Jump to content

User talk:Valereee

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

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

Gourmand Cookbook Award

[edit]

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

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

Thank You

[edit]

I want to thank you for you level-headed contributions, counsel and insight on my talk page discussion. I mean well but when I get frustrated I can go to place which isn't healthy. I appreciate you. MaskedSinger (talk) 13:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, MS, and you're welcome for whatever help I gave. Valereee (talk) 16:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also commend you for de-escalating that block admirably. Andre🚐 17:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Andrevan. Valereee (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Can I ask you something. I would appreciate your advice. MaskedSinger (talk) 16:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, go ahead. Valereee (talk) 20:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I came across a law firm in the news and was thinking of creating an article for them. I looked them up and they appear to satisfy notability.
So far so good.
I looked up the founder of the firm and he has a Wiki article - problem is that it has an undisclosed paid tag on it which comes from the creating editor being part of a sock puppet ring.
The problem with a sock puppet ring is that it infects anything that comes in contact with it so is it a problem for me to create the article for the law firm? MaskedSinger (talk) 06:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a problem if they do satisfy notability requirements. The sockpuppetry is only a problem if it moves over to the new article. Valereee (talk) 13:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks! MaskedSinger (talk) 20:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tea with milk nationalism

[edit]

Hi Valeree, various IPs are putting Singapore in and out of the "country" field at Teh tarik. I was wondering if I could pull on your expertise as to what the 'right' answer is, given the tea is older than both countries. The article says teh tarik originated near rubber plantations, of which there were some in Singapore. I really don't think anyone was tracking the culinary habits of the labourers to know if one plantation beat others to the idea of pouring tea a bit more dramatically. List both? CMD (talk) 01:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, CMD! Hm, that article seems to have a lot of issues. I'll see if I can't spend some time on it today! Thanks, always happy to go take a look at foods that are important outside the core anglosphere! Valereee (talk) 11:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
English is the main language of Singapore! CMD (talk) 12:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
lol I actually thought about that and checked...it's not core Anglosphere! It's apparently "middle" Anglosphere. New terms for me. :D Valereee (talk) 12:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes I think academics just make stuff up! I am close to taking genuine issue with that map, where Belize is core anglosphere while Singapore is not. I have now looked up the James Bennet book, and Belize gets one mention: "Caribbean blacks are accustomed to multilayered identifications as citizens of their unique island communities (a strong identity typically under- estimated by outsiders), as blacks, and as English speakers. The latter is seen in, for example, Anglo-Caribbean solidarity with Belize and Guyana against Hispanosphere claims, or for that matter Anglo-Caribbean solidarity on the Falklands crisis against Argentina." It has four mentions of Singapore, but mostly in the context of it being part of a network of Chinese-language territories. There's joy to be had though, Wales is singled out as one of a few exceptions within the core anglosphere, which some people I know would be happy to hear. CMD (talk) 13:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well of course they make stuff up! That's their job: finding connections others haven't found yet, and arguing for the validity of those connections. That's my theory of why so many of them seem to have such a hard time when they first start editing. No OR/SYNTH is the exact opposite of what they've been trained to do. :D Valereee (talk) 13:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, I'm off to make my academic contribution. In this paper, I aim to contribute to the existing body of knowledge on teh tarik. Through a comprehensive series of meals, this study will demonstrate how teh tarik is best consumed in the morning with roti kosong. By addressing key emptiness in the current stomach, the results will ultimately enhancing the broader field of good tea... CMD (talk) 13:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, re: Malaysia, Singapore, or both? Actually, instead of listing both, I'd probably go with listing neither in the infobox. 'Malay peninsula' is IMO sufficient for the reader and will likely draw fewer IPs in to edit war. The countries split in 1965, well after the invention of this beverage, so it's completely understandable both countries claim it. It's a regional dish, served in multiple nations and (OR warning) apparently particularly important to Malaysia. But that would need more research. Valereee (talk) 16:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 September 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP question

[edit]

Moving from another user's talk:

I am new and apologize for my ignorance but this confuses me. I'm an atheist and would not like seeing wikipedia citing religious text for accurate history. However, the existence of a Psalm about remembering Zion, and yearning for Jerusalem is evidence of Jewish yearning existing prior to 19th century. We can assume the factual details in the psalm are unreliable or false, but the existence of a psalm about Jewish yearning, which predates the 19th century, still seems to show those sentiments are not new. I don't think masked singer was relying on the truth value of people actually crying on the rivers of Babylon.
Also, it was said that masked singer assumed another editor was Muslim but when I read the cited comment and discussion, it referenced Islam, which is a topic that is obviously important to that other user from looking at their edit history.
I feel you are not being fair. Obviously I'm ignorant, but I thought I would share my interpretation. 75.172.5.197 (talk) 5:35 am, Today (UTC−4)
IP, no worries, happy to help. The fact Psalm 137 references Zion is fine to use for the fact it references Zion, and in fact we do that at that article. We can't interpret what that means with regard to the historical beginnings of Zionism, per WP:OR. We need someone else, preferably an academic in a recent peer-reviewed publication, interpreting what it means w/regard to dating the beginnings Zionism.
The simple fact a user edits around Islam doesn't mean anyone should assume that editor is Muslim, and even if they are Muslim, it doesn't mean they shouldn't be editing in topics about Judaism. It's assuming a Muslim is unable to neutrally edit about Judaism and a Jew is unable to neutrally edit about Islam. By the same logic someone might argue that you, an atheist, shouldn't be editing about religion at all. Or even about atheism, as you might not be able to edit neutrally. Valereee (talk) 10:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW this isn't what I was saying. My point was and is this:
For sure we all have WP:AGF in mind, but if an editor with a certain perspective makes controversial edits which are going to provoke editors of the oppositive persuasion, I would have thought it's a clear violation of WP:NPOV.
For instance, if I am a Barcelona fan and make controversial edits to the Real Madrid article, they'd most likely be reverted, I'd be called a vandal and possibly blocked.
This is nothing about making an assumption, it's looking at their previous edits and the way they swing. And if you call them out you're accused of making aspersions. But what if you're aspersions are correct?
I've seen on other articles, editors who are clearly anti-Israel making anti-Israel edits. There is no conflict here? What about WP:ADVOCACY?
The reality is that with the way the media and academia operates, there are going to be significantly more sources villifying Israel. Not to say that it doesn't deserve criticism, but it's very easy to craft a narrative that is Wikipedia compliant but also isn't neutral, independent or factually correct. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may not accuse an editor of POV pushing without diffs to back it up. If you believe an editor is not editing neutrally, show the diffs of those non-neutral edits.
It literally doesn't matter what religion the editor is or isn't, any more than it matters what their favorite food is, how tall they are or whether they're a ginger. What matters is their edits. If you cannot show, with diffs, an editor making non-neutral edits, you cannot accuse them of editing non-neutrally. And even if they are making non-neutral edits, calling out their likely religion is always going to get you in trouble.
If you are not 100% clear on that, you should not be editing in this contentious topic area. Or probably any contentious topic area. The blocking administrator expressed reservations about you being unblocked. If you cross the line again, the block is quite likely to be reinstated for some combination of CIR, RGW, AGF, and/or to prevent damage and disruption. Valereee (talk) 11:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am clear on that. I'm not quite clear on RGW. What does it mean? MaskedSinger (talk) 12:05, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RGW is Righting Great Wrongs, a reason some people want to edit Wikipedia that is at cross-purposes to the project's mission. People who come into an article -- often a contentious topic -- because they're outraged that their own understanding of the subject isn't what Wikipedia is presenting about that subject are said to be here to Right Great Wrongs, and it's considered being WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Valereee (talk) 12:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok. Thanks for explaining! MaskedSinger (talk) 12:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee, I appreciate your explanation. I don’t want to take up your time so please feel free to ignore unless you availability and interest.
MaskedSinger made a claim that ‘emerged in Europe in the 19th century’ is untrue. Another editor somewhat snarkily said MaskedSinger was using the Bible and Wikipedia as sources (in my opinion, saying "Right." was rude). MaskedSinger referenced Wikipedia articles highlighting what MaskedSinger perceived as contradiction. MaskedSinger did not edit the Zionism page and cite those Wikipedia articles as reliable sources.
MaskedSinger’s reply when asked for sources was to respond with a general and ambiguous ‘world history’ and then it was implied, MaskedSinger was disrupting the page. Later someone threatened ANI/AE and characterized MaskedSinger’s statements as nonsense. I understand why MaskedSinger may have felt ganged up on and bullied.
I don’t see where MaskedSinger claimed the bible is a reliable source for history. MaskedSinger explicitly refers to the bible as a primary source. As per WP:USEPRIMARY, the bible would potentially suffer from the disadvantages of primary sources and NOT be a reliable source for history.
I agree that the bible cannot be used to date the beginning of Zionism. I don’t understand why the bible cannot be used on the talk page to defend MaskedSinger’s point that ‘yearning for a return to zion’ is not a 19th century emergence.
Later in the conversation nableezy provides a quote from Stanislawski, an academic, which directly supports the point I interpreted MaskedSinger to be making:
“Many, if not most, Zionists today regard Zionism as a natural continuation of two millennia of Jewish attachment to the Land of Israel and aspiration to return there in the End of Days.”
Stanislawski goes on to argue that Zionism is NOT a natural continuation. However, if ‘many or most Zionists’ regard it as the natural continuation, should the lead to Zionism be expressing only Stanislawski’s viewpoint? Nableezy seems to think so.
Regarding assuming an editor is Muslim and should therefore not edit the Zionism page. With respect, this is not an accurate representation of what MaskedSinger said. JoyfulRant (talk) 19:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, @JoyfulRant! I'm not actually going to discuss content. I'm only explaining policy. I'm also not going to try to argue my interpretation of behavior vs. your interpretation of it.
The Bible can be used by academics for such an interpretation of Psalm 137. Wikipedia cannot make that interpretation ourselves, as that is considered WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. We follow the sources. When a WP:RS makes that connection, we can report on that. Valereee (talk) 11:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you added a generic Introduction to contentious topics explainer to my talk page. The second sentence gives a statement that the explainer does not imply there are issues with my edits, but it also does not say my edits are okay, and the rules state users are not allowed to discuss contentious topics unless they have 500 edits and an account at least 30 days old.Am I correct that the logical takeaway is that my edits were NOT okay since I do not meet the 500 edits and 30 days rule?  
I apologize, the system had explicitly told me I was not allowed to reply or talk on other pages. I incorrectly assumed since the system didn’t stop me, I was allowed to discuss the topic.
I noticed you added an edit request for my topic and see that edit requests are an exception to the new account rule. Do “edit requests” need to actually explicitly propose a change to the article or can they just bring attention to a source or provide additional potential sources for editors to consider, like I did? The Edit requests pages is a bit confusing because it says to establish a consensus with editors before making edit requests and seems to assume users want to propose changes to the article. JoyfulRant (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoyfulRant, you aren't allowed to do anything at any topic related to the Arab-Israeli conflict except make an edit request. The edit you made at Talk:Origins of the Six-Day War wasn't added as an edit request, but on reading it I thought it seemed like that's what it was (rather than a comment, which you can't do) so I added an edit request template to the post.
The edit requests instructions arguably need to be adjusted for this, as obviously you can't gain consensus. But the point is that you shouldn't be making edit requests that would need to gain consensus. That is, asking for a correction to a quote, which is what you seem like you were doing, should be fine. Fixing a typo would be fine. Basic, noncontroversial edit requests are fine. If a change needs discussion, probably you shouldn't be suggesting it at this point. Typically we don't protect talk pages because we do want editors who aren't 500/30 yet to be able to make these noncontroversial edit requests.
Do be careful about your editing at talk pages around the conflict. Admins could interpret such edits as intentionally violating the 500/30 rule. Valereee (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red October 2024

[edit]
Women in Red | October 2024, Volume 10, Issue 10, Numbers 293, 294, 318, 319, 320


Online events:

Announcements from other communities

Tip of the month:

  • Unsure how to expand a stub article? Take a look at this guidance

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 08:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

This week's article for improvement (week 40, 2024)

[edit]
Eight gold Spanish escudo (1687), issued during the reign of Carlos II of Spain
Hello, Valereee. The article for improvement of the week is:

Currency of Spain

Please be bold and help improve it!

Previous selections: Human geography • Polling station

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

Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • Opt-out instructions[reply]

Hatting

[edit]

You just hatted an exchange at Talk:Zionism [1], and then this comment came along [2] which responds to a comment in the hatted area. It was inserted after the hatted area. Just bringing it to your attention, as obviously either the Nishidani comment should be included in the hatted area or your hatting should be removed entirely. I assume it was added after the hatted area as an oversight, but I don't think it's appropriate for me to adjust the hatting. Coretheapple (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Coretheapple. Hm, likely an edit conflict. I guess I see the new addition as at least not simple sniping at one another but actually trying to address the conflict? What I was trying to collapse and stop was the 'no I'm not, you are' 'no you are' 'no you are' stuff. I wasn't trying to end the discussion. Valereee (talk) 18:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, I get that you're trying to remove the sniping, but now Nishidani is responding to a comment by myself that you've hatted and thus rendered invisible. If you don't think that comment should be hatted, you should leave in my comment because that is what he's responding to. Coretheapple (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring to this [3]. Also I'm making a comment on Andrevan's sourcing as it relates to the POV issue, and you've hatted it, so which basically nukes it out of the discussion for purposes of determining consensus, Coretheapple (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've unhatted. Please try to at least pretend you're assuming assume good faith. :D Valereee (talk) 11:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please elaborate on the last comment? I've made no comments one way or the other on the good faith of other editors. Coretheapple (talk) 13:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Coretheapple, well, for me "I left out that it is needesslly inflammatory verbiage that has no place in these discussions" is kind of inflammatory itself. :)
Please understand I'm not trying to be heavyhanded. I just want everyone to turn down the heat, as the various opinions in this discussion are already pretty passionate. When we're discussing something we really feel strongly about with someone who is disagreeing with us and feels equally as strongly about, it's never useful to escalate so that as well as disagreeing with one another, now we're also upset with each other. We've got a talk page with tens of thousands of words, 15 open discussions, and a couple dozen archives. Valereee (talk) 13:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. But administrators who are effective in contentious subject areas try hard not to be one-sided. If a person responds to inflammatory language, they don't make gratuitous remarks about the response, and the response only, and say nothing about the inflammatory language that gave rise to that response. Just my two cents. I am "involved" after all. I think you may be trying to be even-handed but it is not coming across that way. Coretheapple (talk) 13:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely am trying to be even-handed, and I hope you'll bring it up to me when you feel I haven't been. I'm trying to turn down the heat, and as far as I can tell it does seem to be coming down in recent days, whether that's because of or despite my presence. And I apologize that my remarks felt gratuitous, of course that wasn't my intention, but I see that I need to be more careful. Valereee (talk) 13:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to know why that was what was hatted and not the various other bad faith comments. Andre🚐 20:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2024-40

[edit]

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Updates for editors

  • Readers of 42 more wikis can now use Dark Mode. If the option is not yet available for logged-out users of your wiki, this is likely because many templates do not yet display well in Dark Mode. Please use the night-mode-checker tool if you are interested in helping to reduce the number of issues. The recommendations page provides guidance on this. Dark Mode is enabled on additional wikis once per month.
  • Editors using the 2010 wikitext editor as their default can access features from the 2017 wikitext editor by adding ?veaction=editsource to the URL. If you would like to enable the 2017 wikitext editor as your default, it can be set in your preferences. [4]
  • For logged-out readers using the Vector 2022 skin, the "donate" link has been moved from a collapsible menu next to the content area into a more prominent top menu, next to "Create an account". This restores the link to the level of prominence it had in the Vector 2010 skin. Learn more about the changes related to donor experiences. [5]
  • The CampaignEvents extension provides tools for organizers to more easily manage events, communicate with participants, and promote their events on the wikis. The extension has been enabled on Arabic Wikipedia, Igbo Wikipedia, Swahili Wikipedia, and Meta-Wiki. Chinese Wikipedia has decided to enable the extension, and discussions on the extension are in progress on Spanish Wikipedia and on Wikidata. To learn how to enable the extension on your wiki, you can visit the CampaignEvents page on Meta-Wiki.
  • View all 22 community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week.

Updates for technical contributors

  • Developers with an account on Wikitech-wiki should check if any action is required for their accounts. The wiki is being changed to use the single-user-login (SUL) system, and other configuration changes. This change will help reduce the overall complexity for the weekly software updates across all our wikis.

In depth

  • The server switch was completed successfully last week with a read-only time of only 2 minutes 46 seconds. This periodic process makes sure that engineers can switch data centers and keep all of the wikis available for readers, even if there are major technical issues. It also gives engineers a chance to do maintenance and upgrades on systems that normally run 24 hours a day, and often helps to reveal weaknesses in the infrastructure. The process involves dozens of software services and hundreds of hardware servers, and requires multiple teams working together. Work over the past few years has reduced the time from 17 minutes down to 2–3 minutes. [6]

Meetings and events

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

MediaWiki message delivery 22:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2024

[edit]

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

Administrator changes

added
removed

CheckUser changes

readded
removed

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spaghetti

[edit]

Hi, how are you? There's a very important issue on the spaghetti page, if you want to participate; I assure you that I haven't found a single Italian source that mentions "sparghetti" and the term "spargo" ("spargo" is a verb ("io spargo"; [7]); the paragraph I've deleted referred to "spago" ([8], [9]), hence "spaghetti").
See: Talk:Spaghetti#Sparghetti, and [10]. JacktheBrown (talk) 02:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your comment on the article's discussion page.
Regarding Spaghetti#In the United States, the paragraph in my opinion isn't good enough; the choices are two: improve it (unfortunately, I don't know the culture of the United States in detail) or delete it. What would you recommend? JacktheBrown (talk) 02:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October music

[edit]
story · music · places

You may remember Maryvonne Le Dizès, my story today as on 28 August. Some September music was unusual: last compositions and eternal light, with Ligeti mentioned in story and music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Valereee&oldid=1249274135"