey, I destroyed my copy of Jaffrey's World of the East Vegetarian the same way! And looking at Jaffrey's article, I have to say...some of those cookbooks are probably notable, and yet not one is even redlinked. UGH.

Well, the bright side of editing about food and drink is that there's still tons of stuff to create articles about and I almost never have to argue with anyone. I feel kind of sorry for the sporty guys. I've seen them over there debating about when it's appropriate to create 2052 Wonderball Cup Finals. —valereee (talk) 11:54, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Valereee it is looking great now, thanks so much! Fantastic and very swift work! Smirkybec (talk) 14:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Smirkybec, thanks! I feel like there's still a ton of stuff to do -- really would probably be good to link to as many examples as can be found of foods described as ground or chopped ingredients formed into a disc. Also need to get Chicken patty sorted -- it's a redirect to turnover (food), where it's only mentioned once and that mention is a redirect to Cuisine of the Indian subcontinent, where it isn't even mentioned, AND in the US a chicken patty is a patty formed of ground chicken which is breaded. —valereee (talk) 15:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Valereee! Thanks for asking for community input regarding the Paul Elias Alexander DYK. I do think we have a neutral hook for him, but it's good to double check for other people's reactions before it hits the main page. (It could have been worse; we could have said something like "...that Paul Alexander was fired from HHS for exerting political pressure and interference on United States health agencies?" which would have been perfectly accurate.) Along the same line of thinking, I'm not even going to try to propose a DYK for my new article Trump administration political interference with science agencies. I can't imagine any way to write a non-controversial hook for that one. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN, I'm having a hard time thinking of anything neutral to say about anything Trump has ever touched lol —valereee (talk) 16:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).

 

  Administrator changes

  Ajpolino • LuK3

  Jackmcbarn

  Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM

  There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime

  Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely 1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created.

  Technical news

• The filter log now provides links to view diffs of deleted revisions (phab:T261630).

  Arbitration

• The 2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place from September 27th to October 7th.
• Following a request for comment, sitting Committee members may not serve on either the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee. The Arbitration Committee passed a motion implementing those results into their procedures.

  Miscellaneous

• The Universal Code of Conduct draft is open for community review and comment until October 6th, 2020.
• Office actions may now be appealed to the Interim Trust & Safety Case Review Committee.

Hi Valereee. I hope this finds you well. You very kindly come and had a look last time I suffered a bullying issue, so I'm letting you know about this one too. I hope you don't mind? Please see the edit history of Cherryl Fountain and its talk page. The main thing that worries me is that although I always fix up the talk page with wikiproject banners soon after publishing an article, this time the bully decided to reprimand me and insult me because they managed to get in first and add the wikiproject banners to the talk page within 35 mins of me publishing the article. They did that while I was still fixing the What Links Here aspect, so I hadn't had a chance to fix up the talkpage yet. Surely it's not a WP offence to delay fixing the talkpage more than 35 mins after publishing an article? They have been removing whole sections or paragraphs without discussion, too, although at the very least that action should have been done following discussion. That kind of rudeness does cause a lot of distress, especially as a lot of editors have been in isolation for a long time now, and isolation makes people more vulnerable to the effects of online bullying. It is time that these bullies gave it a rest. So I'd be most grateful if you'd just glance over it? Thanks. Storye book (talk) 20:03, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@Storye book: Sorry if you feel that way, but this is not bullying at all. I pointed out numerous problems with your article after you challenged one of my good edits. I queried that you hold the autopatrolled bit, as you had so many errors in the published article (11 errors by my count) and for two reasons in particular: the article massively puffs up her importance, and it also included a large section called "rural influences" that is original research. Articles by autopatrolled editors should not require any corrections or review. I'm sorry if you are offended, but these are valid criticisms.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I have already explained on the talk page that you completely misunderstood the influences section. If you had discussed it before hurling accusations of OR and so on, that would have been no problem. You thought that it meant that the artist looked at those old Wikimedia Commons images from Geograph etc., and painted pictures in response to those actual pictures. And you thought that I had "made up" that nonsense which was only in your own head. It goes like this. 1. The artist lives in a rural location in Kent. 2. She creates pictures of rural subjects. 3. Many of our readers don't know what rural Kent (specifically Sandwich and Badlesmere) look like, so I put those pictures there for those readers. If you had discussed it in the normal way, I could have removed the pictures myself. They were only there for context. It looks to me that your main motive is less to improve the article and more to bully me. And saying "Sorry if you feel that way" is not an apology. It's just a way of saying that you believe I have done wrong by being upset by your insults. So give it a rest and STOP talking to me. Storye book (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

you've been calling me a bully and other names on this page and the article talk page. I have not called you any names as I do not do that. I have merely pointed out editing problems in your work in reply to your name calling. Do not be surprised if I reply to such uncalled for personal attacks. I would suggest retracting your personal attacks and sticking to the editing facts.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

ThatMontrealIP, why don't you give article creators a chance to get the article the way they want it instead of going in for heavy editing the minute they move it to article space and while they're still actively working on it? I'd be quite annoyed if you pulled that on me, frankly. None of the things you called out as defects are a defect, especially in an article that is only half an hour old. Autopatrolled just means we think you're experienced and well-intentioned enough that we can trust you won't create stuff that obviously should be deleted. —valereee (talk) 13:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Valereee. Please would you kindly give me advice on what to do. On the talk page of the above article, the BLP tag says, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous." I don't know about the "libellous," but there is material in the Discussion section which is contentious, potentially offensive, and unsourced: "backdrops ... routine and unimportant;" "28 editions of the Royal Academy Summer Exhibition ... It's a small accomplishment that does not particularly represent critical recognition.; "it is pretty clear that she's a more or less run of the mill painter." I had archived the discussion to prevent that belittling of the living subject of the biography, so that it was no longer "in your face". I announced my reasons on the same talk page before I did it. However that archiving has now been reverted. The BLP tag says that we must delete the contentious and unsourced material about the living subject of the biography. However if the archiving was reverted, I'm afraid that deleting the above insults would be reverted too. I really don't want to be associated with an article which has insults to the subject of the biography on its talk page. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 20:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Storye book, sorry, had a busy couple of days. The problem is you didn't communicate -- you didn't explain yourself at all. Usually if you're going to archive a current discussion in under seven days from the most recent post, it's best to post your reasoning as the final post first, and on that discussion. Otherwise it looks like you could be trying to close the disucssion prematurely, or even to hide something, which is what the other editor thought, according to their edit summary. I think if you'd posted "I'd like to archive this because I'm concerned about contentious stuff being written about a living person that could be potentially hurtful to another human being," then maybe waited a day to see if there was a response, then archived, you'd probably have been okay. Yes, if you believe something is libel -- which I'm not sure this rises to, IMO it's hurtful but not actually libel, but obviously it is at minimum contentious -- you can redact the words you object to by simply replacing them with something like <redacted> and leaving a clear edit summary but it would be better if you posted that first, too, and waited a day. Honestly, communication is the answer here. The other editor is not ill-intentioned. —valereee (talk) 09:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice, Valereee. I agree that it is not libellous, and I have said that, above. I agree that it's potentially hurtful to belittle a living person's life work. It was in a discussion about notability, but the notability question has now been resolved by adding the Collections section in the article, giving appropriate evidence of notability. So that particular judgmental wording is no longer needed. Storye book (talk) 10:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Update. I have given notice in the manner that you suggested, on the talk page. Storye book (talk) 13:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: I have now replaced, expanded and improved the article Cherryl Fountain. I have opened a discussion regarding further improvement on the talkpage. I am hoping that the article will now remain sufficiently stable and and in good condition for the DYK process. Storye book (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Storye book, great! —valereee (talk) 16:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Valereee,

It looks like you updated this queue. I'm concerned about including the Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court nomination hook. It is clearly election related. WP:DYKHOOK prohibits candidate-related articles, but IMHO this violates the spirit, if not the letter. Would you mind replacing it, and doing whatever we need to do to postpone until after the election? If you agree with that reasoning, I think we can just leave it there, if you disagree, I'll open a thread at WT:DYK to get more opinions, because admittedly I'm out on a limb here. Let me know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, I'd been worried about that, too. I looked at the DYK nom, and that question was part of the discussion. I was thinking of bringing it up tomorrow at DYK talk, but please feel free to bring it up there yourself, I'm a bit out of pocket this evening! —valereee (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Definitely concur that the hook needs to be postponed until after the election. We should not be running any hook related to current US politics while the campaign is live. IMHO the white house covid outbreak should have been deferred too,as even that has political undercurrents.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi valereee,

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I wasn't aware that Derek Chauvin's wife's name was to remain anonymous. I'll be sure to look back at the archives for better context on this.

Wiscipidier (talk) 14:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)Wiscipidier

Wiscipidier, no worries, and thanks! —valereee (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Leaving the assessment on WP:HOUND on this one to others, but despite having no prior history at Chinese unification (or its talk), after I left a warning for this nonsensical removal, Vallee01 proceeds to remark (Bogus warning...Always acting in bad faith). What triggered a notification was this flippant NOTHERE accusation, which frightened me for a split second as their handle bears a slight resemblance to yours. [EDIT]: Saw the vacation notice. Have a nice, COVID-free return to your usual location. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 05:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey Valereee. I’m Doggy54321. I have some questions about edit warring/3RR that have come up in the past couple days. Now, I know you’re an admin and I also know that we aren’t exactly strangers, so you seemed like the perfect person to come to.

Just to note: Please don’t block me for this. I am opening up and being vulnerable. Please take the time to answer my questions and consider my wrongdoings a mistake, just this once.

Anyways, I was going thru my contributions page today and I realized that I might have broken the 3RR on some pages. I was reverting unsourced material. Now, I was also reading the guidelines at WP:EW, and something didn’t click. Why isn’t reverting unsourced content not considered an exemption from 3RR??? Reverting unsourced adds was precisely what got me blocked for 72h a couple days ago, and I remember being so frustrated because I was trying to be the bigger person and trying to do the best for Wikipedia. So...the rule doesn’t make sense. If unsourced content isn’t welcome on Wikipedia, why can removing it make you subject to 3RR? I’ve reverted about ten unsourced edits to the same page today alone (Little Mix The Search, to be exact), and it doesn’t make sense why I am now in jeopardy to get blocked for reverting 3RR two times over, and some.

If you could please answer this question, it would make my life a lot easier. Thank you so much! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 21:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey, Doggy54321, first, don't worry about being blocked by any admin for inadvertently violating 3RR. We block to keep the edit-warring from continuing, never to punish. Reverting unsourced content isn't enough to go on -- if it was, for instance, unsourced content supporting a violation of our biographies of living persons policy -- say, an edit that might be controversial information about that person -- it definitely doesn't count in 3RR. Anyone can revert that at any time, even if it was 10 reverts. For instance if someone wrote "Bob Smith abuses small children." You can revert that 'til the cows come home; just also in the meantime go report it at WP:AIV so some admin can come in and help.

I've more or less gone offline for the day, so I'm not going to take a deep dive into the edits you're giving me diffs for now. I'll take a look tomorrow, though. In the meantime feel free to ask any followup questions, and please don't ever be afraid of asking questions of me or any other experienced editor. We seriously don't want that, ever. Our policy is very clear that blocking is not to be punitive. It's to be preventive. If I block someone to punish them, I'm in trouble. —valereee (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank gosh. I’ve seen you’ve been taking a vacation, so I was surprised you responded this quick. I’m glad I won’t be blocked. Thank you for responding! I will keep that in mind in case anyone reports me to WP:ANEW for reverting unsourced content. If you could try to intervene at Little Mix The Search, anytime, I’d appreciate it. A bunch of IPs are adding unsourced bull, and I’m tired of reverting it, I’m about to report to WP:RFPP. Thank you for all your help, have a great day/night!! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 22:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Doggy54321, so I took a look at the article, and there are actually multiple things to unpack here.

So the first is that while Wikipedia doesn't want unsourced content, that doesn't necessarily mean it should always be removed. If it's content that is likely true and isn't controversial, and you know where to find a source and are willing to do so, add a source! That's the best thing to do. If you can't provide a source yourself (or simply don't want to; no one expects you to go research something you have zero interest in) just mark it with a {{cn}} tag, which produces^{[citation needed]}.

If you suspect the unsourced content might not true but appears to be a good faith addition, remove it with a careful edit summary and open a talk section, ping the other editor, and ask about it. You can't ping an IP, but you can leave a message on their talk. But the simple fact it's unsourced is not grounds to edit-war.

If it's clearly vandalism, and especially on a BLP, remove it. If it's controversial and you have to remove it twice, or if you take a look at the editor's contributions and see they're making multiple such edits, go to WP:AIV and report it.

And as I've said above, if it's unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about a living person, remove it, keep removing it, and ask for help. No one will block you for good-faith removals of this type, and if someone did, you'd likely be unblocked quickly with an apology as soon as they realized what you'd been trying to do.

Okay, so the next thing is how we handle television shows, books, movies, other creative works. When we're describing simple facts about what happens in a plot or who appears in a reality episode, the show or book or movie itself becomes the source, within reason -- you can find more information at Wikipedia:Television episodes, and there's also a wikiproject at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television where you can find more advice; television shows are not something I've edited except to fix typos and such. I just did a couple spot checks, but it looks like what those IPs were adding was just the people who appeared on the show, etc.? You can leave those, and you probably don't even have to mark them as citation needed unless you believe the information is incorrect. Again, I'm not an expert in how we handle tv shows, but that's my general understanding. So, yes, these kinds of removals would violate 3RR if you remove the same or basically same material more than three times in a 24-hour period. But don't worry, if you've done that, no one is going to block you for it as long as you don't keep doing it now that you understand. —valereee (talk) 11:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

So, mark with a cn tag if it’s probably true, source it if you’re interested, remove all cases of vandalism on BLP and report to AIV, talk it out on the talk page, and ask for help when needed, correct?

The IP who keeps adding back is a) messing up the order that is very clearly stated in the source and b) they are kind of swerving off NPOV and not using professional language. I’m in the same boat as you, all I’ve seen is Netflix descriptions in Wikipedia articles...maybe I could take a look at sources provided and see if they offer summaries, and then put that into my own words and add it in??? Just a thought.

Thanks so much!!! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 11:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Doggy54321, totally. Also consider leaving a kindly message of welcome on the IP's talk, maybe encourage them to register an account to make communication easier. Do you have Twinkle enable? It's very helpful with that, let me know if you're interested. —valereee (talk) 11:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I don’t, I edit on an iPad and for some reason it never works. I’ll try to welcome them though. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 11:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, you now have 3 bios in a row. I think you were supposed to swap with a non-bio U.S. hook. Maybe swap instead with the Cleveland School fire hook from Prep 1. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 12:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Yoninah, dammit —valereee (talk) 12:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, make sure I didn't do something stupid! —valereee (talk) 12:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Both sets look great. Thanks! Yoninah (talk) 13:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Valereee, I was looking at Jenny Bui (a subject that is not of the remotest interest to me) because I moved a prep set into the queue. I was struck by the interesting image of Bui's salon and, looking at it closer, was amazed to see that you had taken the photograph. It is a fascinating glimpse into a salon under Covid conditions, with masks and plexigrass screens. Congratulations. Do your nails look like those illustrated in the article? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth, my nails are short and unpolished. :) The subject isn't of the remotest interest to me, either, and I'm not sure how Bui even came across my radar screen, but when she did, I realized she was probably notable, and I knew the average enwiki editor would have little interest in a nail artist, and I hate seeing a notable woman not covered. Those damn photos represent a 2-hour detour, the whole point of which was a photo of blinged-out nails. Bui is not a good communicator, lol —valereee (talk) 11:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I also noticed this image and thought it was very good. Though I've always used SLRs, your IPhone picture is quite clear and sharp. Great angle, too! Yoninah (talk) 13:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Just got a new phone, an iPhone 11 pro (the one with three lenses) and I'm really impressed with the increase in quality over my previous, which was an iPhone 7. I'm not much of a photographer, but even I can tell the difference. I'm actually considering getting an inexpensive lightbox setup to see how it changes things like photos of food. Most of mine are pretty dreary. —valereee (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for your work to keep Black Lives Matter as a Good Article. I was disappointed to see that it was nominated for reassessment when it appeared it was being held to a higher degree of standards than other GAs. Mkdw talk 18:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Mkdw, that's so kind! —valereee (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Women in Red | November 2020, Volume 6, Issue 11, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 180, 181 Online events: New: Textile arts | Stage+Screen+Radio+Podcast Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman | BLM/Anti-discrimination Contest (Oct-Nov-Dec): Women in Asia Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications Social media:   Facebook |   Instagram |   Pinterest |   Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

 

On 29 October 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jenny Bui, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that designs by nail artist Jenny Bui have become part of Cardi B's signature look? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jenny Bui. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Jenny Bui), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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) 00:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:52, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Aw, thanks, Gerda Arendt! You're a great Wikipedian. —valereee (talk) 23:11, 30 October 2020 (UTC)