User talk:Valereee/Archive 33

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Valereee. 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 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

WikiCup 2021 March newsletter

Round 1 of the competition has finished; it was a high-scoring round with 21 contestants scoring more than 100 points. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 55 contestants qualifying. You will need to finish among the top thirty-two contestants in Round 2 if you are to qualify for Round 3. Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

Epicgenius led the field with a featured article, nine good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 945 points.
Bloom6132 was close behind with 896 points, largely gained from 71 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
ImaginesTigers, who has been editing Wikipedia for less than a year, was in third place with 711 points, much helped by bringing League of Legends to featured article status, exemplifying how bonus points can boost a contestant's score.
Amakuru came next with 708 points, Kigali being another featured article that scored maximum bonus points.
Ktin, new to the WikiCup, was in fifth place with 523 points, garnered from 15 DYKs and 34 "In the news" items.
The Rambling Man scored 511 points, many from featured article candidate reviews and from football related DYKs.
Gog the Mild, last year's runner-up, came next with 498 points, from a featured article and numerous featured article candidate reviews.
Hog Farm, at 452, scored for a featured article, four good articles and a number of reviews.
Le Panini, another newcomer to the WikiCup, scored 438 for a featured article and three good articles.
Lee Vilenski, last year's champion, scored 332 points, from a featured article and various other sport-related topics.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start again from scratch. In Round 1, contestants achieved eight featured articles, three featured lists and one featured picture, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. They completed 97 good article reviews, nearly double the 52 good articles they claimed. Contestants also claimed for 135 featured article and featured list candidate reviews. There is no longer a requirement to mention your WikiCup participation when undertaking these reviews.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. 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 a good article candidate, a featured process, or something else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! 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) 20:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Prep Building

Hi Valereee, I saw you mentioned on the DYK talkpage that you might be willing to walk newbies through DYK prep building, and it looks like there's a need there. If it's still the case that you had the time, I'd be interested in learning how it's done as the instructions only half made sense to me. Thanks, --Jack Frost (talk) 10:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jack Frost, I'd be delighted to! I have time today, if you do. Prep 2 is completely empty, we can ask other builders to leave it alone so you can build one from scratch? —valereee (talk) 13:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Valereee, that would be brilliant, thankyou! Jack Frost (talk) 13:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I'll put an in-use message on the prep so no one else will edit it. —valereee (talk) 13:16, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jack Frost, okay, so the place most prep builders start with is the image slot. The image slot alternates between bio and non-bio, so if yesterday's is a bio, today's should be a non-bio, and so on.

So the first thing to do is figure out whether you need to be looking for a bio or a non-bio image slot. Then you start through the approved nominations page, always starting from the top as those are the oldest and we're trying to get them slotted in. Keep in mind that you'll need probably 3 US-related hooks at minimum, so if you see a good US image, you can go with that.

Realize that not every image is going to get used. Some nominators will put an image into a nom even if it's not really a good image -- not clear at that size, not a good illustration of the subject, whatever -- plus we don't have room for every image, so we try to favor really good images, and for hooks that don't have a great image, we slot them into a non-image slot.

Go find a possibility, and when you think you've got one, come on back! —valereee (talk) 13:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Valereee, how about Template talk:Did you know/Approved#Brian Sicknick? Prep 1 is non-bio, this is the first bio article (there's also this, but it's a human photo, non-human article). The images look OK, but I'd likely go for the image of him in military uniform, it looks less like a mugshot! (This was next image; it's looks to be a really great image and interesting article). Jack Frost (talk) 13:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jack Frost Okay, so that image needs to be approved still -- it was added after vaticidalprophet did the review, so you need another green tick. Edit that nomination to ping vaticidalprophet and the nom and say, "Came by to promote, but we need the 1997 image approved" or something. Then move on. :) —valereee (talk) 14:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Valereee, ahh, in which case; Template talk:Did you know/Approved#George Poynter Heath is the go I think? (I've left a comment on that nom too.) Jack Frost (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jack Frost yes, George Poynter Heath looks great! And as a bonus, the creator, nom, and reviewer are all experienced, and the reviewer is experienced at DYK. This means you can relax a bit with your re-review -- make sure the hook facts all have citations at the sentence in the article, take a quick scan to make sure no paragraph is uncited (the DYK tool is helpful with that, if you have it installed), make sure there's not a current edit war or new tags since the article was reviewed.

Then move it. There are instructions on how to move at Template_talk:Did_you_know/Approved#How_to_promote_an_accepted_hook and more comprehensive ones at Template:DYK Prep Set Instructions, which are the ones I use. This is the only technical part, the actual moving. —valereee (talk) 14:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Valereee, done, I think! Jack Frost (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jack Frost, yep, that looks good!

Okay, so now you're going to repeat the process (minus the image) for the rest of the hooks. This is the fun part, putting together the puzzle. You want to alternate bio with non-bio. You'll probably need 3 US-related hooks, and you don't want all of them to be bios or non-bios. For the rest of the hooks, you want a balance -- no more than one music or military or politics or Japan or sports or whatever. And keep your eye out for a non-bio for the quirky! —valereee (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Valereee, perfect! If I may, it's starting to get late in my neck of the woods, would it be a terrible inconvenience to you / other prep-builders if I worked through the rest of the prep tomorrow and pinged you then? Jack Frost (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Not at all! —valereee (talk) 15:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Valereee, thankyou. And thankyou for all your help so far. It is most appreciated. Jack Frost (talk) 15:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. What do you think? I also wasn't sure whether the last (slide off racetrack, still manage to win) was quirky enough? Jack Frost (talk) 02:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jack Frost, looks good! Here are my notes:

KMSM-FM - the construction of "the Associated Students" and "it still filed" feels awkward to me in a hook, though I can tell it's technically correct. Maybe a change to "the organization still filed" would improve readability? If you agree, you could make that change, which is a pretty small one, but you could also open a section at talk and ping the nom, which is the most courteous way to handle proposed changes to approved hooks.
Hooks 2 & 3 are both US-related, if possible it's good to separate them.
Eli Savit - cash bail is a redirect, needs to be changed to a piped link as we don't use redirects in DYK
Breton Ballads - I'd question the use of "famous" in here. I certainly have never heard of this controversy, since the hook is by Drmies, an experienced editor with many DYKs under their belt, I have to assume this is famous in certain circles. This one definitely would need a section opened, as removing it is a proposed change to the meaning of the hook.
Hooks 5 & 6 are film & tv. Not really a problem to have both in a prep, but probably better to separate them since they're kind of similar.
Hooks 7 & 8 are both sports-related. Not a huge problem since they're very different sports, but again would be better not right next to each other if possible.
I think it's quirky enough! Quirky enough is pretty much always up to the individual prep builder.

So, if you do want to open discussion, what I've found is easiest for me if I built the entire prep is to open a single section for the prep with a courtesy link to that prep. Then for each hook I'm questioning, a subsection with a courtesy link to the nom subpage and ping the nominator.

Finally, on the hook ordering I've talked about above -- sometimes it gets to be tricky to try to get them into an ideal order and still retain the bio/non-bio also. In such cases we can also take a look at some of the hooks that are in preps others have built and see if we can resolve an issue by swapping a hook from another prep set. Be aware of similar problems that you might be causing for that prep, though, so before you do that, let's discuss any possibles!

Sorry for the long response! —valereee (talk) 12:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies #4 above and @Sammi Brie #1 above if not inconvenient to help —valereee (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Valereee, User:Jack Frost, it's kind of a tongue-in-cheek exaggeration. In short, yes, it's famous, actually HUGELY famous in the profession, but few people know that profession at all--to put it another way, there are so many red links in that field that it's obvious it's underdeveloped, and I've been sort of working on it. If this was about anime, Théodore Claude Henri, vicomte Hersart de la Villemarqué would be 100,000Kb long... So anyway, it's up to you to keep it or not, but I can verify that it indeed is famous, and that I know nobody knows it, and that I put it in there as a kind of teaser. BTW thanks for your work here; I appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

{{|ping|Valereee}} you could probably change "it still filed" to "the group still filed" and it'd be fine. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Valereee, silly question, where would you open these discussions? Hooks reordered, piped link fixed. Jack Frost (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Sources

Do you agree with this ordering, or would you arrange things differently?

Tier 1: Books by academic publishers
Tier 2: Peer-reviewed academic journals
Tier 3: Non-peer-reviewed academic publications
Tier 4: Books by top mass-market publishers
Tier 5: International or national journalism
Tier 6: Encyclopedias and other tertiary sources
Tier 7: Local journalism
Tier 8: Self-published sources
Tier 9: Primary sources Levivich ^harass/_hound 21:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Levivich Nice! Hm, more or less, I think yes? I mean, certainly Tiers 1 and 2 together have to be the gold standard, but whether there's a clear and consistent quality difference between them...that's probably a discussion for experts? And non-peer reviewed academic journals, definitely behind Tiers 1 & 2, but we need to leave wiggle room for dealing with Professor McCrankypants who from his office at the end of the dustiest corridor furthest from the offices of admissions and development publishes bimonthly the Journal of Crank Studies for which he is the only editing staff. And we probably need wiggle room on local journalism vs. tertiary sources. I certainly wouldn't want anyone to march into Cincinnati chili and insist the Cincinnati Enquirer's food editor was incorrect when she wrote that it was not a type of chili con carne because some tertiary source includes it in a list of such foods and it's a Tier 6 source and the Enquirer is only a Tier 7, so stop arguing. :D

An earlier draft I did had fewer tiers, like what you're describing. I think you raise some good points: fewer tiers is better. With "non-peer-reviewed academic journals", I was thinking of the non-peer-reviewed articles that are published even in high-quality journals like Science and Nature. Professor McCrankypants's Journal of Crank Studies I'd think would be an SPS and thus Tier 5. I'd also think predatory, vanity, pay-for-play, churnalism, etc., would be essentially counted as SPS? Hmm.. what do you think of this:

Tier 1
- Books by academic publishers
- Peer-reviewed academic journals
Tier 2
- Non-peer-reviewed academic publications
- Books by top mass-market publishers
Tier 3
- International or national journalism
Tier 4:
- Encyclopedias and other tertiary sources
- Local journalism
Tier 5:
- Self-published (including vanity press, predatory or pay-for-play media, churnalism, government propaganda)
- Primary sources

Also do you think any categories of sources are missing from this list? Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@Levivich, there's something between top mass-market publishers and self-published, for sure. There's Road Food, which maybe goes in Tier 3? And then there's Snow Lion Publications stuff like https://www.shambhala.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/03.pdf which publishes what Buddhist masters write about other Buddhist masters... It's not exactly vanity press. These are actual experts writing in their field. But, yeah, we can't use them to support assertions like, "X was the incarnation of Y." —valereee (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe Tier 5a is affiliated sources, like Snow Lion Publications and Tier 5b is vanity, predatory, pay-for-play, propaganda? —valereee (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe fewer tiers still, splitting up expert and non-expert SPS...

Tier 1 - best
- Books by academic publishers
- Peer-reviewed academic journals
Tier 2 - good
- Non-peer-reviewed academic publications
- Books by non-academic publishers
- International or national journalism
Tier 3 - acceptable
- Encyclopedias and other tertiary sources
- Expert WP:SPS
- Local journalism
Tier 4 - use with caution/limited or no use
- Non-expert SPS (including vanity, predatory, churnalism, government propaganda)
- Primary sources

That would put Road Food in Tier 2 and Snow Lion Publications in Tier 3, I think. Levivich ^harass/_hound 01:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Levivich, I think that looks really good, and it's not so prescriptive that there should be objections. I hope. —valereee (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your input on this! I've started something at User:Levivich/Tiers of reliability; you and your tpw's are more than welcome to edit/expand it if interested. I think it might become a useful essay. Levivich ^harass/_hound 05:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Engine Company 21 (Chicago)

On 2 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Engine Company 21 (Chicago), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that when the fireman's pole was invented at Chicago's Engine Company 21, other firefighters thought its use was crazy—until 21 started being the first crew to arrive at fires? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Engine Company 21 (Chicago). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Engine Company 21 (Chicago)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Editing Richard V. E. Lovelace biography

Dear Valerie,

I hope, you did not forget me with this article. Also, I hope that I am writing in correct place. I've been busy for a while, but gradually collected material along his work in plasma physics. The original material was from some extended curriculum vitae. Now, I checked every sentence, removed parts which cannot be confirmed, added references, and placed my version to the usual place, where I also placed a ping with your name. Take your time. Meanwhile, I will work on other parts. Thank you very much !

Marinaromanova55 (talk) 02:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Marinaromanova55, not forgotten, just unusually busy right now. It's on my notifications list, and I'll eventually check it out. You can also use a regular WP:EDITREQUEST form, which will allow other editors to see the edit request. —valereee (talk) 14:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Commons admins

Commons:Administrators

A handy link for a DYK admin. Scroll down and see the list on the right-hand side. — Maile (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@Maile66, I'm sorry for being obtuse...for me, the list on the right-hand side is simply a list of commons administrators. I hope this doesn't feel like I'm being intentionally obtuse. I definitely am exactly that stupid. :) —valereee (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, maybe you don't need this. Sometimes it's just good to know where to look if you're working on Commons and need a quick action, without waiting around until whenever for someone answer a question. But maybe you're not over at Commons enough for this to mean anything. — Maile (talk) 23:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@Maile66, no sorry, I totally want to get this. I think this must be about the images at DYK, and how to protect them? —valereee (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes. — Maile (talk) 00:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Valereee since you and I are the most frequent editors on DYK Admin instructions, the above has made me think of something else. Not sure if this applies, or is appropriate, but not all DYK (or English) admins are also admins on Commons. Me, for instance. Do you think it would be a good idea to post Commons:Category:Commons administrators at the DYK admin instructions page? Very few would ever need to know how to find that, but the list could be handy. — Maile (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Maile66, yes, I'm not an admin on commons, either, and I actually was just wondering (because of the bot and protecting MP images) whether I/some other DYK regular should run RfA there. The problem in my case being that I probably shouldn't do anything else there! :D So, yes, that list would definitely be handy, or maybe we should consider getting some DYK-regular admins to run RfA at commons? —valereee (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, I don't think I qualify because there are so many things a Commons admin needs to know that I'm only so-so on. I don't do much work over there. See Commons:Administrators/Howto. And I think their RFA might require more than our own RFA does. I can think of some DYK regulars who might want to do that., but really don't know the editing background on most of our DYK people except as it affects DYK. Here's the fly in the ointment: I've voted for DYK regulars who became admins specifically to work on the project - and eventually drifted to other interests with their tools. — Maile (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Maile66, yes, and based on my own work over the past year or so, I get how it happens. People ask for help, or you see where help is needed, and it just takes up chunks of time, which have to come either from other admin work or from content work or from real life. :) Especially over the past few months I'm finding my time increasingly affected. —valereee (talk) 13:05, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Hm, there's a list of commons admins who are also enwiki admins at: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:List_of_administrators_by_adminship_status_in_other_Wikimedia_projects. —valereee (talk) 13:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

March flowers

Today: Carmen for TFA (on my request), with Bizet's music "expressing the emotions and suffering of his characters" as Brian worded it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, wow, I didn't know an article could be TFA more than once! —valereee (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

They changed a while ago, to offer more balanced sequences, not this overload of hurricanes, battles, U.S. streets and critters. After 5 years, and when still excellent, and a good reason (here the premiere date), and no recent similar one, it can be repeated. I try to showcase the work of the dead and lost, Wadewitz and Eric Corbett next, then Brian again. Models, always. Forgot to mention my own, for Easter. I adopted the lead image from Bish, - in October, she "stole" mine, now we are even. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt, ah, so it's because of the specific interests of the regular submitters of featured articles...that's very interesting. Maybe I'll take one of mine to FA. I've so far not done so because I've been worried it'll be an unpleasant experience, but maybe I should give it a go if we've got that much imbalance in subjects. —valereee (talk) 12:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

UGH. So the first thing I find at FA candidates is a template: {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} followed by the instruction: (substituting Number). I do not know what this means. Am I replacing Number with subst:? Am I inserting subst: between archive and Number? Why can't I learn how to use subst? Every single time I come across it, I have to relearn how to use it in that template. It's like I've got this giant blind spot in generalization. And for gosh sakes, why isn't there a script or form for this? Why do we make learning anything new so frickin' difficult? Sorry, not ranting at you, Gerda. Just ranting at Wikipedia in general. —valereee (talk) 13:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

valeree, I came to encourage you, and here you looked already! Bravo! - We need to distinguish two things: making an article FA, and proposing an article which is FA already for TFA (today's featured article). What do you want to do? - Some templates are not well made, and I'd say the TFA request is one of them. If you want to request an article for TFA, the first parameter is just the article name (substitute what is says by the article name, no link no nothing). The second is the blurb, which is nice to have about 1050 chars really covering the essence of the article, - otherwise it will cause others work. That's the art ;) - The other parameters should speak for themselves, or ask me. Such article has to be FA already, but can be someone else's FA which you propose. - If, however, you want to see if one of your articles might be a FA, the best first step is it being GA already, and the second to run a peer review, WP:PR: see what others think. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Gerda, thanks! I don't have any FAs yet, but I do have an article in mind, Marjorie Paxson, which created, took to DYK and GA and would love to get to featured article. Not sure it would qualify for TFA...do you have to have free-use image? I've added the nomination template to the talk, but then I got stuck because I'm too stupid to figure out the instructions. I posted a request for help at the talk. —valereee (talk) 14:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I looked now, and it looks fine to me. You are fast ;) - You may want to add to the nomination that this is your first FAC, and who the GA reviewer was, and other contributors if noteworthy, - that's polite, establishes credibility and gets reviewers. I am rather booked but will get to it eventually. I received comments for a GAN, but first have to take care of another recent death., Helmut Winschermann. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I added the GA and DYK reviewers and a couple others who made multiple edits! Thanks for the advice! —valereee (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Fine. One thing I see at a glance, compare other FAs: In the lead, the first paragraph is typically a lead of the lead, a summary of it all, then in the second para origin and training. As for pictured, they may be some of places she worked, people important in her life, such things. For all images, please supply alt text, a description which would tell a blind person what they'd see. Ignore if you did, - I had no time to check. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 10, 2021)

Frozen chicken nuggets

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

Chicken nugget

Please be bold and help improve it!

Previous selections: Emergency management • Huizhou

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

Posted by: MusikBot ^talk 00:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • Opt-out instructions

Hello about green papaya salad page

im from thailand half mon-chinese. can you take a look at this page Green papaya salad. this is about nationalism and POV pushing.
Talk Page: pls fix this page there is no proof that som tam is original in laos. my english is not good enough to edit. This dish known as Som tam is original from Central Thailand, original one is sour and little spicy (Som mean sour in thai language). this need to be fix. i hope you can help Lalalulilalia (talk) 06:57, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Lalalulilalia, jeez, that article is a mess. I'll see what I can do. —valereee (talk) 14:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

More bookspam: reading for fun... in Engrish...?

After nearly decades, dug up an old copy of Robert Hamburger's seminal Real Ultimate Power: The Official Ninja Book — and it's as awesome as I remembered it. Which is to say: totally sweet. And smooth. So many pivotal things to learn, too. Like, DYK that "Ninjas are mammals"? (bold in the original) Or that they can fly? This is important!!!!11 //Super-pumped! El_C 22:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

hahahahahahaha that sounds right up my alley! —valereee (talk) 22:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Here's another taste:

A Ninja Makes a Telephone Call:

Whiskers: Meow

Ninja: Hello

Whiskers:

Ninja: Hello... Anyone there?

Whiskers: Meow

Ninja: I thought you left. Are we still on for Thursday?

Whiskers: Meow

Ninja: Are you sure?

Whiskers:

Ninja: Well, whatever. Just be there

El_C 04:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

One more before I get banned from this talk page. Just noting how much I love R. Hamburger's use of footnotes (Wikipedia could learn a thing or two from him!). Example:

“

Everything became clear and sweet. I made the choice to learn all about ninjas and teach others the way of Real Ultimate Power. Everything else was^[1] for^[2] stupid^[3] babies.^[4] Here is how^[5] some^[6] real^[7] ninjas^[8] started^[9] their^[10] journeys^[11] toward^[12] Total^[13] Sweetness.^[14]

”

References

^ Mom, do you believe in me?
^ What do you mean believe in you?
^ You know. Do you think I could do anything I want to?
^ I don't think you could fly or see the future.
^ No, Mom! I mean like be President or something?
^ Doubt it.
^ What about Governor?
^ Nope.
^ Mayor?
^ How big is the town?
^ REALLY SMALL.
^ How small?
^ A couple of people.
^ Maybe.

El_C 17:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Hahahahahaha! OMG, both my kids would recognize that! —valereee (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Not Ninjas, but hilarious: https://www.tiktok.com/@dontstopmeowing/video/6934113825625017606?sender_device=pc&sender_web_id=6893498508197021190&is_from_webapp=v2&is_copy_url=0 —valereee (talk) 15:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Cat video no-worky.

El_C 17:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, maybe you don't get TikTok where you are? Probably this is why so few of us share such things here lol... —valereee (talk) 17:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

TikTok works fine for me —baby goats-related example— though I've probably watched less than ten videos directly through it in total. Not sure why kitty didn't load... El_C 17:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

OMG baby goats IN THE HOUSE! Dammit, I need to get you this cat video... —valereee (talk) 17:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Does this work? https://www.tiktok.com/@dontstopmeowing/video/6934113825625017606 —valereee (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Yay for bathtub kitties! (Which is "totally normal.") Both links work fine now. Weird. El_C 18:05, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

My last time coming to the well for a while, I swear

Whenever you have time, could you please poke around this and tell me if you find it self-explanatory, easy-to-use, and useful for noobs: User:Levivich/Help. All feedback (even direct edits) welcome, inc. tpws. Thank you! Levivich ^harass/_hound 06:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Levivich, the missing sitemap, useful for noobs? It's basically what I've wished I had forever. I keep bookmarking and watchlisting pages hoping I'll be able to find my way back to them and thinking I should somehow organize the bookmarks so I can find them again. Please immediately also do this for DYK lol... —valereee (talk) 14:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

It would be trivially-easy to clone the "Help" thing and make one for DYK. But I don't really have any idea how DYK works (especially the prepping and queuing parts), but if you (or anyone) can make an outline, I can turn it into buttons.

Also I confess, I lied in the section header: I'm probably coming back to the well later to show you my next doohickey, a "stub creation wizard". Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Come back to the well any time you like lol! And I was kidding about DYK, that's something I should steal your template and do. :) —valereee (talk) 16:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Well ok I'm back :-) What do you think of this "Stub Wizard" prototype: User:Levivich/sandbox2? I used some of your articles as templates (thanks). Levivich ^harass/_hound 08:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Levivich: A choose your own adventure for wiki-help! I like it. Does it route into any private reporting pathways like arbcom-en or otrs? –xeno^talk 13:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
@Xeno: It routes to WP:Emergency (first button at User:Levivich/Conduct problem), but I didn't even think about private reporting pathways for non-emergency matters, which is definitely an option that should be there. Thanks for the suggestion! Someone also suggested a prominent "there's-an-article-about-me-how-do-I-change-it?"-type button, which could include OTRS as an option. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
@Levivich, the stub starter's fun! I think it would help new editors who are stuck on how to even get started. I forgot to check wither it works in VisEd while I was creating a stub in your userspace. :) —valereee (talk) 13:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Yup, it works in VisEd, source or visual mode. I actually wanted this for myself, for when I want to create a stub on a topic but I have no idea what an article on that topic is supposed to look like. Eventually, I'd like to get this to a place where I can quickly fill out a form (say, for an author: name, dob, birth place, death place, list of notable works, etc.), and it pre-fills the infobox and such, so I only need to draft some prose afterwards and hit "save" to create a stub (that would, ideally, be properly sorted), and it'll automatically add the right categories and wikiproject banners and so forth. All that is a bit ambitious but, well, this is a start. Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it was nice to have the infobox already there! The most common reason an article I create doesn't have an infobox is laziness. —valereee (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
lulz, when I was looking through the articles on your userpage to find templates, I did think to myself at one point, "Is she one of those anti-infobox people?" ;-) Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
hahahaha...no, I use them if I 1. think I actually have enough information to make them useful and b. can figure out where it is...for instance, Richard V. E. Lovelace. What infobox covers an academic? Oh, look, there's an infobox professor! :D —valereee (talk) 17:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
I use infobox person for all people. DYK that I was converted to infoboxes on Samuel Barber? ... by the comment: "{{Infobox person}} also has that parameter, and could be used here. Unless, of course, someone wishes to argue that Barber was not a person...". We talked 2012, and he still has no infobox. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Gerda, because you've been reluctant to add one? I'll go be bold, if it helps —valereee (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
You are turning to the dark side ;) - (wording by Toccata quarta, in the peer review for composer Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji, made me smile) - I just found this. - I am in no position to add an infobox to a composer article unless I wrote or improved it - it would be judged as battleground behaviour. I don't know if that will ever change, branded once by the arbitration committee. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Ah! Well, then, I don't want to get in that lol! I didn't realize there was such a fuss on composer articles in particular. —valereee (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Have you heard about the infobox wars? I gave up after Pierre Boulez (2015). Mozart is going on and on, what a waste of time. The wise words on "consensus -- advantages of infoboxes -- seeking common ground" are worthy to be framed and shown to every editor who forbids entry to his or her "beautifully crafted article" to idiots, - this my favourite summary of the whole problem was given in The Rite of Spring, also in 2013. What have we learned?? Also back then, I said that I bet that in 2020 Wagner would have an infobox. In 2020, I didn't care any more. - El C, something is wrong with the formatting of the poetry, but I can't see what. It indents all that follows on the page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
What poetry are you referring to? El_C 17:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I see. But LOL — poetry! Real Ultimate Power: The Official Ninja Book is a way of life! (Sadly, it contains no poems, though, that would be totally sweet. And smooth.) Anyway, paging all ProcrastinatingReaders — cleanup in aisle 1. El_C 17:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe? I dunno, I set a pretty low bar.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 05:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Question on notability

Hello Valereee. I took your advice about creating drafts and making sure I can determine notability before moving it into main space. So I am working on this draft which is about a bank robbery team & the robberies. Would WP:EVENT or WP:BIO or both apply to the article in terms of determining notability? Elijahandskip (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Elijahandskip, hm...almost all the mentions are for local news, all are from the last two days. The Houston Chronicle is behind a paywall for me -- is it significant coverage?

The thing is, for so many current events, they just are never going to be notable. Many crimes get coverage in local media, and if they've got a catchy name like "piggy bank robber", maybe in a nearby state. The fact something gets lots of coverage for short time in lots of local media doesn't actually mean it is ever going to be actually worth an article. I'd say circle back in six months...is it still getting coverage? Is it getting coverage outside the local area? —valereee (talk) 18:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

My edit on Andrew Yang

Hello, this is just a message to let you know that I removed a claim per WP:NYPOST. Feel free to review my edit. [1] Firestar464 (talk) 05:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Firestar464, that's a borderline case. If it had been something to Yang's detriment, I'd have removed it. As it wasn't, and it was something that happened recently, there's likely easily found sig cov if it's true, so you could instead have tried to improve the source. If you didn't have time/interest to improve the ref yourself, you could have dropped a ^{[better source needed]} on it. Probably didn't need removal. —valereee (talk) 18:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know of {{better source needed}}. Firestar464 (talk) 01:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: February 2021

This Month in GLAM – Volume XI, Issue II, February 2021
Headlines
Albania report: Recruiting two PMs; Budget Report 2020; Wikipedia 20th Bday Australia report: Who do we think we are? Brazil report: New GLAM tutorials in Portuguese Estonia report: WikiMuseum Finland report: Focus on learning Indonesia report: PD Day 2021 in Indonesia, #1lib1ref, Wikisource workshop Netherlands report: Historical Maps; Share your Data on colonial heritage; Knowledge platform for heritage institutions Serbia report: Amazing results of the January #1Lib1Ref campaign Sweden report: Medieval ballads; Project HBTQI Switzerland report: 50 Years Women's Suffrage in Switzerland & More UK report: Khalili Collections USA report: Black History Month and Smithsonian anniversary WMF GLAM report: Project Grants, Analytics for GLAMs, and Shared Citations Calendar: March'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.

About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 16:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

My edit in your user page

Hi Valereee. Forgive me for edit your user page. Dr_Salvus (talk) 14:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Darktown Comics

On 14 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Darktown Comics, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Darktown Comics, a series of racist caricatures (example pictured), was a perennial bestseller for Currier and Ives and by 1884 represented a third of the company's production? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Darktown Comics. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Darktown Comics), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your all of work on this article. — AjaxSmack 19:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 11, 2021)

A hobby is considered to be a regular activity that is done for enjoyment, typically during one's leisure time, not professionally and not for pay. An example of a hobby is rail transport modelling (pictured).

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

Hobby

Please be bold and help improve it!

Previous selections: Chicken nugget • Emergency management

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

Posted by: MusikBot ^talk 00:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • Opt-out instructions

A goat for you!

You are a great

Dr_Salvus (talk) 17:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Why, thank you, @Dr Salvus, who doesn't love goats? And no worries about the edit to the user! :) —valereee (talk) 13:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Revisiting the Race and Intelligence fringe RfC

Hi, I've been getting myself up to speed with the RFC [2] (and the disputed close[3]) last year about a potential genetic component to the racial IQ gap. I saw your name in the discussion and have respected your contributions on other articles, so I was wondering if you have any input on the current situation, in which editors are citing the fringe consensus determination in defense of:

Comparing the weak hereditarian hypothesis (that some genetic component may be involved) to pseudoscience like Bigfoot and creationism[4][5]
Arguing there is no scientific rationale for a potential genetic component[6]
Writing "The current scientific consensus is that there is no evidence for a genetic component", wording that is directly contradicted by the cited sources[7]

Editors are using the fringe determination to advance the argument that 100% of the racial IQ gap is due to environmental factors, and any dissent from this view is considered fringe, despite evidence to the contrary from a variety of reliable sources. Administrators at the ArbCom case back in 2010 proposed findings of fact affirming as much: "The (weak) hereditarian hypothesis is not fringe" and "The idea that genetics is one factor in racial IQ differences may not have achieved consensus in the scientific community, but neither is it fringe (and, in fact, no other factors have achieved consensus either—although some have been disproven)."[8]

I'm trying to to determine how best to proceed with this dispute, as the current situation strikes me as untenable and plainly wrong. I would rather avoid starting a new RfC and reigniting the whole debate again, if possible. Is there any better alternative? Stonkaments (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Stonkaments, sorry for the delay in responding, I've suddenly become unexpectedly busy IRL. My personal opinion is that this is indeed fringe, and that those academics still arguing it, even though some of them are still being published, are generally considered cranks. In that RfC I argued that if they were still being published and their work was not simply being ignored, Wikipedia should consider them not-fringe, but the RfC went the other way, and I felt it was a completely reasonable close. —valereee (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, and no worries on the delay! I'm a little confused, because last year I think you said you didn't feel it was fringe since well-regarded journals were publishing articles in this line of research. But basically you're saying now the work being done is by people generally considered "cranks" in the field, and therefore ignored in the broader academic community, is that right? So you no longer see being published in well-regarded journals as a good signal of not-fringe? Sorry if I'm being obtuse--I'm not trying to challenge your views in any way, just trying to understand and gather as much context as possible to be able to generate productive discussion elsewhere on the talk page, etc. Stonkaments (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Stonkaments, sorry, to clarify, I, myself, think these theories are fringe. My opinion was that Wikipedia shouldn't treat them as fringe as long as work on this is being published in any kind of reasonable publication and that work is not simply being ignored by other academics. I might not have been clear enough in that RfC. I do not personally find the theory compelling. The simple fact these theorists are still being published doesn't convince me otherwise. But my own opinion isn't important. What's important is how other academics treat the work. And in the end, I trust my fellow editors to make the correct decision on this, even if it made me a little uncomfortable. —valereee (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Got it, that makes perfect sense. I really respect your ability to separate your own personal opinions from your opinion on how WP should approach the issue, trusting that the community will make the right decision. Stonkaments (talk) 18:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Unblock request at UTRS

Back in December you blocked an editor called Jargo Nautilus for "outing". Talk page access was subsequently removed by Yamla, and the editor has now twice appealed at UTRS. Administrators who have commented there seem to be generally well-disposed to consider, but I thought you might like to express an opinion. The following is a copy of the text of their latest appeal. (An earlier appeal failed to show understanding of the reason for the block and was was declined, but this one is much better.)

Hello, administrator, I was charged with "OUTING", which I've learnt refers to the unsolicited sharing of personal information of other users or external people. Originally, I was not blocked from my talk page, though I was blocked from my talk page soon after I attempted to request an unblock; the reason for this was that my comments were convoluted as I did not know the exact reason for my block and was confused. Now that I know the reason for my block, I can provide some points: (1) The user who I was charged with outing has declared that he does not believe my behaviour technically qualified as outing, (2) The outed user is not interested in pressing charges and has requested that I be unblocked, (3) The outed user and I are known to each other outside of Wikipedia and we are not adversaries, (4) The information that I leaked was an anonymous account of the outed user on a public website unaffiliated with Wikipedia; that account has not shared private information that is not also visible on the user's Wikipedia account; the two accounts use similar pseudonyms; neither account features the user's real-life name, (5) I didn't realise that I had committed an offence at the time, and the outed user agrees that my intentions were not malicious, (6) I initially couldn’t figure out why I had been blocked, which is what caused the initial confusion regarding my earlier unblock appeals. Resolution: In the future, I will avoid sharing information of users (and people in general), regardless of the level of sensitivity. In this instance, the information was not extremely sensitive, though it was still not a good idea to share it. My intention was not to expose the user but rather to ask the user whether he was the same person who was known to me elsewhere. I have contact with the user on two other websites, so it would have been possible to contact him first over there, rather than initiate contact on Wikipedia by linking to an account of his on another website. Although the user is a friend/acquaintance of mine and not an adversary, the information that I leaked was not originally visible on his Wikipedia account before I leaked it, so it was technically still non-consensual at the time, even though he later informed me that he wasn't very concerned about the leaked information. It has also occurred to me that talk pages on Wikipedia still technically count as public spaces. I think there might be an email option on Wikipedia, which might be more discrete in instances like these. How I plan to use Wikipedia in the future: At present, I am mainly browsing Wikipedia for work or study reasons. I am not necessarily interested in editing at the moment, though I am also blocked from talk pages, which I might potentially use in the future in order to suggest edits. I hope this response has been assembled in an appropriate manner. Regards, Jargo Nautilus

JBW (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@JBW, no objection to unblocking, although the reason I haven't tried to help them get unblocked is that an unrelated but IMO worse problem is their tendency to bludgeon discussion with multiple walls of text, which I see in that UTRS. I'd suggest maybe making a condition of unblocking that they will limit themselves to 100 words in any response in any discussion. The above could easily have been stated in 100 words. —valereee (talk) 12:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The absurdly long-winded nature of that UTRS appeal was the one thing which gave me doubts. I'll look at the editing history again, and think about it before deciding. Thanks for your comments. JBW (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations

Your DYK hook about Darktown Comics and the historical popularity of his series of racial caricatures drew 17,659 page views (1,472 per hour) while on the Main Page. It is the fourth most viewed hook for the month of March as shown at Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics#March 2021. Keep up the great work! Cbl62 (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Hollis Taylor

On 21 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hollis Taylor, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Hollis Taylor has argued that birdsong should be considered music? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hollis Taylor. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Hollis Taylor), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 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) 12:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 12, 2021)

Two charts from an Arabic copy of the Secretum Secretorum for determining whether a person will live or die based on the numerical value of the patient's name.

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

Name

Please be bold and help improve it!

Previous selections: Hobby • Chicken nugget

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