User talk:Valereee

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

Gourmand Cookbook Award

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)

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

February music

story · music · places

I find today's birthday child particularly inspiring, by enthusiasm and determination. That was - believe it or not - a pictured DYK in 2021, without the last line though. - Many food pics at vacation places, ending on cheesecake. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:41, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Lovely, Gerda! Valereee (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! - Paul Plishka, a bass who sang 88 roles of all kinds at the Met was interviewed before his (first) retirement. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

lol on first retirements...that does seem to be something musicians do, but I thought it was mostly Rock musicians. Valereee (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

As you may have read in the article, is house asked him back for a few more performances over three years, just enough to lift from No. 10 in their list of frequent performers to No. 9. - Today's story is about Edith Mathis, who portrayed young women by Mozart (also at the Met). The video of a 1993 interview has videos of her performances. - I saw my brother on stage, - see places. Plenty of good food around it, a bit pictured. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I point at a composer today, as the main page does. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Moderator action

Can you explain your block on my editing privileges on Talk:Gulf of Mexico? Restarting a discussion is not against the rules, as I have seen it happen many times. Can you elaborate on the specific rule I broke? Thanks. Rc2barrington (talk) 03:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

You started an RfC three weeks ago in a wp:contentious topic, which you'd been warned about. That RfC was closed as 'no consensus for inclusion in the lead' after two full weeks of discussion with participation from over 170 people. One week later, you tried to reopen the exact same discussion. That wastes the time and energy of other editors, which is considered WP:disruptive editing. Valereee (talk) 08:36, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I’m not the only one that has done it, the entire talk page is filled with Gulf of America discussions continuing Rc2barrington (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

And I've been closing those discussions, putting contentious topics alerts on literally dozens of newbies' talk pages, and recommending that anyone who disagrees with the close follow the instructions at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, which you are free to do.

What we aren't going to do is immediately open a new RfC because we disagree with the outcome of the one that had participation from 170 people and closed days ago. That wastes other editors' time and energy, which is disruptive. Valereee (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

That's fine but now you just changed the No consensus to consensus against, that's not true. The consensus was pretty divided, if you had 50 people voting for something and 50 people voting against it it's divided, there's not a majority. Now in this case there was a majority but not a consensus, as per WP:EDITCON. You can add a note and link WP:NOCONSENSUS, because here it says "When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." Instead of saying Consensus against, I would've said this. Because as per Wikipedia policy, No consensus is seperate from Consensus Against.

Rc2barrington (talk) 03:36, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

RfCs are not a majority-rule vote, and closers don't assess them that way. RfCs are a discussion, with people supporting their arguments with relevant policy, and a closer assesses the strength of the policy arguments, not the absolute numbers. Very few of those arguing for inclusion made any valid policy argument. You can read more about this at WP:NOTVOTE. Valereee (talk) 12:38, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I just noticed you changed your close, and I’m a little perplexed by how you handled it. There were plenty of bad arguments from inexperienced editors on both sides of that discussion. Your WP:NOTVOTE argument would be more logical had you weighted the arguments in the original or second close. I appreciate you taking the time to close it, and I probably would have closed it the same way the first time. However, the second close and your explanation there and here are poor. The name stunt is currently well covered in the article. The only reason it's not in the lead is because there wasn't enough support for inclusion, not because of some "relevant policy." Nemov (talk) 05:54, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I disagree, but you're free to take this to review. Valereee (talk) 13:31, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

It's not necessary, but I hope in the future you reason your closes better than this one. Citing nebulous policy for a close you chose to change for "reasons" is very poor. Nemov (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

But it would be fine to open up a non-rfC, just a regular discussion, right? Because there's like six discussions on Talk:Gulf of Mexico right now.

Here are some:

Talk:Gulf of Mexico#Bathymetry (main) image seems US-centric

Talk:Gulf of Mexico#Chevron adopts "Gulf of America" name

Talk:Gulf of Mexico#Moratorium on this nonsense.

Talk:Gulf of Mexico#Should be the whole section about the name being shortened ?

Talk:Gulf of Mexico#Freedom Fries and Wikipedia:Recentism

Talk:Gulf of Mexico#The United States only controls 46% of the Gulf?

Talk:Gulf of Mexico#Stating the obvious: entities other than the US government are not required to observe the name change

Talk:Gulf of Mexico#The "Gulf of America" bloat needs to stop

These are repeated arguments about the same thing, and therefore, in your definition, disruptive. Not a single user here has been blocked. Rc2barrington (talk) 02:01, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

@Rc2barrington, a discussion that is exactly the same discussion is different from one that isn't. So, no, opening a discussion about whether GoA belongs in the lead -- even if it isn't an RfC -- is not okay. Those other discussions -- at least the ones I've been to, haven't had much time in the past few days -- are about at least slightly different questions.

I feel like I've been very patient with your assumption you know what's going on here better than I do. I am going to suggest that there are multiple places you can officially question my judgement: WP:XRV is where you can challenge my admin actions. WP:Closure review has instructions on how to challenge the close itself. But I'm done trying to explain this to you here on my talk. Valereee (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Gulf of Mexico

When does the excuse of WP:RECENTISM expire on Gulf of Mexico? When anything Trump does stops being controversial (which will be never)? Pretty easy to see through the bias of the admins on Gulf of Mexico. Pretty ridiculous how a double standard exists and my discussion was shut down by you for showing the double standard. See precedent in my talk topic on the page that you disabled.

“First, they will ignore you, then they will laugh at you, then they will fight you, then you will win.” - Mahatma Gandhi. Hamjamguy (talk) 09:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Eh, we'll surely know whether 'Gulf of America' belongs in the lead in ten years. We definitely won't know a week from now. We probably won't know for sure six months from now, but maybe there'll be enough data points by then to convince others. A year from now? Maybe. There's no "expiration" date on recentism, really.

The standard most editors will likely use is whether the best RS are using GoA to refer to the body of water rather than to report on the kerfuffle. Many editors will likely want to see RS outside the US using something like, "The Gulf of Mexico, which is known in the US as the Gulf of America".

Not sure what you're finding is a double standard, do you mean Sea of Japan/Persian Gulf? That was brought up in the RfC and other editors didn't find it compelling...I think someone pointed out somewhere that both of those naming disputes are decades old? I'm sure if this one goes on for decades, it'll probably appear in the lead. But after a 2-week-long discussion which had participation from 170+ editors, having that exact same discussion again one week later is a waste of everyone's time. There is no urgency to inserting information into an article. I would argue we don't need to revisit this question for six months, at any rate. Valereee (talk) 10:50, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I hardly think that quote often attributed to the Mahatma would apply to the renaming of part of a body of water. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Not necessarily, but it does apply to permanently blocking the further discussion of the possible addition of a small amount context to an article that I and many others believe needs it. But, I guess we will find out in 6 months Hamjamguy (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

By the way, thank you for the clarification on the closure. I was receiving some odd backlash from editors about there being "no consensus," even an odd talk page message about Marxism. lol. I am glad that I did not misunderstand it. Regards.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 05:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, and so sorry for the lack of clarity. I should have stated it more starkly originally. Valereee (talk) 13:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't mean to create problems, but I do feel that "no consensus to add" was correct, whereas I'm not sure that "consensus not to add" would have been. It was a crap RfC: taken too soon, flooded with lots of emotion and poor arguments, and I don't see how it could have presented a policy-based consensus for anything, so you did what you could. But enwiki will have to "unfreeze" the lead of this article at some point, and if that point is in six months it will by then seem quite odd and out of step with other sources that the "Gulf of America" is confined to the article body. IMO of course, but I feel Wikipedia is generating *more* backlash and trolling on this by resisting the lead mention in step with proposals for a title change (the latter move really *would* be premature in 5 or even 10 years, but the lead mention will seem like an obvious laguna by late spring, I suspect). Just my .02 Newimpartial (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't disagree. For me the 'no consensus to add' was the most nuanced correct conclusion, but obviously newer, less experienced editors interpreted that to mean 'no consensus'. If they'd waited a month or six weeks to revisit, it's quite likely there would have been fewer objections to that. Or if the initial RfC had been designed better. Honestly if I were czar I'd argue, "Let's come up with an RfC more people can support".

I think if the RfC had been something like "The Gulf of Mexico (Spanish: Golfo de México; officially designated by the US as Gulf of America) is an oceanic basin and a marginal sea of the Atlantic Ocean, mostly surrounded by the North American continent" or something, more people might have been able to get behind it. Valereee (talk) 19:22, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Denali

I did think it was worthy of a response because Denali had been brought up multiple times on the page, and will likely be raised again as I would bet it is brought up on whatever fora the IPs originate. Therefore there is value in squashing the relevance argument. But point taken. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

@Objective3000, Yeah, I know, and I'm sorry to harp. It has been brought up several times, and I'm sure will be again. Maybe an FAQ about all the whatabouts that are actually irrelevant at this article?

In a normal talk page discussion, I'd never get anywhere near this nitpicky about FORUM, especially if the majority the participants were basically experienced well-intentioned editors. A little bit of that kind of off-topic tangent is no big deal, I'm sure I've done it myself many times. It's just that at this article talk, where we have so many editors who have little experience, and so much irrelevance in arguments, I'm trying to be very clear about what is and isn't okay per talk policy to kind of try to keep it to a minimum. Valereee (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Understood. We are likely in for a rough four years. Never seen so many revdels and protections at ANI. I don't know of an overall solution that would be palatable to be community. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

@Objective3000 You think this trend will be limited to the next four years? To me that seems naive...it feels more like a threshold IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, whoever is selected in four years, will likely continue. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I think this'll be an ongoing thing whenever the administration switches from dem to GOP. Because Trump decided to take something that wasn't broadly seen as political and turn it into a political football. The man loves to divide us. It's depressing. We're going to eventually end up with asterisks at GoM and Denali, with footnotes discussing how politicized the names have become, with the names changing every time the administration changes, and which name you use serving as a flag on your lapel announcing your political loyalties. It's stupid. Valereee (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, when the oceans rise another foot, and Florida and New Orleans go the way of Atlantis; they may have to come up with a new name. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

You are assuming that the administration is going to flip back to Dem - I think this assumption will need some evidence to back it up, under conditions as they are currently evolving. Newimpartial (talk) 20:10, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 8, 2025)

Cheesecake recipe from a family cookbook Hello, Valereee. The article for improvement of the week is: Family cookbooks Please be bold and help improve it! Previous selections: Peninsula • Ice cream social Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 17 February 2025 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI •

Tech News: 2025-08

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

Weekly highlight

• Communities using growth tools can now showcase one event on the Special:Homepage for newcomers. This feature will help newcomers to be informed about editing activities they can participate in. Administrators can create a new event to showcase at Special:CommunityConfiguration. To learn more about this feature, please read the Diff post, have a look at the documentation, or contact the Growth team.

Updates for editors

Highlighted talk pages improvements

• Starting next week, talk pages at these wikis – Spanish Wikipedia, French Wikipedia, Italian Wikipedia, Japanese Wikipedia – will get a new design. This change was extensively tested as a Beta feature and is the last step of talk pages improvements. [1]
• You can now navigate to view a redirect page directly from its action pages, such as the history page. Previously, you were forced to first go to the redirect target. This change should help editors who work with redirects a lot. Thanks to user stjn for this improvement. [2]
• When a Cite reference is reused many times, wikis currently show either numbers like "1.23" or localized alphabetic markers like "a b c" in the reference list. Previously, if there were so many reuses that the alphabetic markers were all used, an error message was displayed. As part of the work to modernize Cite customization, these errors will no longer be shown and instead the backlinks will fall back to showing numeric markers like "1.23" once the alphabetic markers are all used.
• The log entries for each change to an editor's user-groups are now clearer by specifying exactly what has changed, instead of the plain before and after listings. Translators can help to update the localized versions. Thanks to user Msz2001 for these improvements.
• A new filter has been added to the Special:Nuke tool, which allows administrators to mass delete pages, to enable users to filter for pages in a range of page sizes (in bytes). This allows, for example, deleting pages only of a certain size or below. [3]
• Non-administrators can now check which pages are able to be deleted using the Special:Nuke tool. Thanks to user MolecularPilot for this and the previous improvements. [4]
• View all 25 community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week. For example, a bug was fixed in the configuration for the AV1 video file format, which enables these files to play again. [5]

Updates for technical contributors

• Parsoid Read Views is going to be rolling out to most Wiktionaries over the next few weeks, following the successful transition of Wikivoyage to Parsoid Read Views last year. For more information, see the Parsoid/Parser Unification project page. [6][7]
• Developers of tools that run on-wiki should note that mw.Uri is deprecated. Tools requiring mw.Uri must explicitly declare mediawiki.Uri as a ResourceLoader dependency, and should migrate to the browser native URL API soon. [8]

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

MediaWiki message delivery 21:14, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

A little India, perhaps?

Talk:Sambhaji#Surge_of_requests_incoming! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Fuck: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#"Legal_Issues". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

So this whole brouhaha is about libelling someone who died 350 years ago? Valereee (talk) 20:28, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

And danced in a costume drama. Note also James_Laine#Shivaji:_Hindu_King_in_Islamic_India, that book was about the someone's father. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:39, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Maybe it wouldn't actually be so bad if India blocked Wikipedia. Valereee (talk) 20:43, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

The thought has occurred (again), yes. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

If you want to read more, check "This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:" at Talk:Sambhaji. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:43, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

OMG...that's like a dozen mentions in a couple of days. Jeesh. Valereee (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Soooo...whaddaya think the chances are this subject is notable? And will we piss off all of India's court system again if we create it? Valereee (talk) 20:48, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I tend to complain when people create news-y WP-articles quickly, but of course some of them will have staying power. I've seen Wikipedia_in_India#Indian_government_and_Wikipedia as a possible place to put something, or perhaps Internet censorship in India. This is the only media coverage I've seen so far that dared to mention what was in the WP-article:[9]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I do think that the article may have a DUE problem that people are entitled to be angry about, even if they have completely failed to engage with requesting edits in the appropriate fashion. At the very least, it should be more consistent with Execution of Sambhaji. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I've not looked deeply into the sources myself, but I did comment on the LEAD a bit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

@Rosguill, as the creator and major contributor of Execution of Sambhaji, I am afraid of the legal issues going on, like Ratnahastin. What would you suggest me to do now? Imperial^[AFCND] 04:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

If you're worried about legal issues, I would leave it to someone else. But my general sense is that there is information at Execution that is likely DUE to include at the biography. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

"This is Valereee, or as we like to call her, "Two Blacklocks!"" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Added something at Wikipedia_in_India#Indian_government_and_Wikipedia, we'll see what happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase III/Administrator elections

Administrator Elections | Renewal RFC phase

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase III/Administrator elections.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)