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

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 Archive 58 Archive 59 Archive 60 Archive 61 Archive 62 Archive 63 Archive 64 Archive 65 Archive 66 Archive 67 Archive 68 Archive 69 Archive 70

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

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]

Per your request, I can avoid contact with editors for that article. I feel this will not help the article as the content suggested contradicts sources provided and already established and have had no contention against them.

Somewhat unrelated and you don't have to answer this obviously, but why was it an indefinite ban, instead of a timed one? Is my track record? I would find it much easier to ignore the block if I didn't get a big banner across my screen whenever I check my own edits. Its a bit of a double-edged sword on moving on. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know this seems counterintuitive, but an indefinite block is seen as less harsh than a timed one by many admins, including me, as many admins are reluctant to lift a timed block, but an indef can generally be appealed at any time.

And a timed block is seen as less effective by many admins, as it can simply be waited out. An indefinite requires the blocked editor to understand the reason for the block and to commit to changing their behavior.

Re: your track record. Blocks are not punishment, if that's what you're asking. They're always intended to be preventative.

Where are you seeing the banner? If it's at the article in question, I'd recommend you just stop looking at that article. Just take it off your watch and ignore it.

Valereee (talk) 19:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh it's not on the article. It's on my user contribution page. it's obviously not the end of the world to see it, but a giant red warning banner does not make me want to contribute any more or less.

I honestly can look at the article, and do not mind looking at it and am curious what changes are being made. While I should probably stop approaching DMh, I can't see how their current path towards their edits passes any basic original research statements or rules about lists. The article isn't destroyed or anything but I don't think this me being picky about rules, this is standard stuff and I feel my ban has suggested and the users comments when you've asked me to stop interacting has suggested that they are free to go beyond what sources state. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

200 editors have that article on their watch list, a dozen of whom visited in the last month. If someone's edits don't pass basic policy, someone will notice. Maybe give it some time, see what result they come up with, instead of commenting on each step while they're still working. Valereee (talk) 11:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind 200 editors on a watchlist, but please do not pretend that is a reason that it was considered workable. I was the only editor involved in the discussion, and less than 10% of people having that item on a watchlist responded following you banning on the article. " If someone's edits don't pass basic policy, someone will notice.", and I've presented it right here. You have been active in keeping up with the article as you approached the move on it. I don't think you have to correct it, but its not exactly invisible that content has been changed in the lead and prose that contradicts information brought up as early as a few days ago on two talk pages you have interacted with. You don't have to do anything about this, but lets just be clear that is the result of all this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't correct it. Taking a position in a content dispute would make me an editor at that article, which would mean I cannot act as an admin there. And I'm not pretending anything. Valereee (talk) 13:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with admin policies, so I appreciate you telling me. Just a forward for you approaching me or others as I've pointed out, highlighting things in green seems to give off the same effect as shouting. I do not think that's your intention, but regardless, I think my statement above stands. I don't expect you to change it, but edits without sources was exactly the kind of content that editors and YouTubers unfamiliar with wikipedia policy were lobbying at me before. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Highlighting in green indicates you're quoting a previous poster, in this case you. It's done via a template like Template:Talk quote inline or Template:Xt. It's pretty commonly used in discussions. Valereee (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was talked about without pinging my name (again), and as things are being stated about my contributions at the article in question -- I will not engage in this conversation, other than to say that I haven't removed any sources/references from the article. I am trying to constructively assist with a page that has been plagued by poor form for years. As Valereee pointed out there will/should be various editors contributing. Not one single editor controlling what is on the page (i.e.: you). DisneyMetalhead (talk) 06:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Multiple Barnstar
		I am going to post these 7 barnstars (or technically EIGHT given that the Multi-Barnstar is a recognition all its own), to acknowledge the hugely appreciated various things you did recently. As initially started here you took on a monster (puns intended) of a task for a discussion that had been ongoing and one-sided for the last 6 years (detailed extensively in a podcast video here). Throughout the process you were unbiased, and maintained peace with various editors. You were skilled and eloquent with the instructions and direction you provided. You were civil, and kept your cool when things begin to become contentious. Furthermore as an admin, you had to make a difficult decision which ultimately assisted the article in question, and allows editors to contribute with resolving a situation that had spiraled out of control and stems from a case of WP:SEALIONing. Thank you for your help on the article, thank you for helping to maintain a positive/constructive community, and thank you for assistance on my talk-page as well. Cheers m8! DisneyMetalhead (talk) 06:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, DM! Very kind. Valereee (talk) 11:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's creative. Stealing the multi-barnstar format. BorgQueen (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would like to inform you that Sapsby has restored their changes, without reaching a consensus; I kindly ask that their changes be cancelled until they reach a consensus. JacktheBrown (talk) 13:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 00:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hi, I was helping a user called User:Nanette unsolved and it seems like you told them that When you feel it is ready for submission, you can move it to Draft:Murder of Nanette Mae Ellis and submit it for approval. i'd just like to remind you that sandbox pages can be submitted as normal drafts! — Karnataka 14:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks, I'd commonly seen sandboxes submitted and someone else moving them to draft space because that was the preferred space for submitted drafts. Valereee (talk) 10:39, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oh sorry for confusing you but yes, it is the preferred place for submissions as it keeps drafts organized and therefore almost all submitted sandbox drafts get moved to draftspace. I just wanted to inform you that it is possible to submit sandbox to AfC since the editor got confused with you implying that they need autoconfirmed to submit the draft (to move the page to draftspace) and it would have made it impossible for the editor to actually submit. which isnt really why AfC exists as autoconfirmed users don't need to go through AfC anyway (since they can just move their draft to mainspace) — Karnataka 22:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My behavior is getting out of control again. If I ever get taken to WP:ANI or blocked temporarily, can you change it to indefinite? I am asking you in particular because you did offer to block me under some conditions in the past. Sorry to inconvenience you. Scorpions1325 (talk) 21:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just ping me if you need to. Valereee (talk) 14:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning, I would like to inform you that I have sent you an (important) email.
Have a very very good day. JacktheBrown (talk) 10:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Jack! The problem was that no one who recognized the problem was bothering to prove it. I spent quite a bit of time looking at the various edit histories this morning, and I agree with you, and I've filed, but it was a wheel I shouldn't have had to reinvent. When you are recognizing something like this, start collecting diffs (I recommend you do this offwiki if possible). Because you're familiar with the behavior patterns, and you're coming across it over and over, you can recognize and collect them in seconds. It took me hours. It's not really fair to expect me to do that work, and it's really unfair to ask me why nothing is happening in the absence of proof. Valereee (talk) 14:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you very very much.
"It's not really fair to expect me to do that work, and it's really unfair to ask me why nothing is happening in the absence of proof." I apologise for this; mine is currently a very bad situation to be able to make an accusation, and furthermore I have no email contact with users who have, unofficially, started this procedure. JacktheBrown (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Valereee,

Would you be up for closing the open ANI discussions regarding Imane Khelif? It seems like you are more familiar with these issues than many other admins. I understand it's a big ask but this bickering has to end. I closed off one section because it was going off tangent but I don't know if that was fair. I just got tired of the endless complaining. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lol...ugh, I was hoping that closing some of the sections would get someone else to look at what was left. I'll take a look in a couple hours! Valereee (talk) 10:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Valereee, I have two quick questions:

1. Could you please confirm that my block is due to these two edits: 22:20, 16 August 2024 and 22:49, 22 August 2024? Or is there something else I've missed?
2. Regarding the second edit, there's currently a BLP/N discussion about whether my comment and revert were a violation of WP:BLP. So far no one has claimed that they were. Were you aware of this thread when you blocked me? If you were aware of it, do you think the violation was so egregious as to prevent you from waiting for community input?

Thanks, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]