Admins: If you think an admin action I've taken recently is wrong or unhelpful, or one I've taken in the past is no longer useful, go ahead and undo or change it without feeling like you have to talk to me first. An explanation in the edit summary is always helpful, but I trust your judgement.
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.
Scam Watch
Warning: There is an on-going scam targeting people who would like Wikipedia to have an article about them. See this scam warning for detailed information. No ethical Wikipedia editor or administrator will offer to create an article for money. If you've been scammed please send details to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org to help others who could be future victims of this scam.
Hello, Valereee. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Latest comment: 1 day ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, would you like to help me create this page in en.wiki? I would take care of the complete translation as well as the images and related captions, and if you want you could take care of the more technical part (formatting, etc.). Thanks in advance. JacktheBrown (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thank you, love to hear that! - I uploaded the last pics of 2024 and thought of you, because - after no food pic for the Christmas days - there are dumplings ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
hahaha...yes, that's just what I need to support my goal of a quiet life of research and writing about any random thing (which is basically everything) that piques my interest and holds it for long enough for me to write an article: someone who can take over the camera on my laptop and flash images of my face to...who even are these people?
The Heritage Foundation v Wikipedia. Sigh. If someone starts it, LMK. If I decide to -- you never know, the bees in my bonnet have been stirred up by less -- I'll LYK. Valereee (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
To be fair 48 minutes probably is an unusually long time for getting BLP vandalism reverted. Even on Xmas Day. :D But 8 years is an unusually long time to be holding a grudge about it, too. :D Valereee (talk) 13:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 day ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Valereee. I apologize, but if the user themselves is misquoting me or at least misunderstanding my sentence, which I think I was relatively clear, I'm not sure what to do in terms of response. This is not an isolated incidents (see below), so I feel the need to bring it an admins attention.
On discussion with the editor: here: I proposed that " it might be a bit above and beyond to suggest that [the Facebook group] sharing slightly memetic content as serious discussion about [the content]." while saying that a post from facebook could be used as WP:SELFSOURCE, this content would not satisfy as any serious discussion on the topic.
The editor here. said this in reference to my comment. "As you pointed out this is a terrific example of WP:SELFSOURCE". I suggested the opposite.
Other users have had similar experiences such as "koavf": here asking about edits to a table as they hindered accessibility purposes. Their response was they did not remove anything, seemingly again misinterpreting the claim here. "koavf", from this edit equally confused that the editor did not understand their actions.
From my experiences with trying to respond, I'm not sure the editor understands or is open to taking understanding general wiki policy, even when continuously presented to them. I wasn't sure to bring this up as a dispute edit or anything, but as you are familiar and had experience, I figured I'd ask you. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
The sentence "While I do think Universal sharing this content is fun and keeps the spirits of these films alive, it might be a bit above and beyond to suggest that them sharing slightly memetic content as serious discussion about them" is just puzzling. Are you trying to say, "We don't use self-sources for anything except noncontroversial facts."? If so, say it. Briefly and clearly. I'm kind of not surprised they didn't understand what you were getting at.
That said, if the inclusion of these films in the franchise is truly controversial, surely there are RS saying exactly that: "The inclusion of film X in franchise Y is considered controversial by cinephiles". Because if Universal is treating them as part of the franchise, and no RS are calling it controversial to include them, is it really controversial? Valereee (talk) 14:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Fair on that. I was generally trying to come off as friendly or not sound like I'm dismissing the content provided as I'm just trying to come off as approachable or friendly to discuss. Regardless, my statement is still being misinterpreted as saying it was an "excellent example of the source", even thought I was not tagged, is it okay with you to reply to say they are misunderstanding my statement. I have found several sources, both via journalists and academic research, that give different scopes for the franchise. To be short, this is not a cut and dry franchise with an easy to define narrative connection, as the branding of it only existed decades after the films were made. You can see my five sources I've quoted here. By doing this, I am trying to apply WP:BALANCE and WP:SOURCETYPES. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Unfortunately, no, probably not okay. Under this editing restriction it's pretty much your responsibility to make sure you are clear the first time, and that takes some work. I'd worry less about sounding friendly and more about being very clear the first time. Valereee (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Fair enough. One last question, I've asked a few times if I'm applying rules correctly about when I state them, and these questions about the content. As you discussed the content with me, I'd like to clarify with you if I am misunderstanding them. If you could verify it, it would make me feel confident in any direction I'm trying to go with this or other work. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, not sure which rules you mean? If you can restate here your understanding of whatever it is you're asking whether you're applying correctly? Valereee (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
No worries, I'll try again. Per WP:BALANCE and WP:SOURCETYPES, the first states "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance." The second states states "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." My understanding from these generally is one finds academic sources (i.e: from academic journals etc.) try to focus on drawing from these kinds of sources and for the balance rule, if the sources are both state different conclusions, try to find a right balance to display them with equal weight. I'll admit I'm not the best writer, so I hope what I'm asking is more clear. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
_without_national_boundaries.svg)
