User talk:Valereee: Difference between revisions

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

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

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

Copy-paste from Talk:Killing of George Floyd

EEng wrote:

• (Idea 1) One way would be a template with parameters X and Y. When present on a talk page, it causes edit requests on that page to not appear in the patrol queue (or whatever they call it) if there have been at least X edits (non-bot edits) to the talk page within the last Y days. Something like that.
• (Idea 2) Or maybe that should be the default all the time, no template needed.
• (Idea 3) Or maybe either of the above, plus if the request remains unanswered after Z days, then it goes in the general queue of edit requests needing answering.

Unfortunately this will take some technical work, not sure how much though. How about you and I commit to remembering to raise this at VP.

I really like 2+3, but 1+3 might be an easier sell. An added benefit is that this represents lessening the burden on editors patrolling requested edits.

Is there any perceived benefit to noninvolved editors responding to edit requests? It's possible the regulars at an article could be owny enough that they just mark all requested changes as answered/not done. Right now they'd have to answer those requests within minutes to ensure no fresh set of eyes shows up. Changing it to at least Z days might be seen as a downside? —valereee (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the right question is Is there any perceived benefit to noninvolved editors responding to edit requests when there are editors active on the article's talk page on a daily basis? Answer: No, and in fact it's a net negative. Semi-protected articles (and semi is, I suspect, by far the most common form of protection) are that way because there're (shall we say) lots and lots of people editing, and therefore available for handling edit requests.

So on reflection, I wonder how useful this patrolling-by-drive-by-editors actually is. Unless there's some flaw in my logic above (and I stand ready to be corrected on it), I would think that the vast majority of edit requests, if patrollers would just leave them alone, would be answered within 24 to 48 by editors active on the page. EEng 21:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^{( Buttinsky)} - noninvolved is defined in a few dictionaries, but not in Oxford. I checked to see how it's trending and it flatlined. Just curious...maybe it's just me being picky but wouldn't uninvolved editors be the better choice? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme, totally —valereee (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNEVOLVED. EEng 01:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

EEng, there are 10,000+ semiprotected articles. Orinx has 2 watchers, 1 of whom visited recent edits. —valereee (talk) 12:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And interestingly...there are ~20 current requests at semiprotected edit requests. One, at Balkans, is a month old. Eight are from today. I'm sure some patrollers come in and start with the fresh requests, figuring some of them will be easy to handle. And there doesn't seem to be any instructions for people on how to handle requests, unless it would be somewhere other than Wikipedia:Edit_requests#Responding_to_requests_and_mandatory_copyright_attribution —valereee (talk) 14:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Saw the comment on the article's Talk Page, and followed the discussion here) As another possible idea (independent from the ones above), might it help to write a polite essay on the problem of drive-by patrolling editors who flip edit requests to "answered" while posting useless and/or unhelpful comments that frustrate newbies? The intended audience would be the problematic drive-by editors themselves, explaining to them why they cause more problems than they solve by their behavior (including examples). Then create a WP shortcut to that essay page (perhaps "WP:EDITREQUESTFAIL" or something more catchy), and when you see a drive-by editor make a problematic edit like that, just revert them with a polite edit summary like "Reverted good faith but unhelpful comment per WP:EDITREQUESTFAIL". Doing so would 1) remove their useless post, 2) flip the "Y" back to "N" on the answer (to attract a better answer from a more knowledgeable editor), and 3) politely direct the drive-by editor to a well written page where he or she can learn why their short-sighted and problematic edit was reverted. I suspect most of the problematic editors would learn quickly and stop doing that after a single instance; only obtuse patrollers would go right back to the Talk Page in question to combatively revert your revert of their useless post. Would instituting something like this be worthwhile, and gradually educate the community over time to stop making those kinds of unhelpful posts that mess up the edit request process? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AzureCitizen, it's not a bad idea. The problem here was that the person patrolling, who was just trying to help, probably should have just recognized the situation for what it was: a requested edit that may or may not be a reasonable change to ask for, to an article currently being heavily edited and with hundreds of active watchers. I believe the correct decision is move on, as someone brand new to this article is unlikely to be able to answer almost any edit request better than someone already working here. —valereee (talk) 11:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EEng invited me here from the article talk because I was "missing the point". Conceptually, I have no problem if we want to optimize the edit request process site wide. However, the edit request response that spurred this was fine. While the request did not cite any sources, we don't need a response that "us regulars know everything there is to know, it's been discussed ad nauseaum, and consensus ain't changing." Perhaps there is something we missing before, there is new information, or this editor has a new angle? Or maybe they're just wrong or trolling. In any event, inviting them to establish consensus is a neutral response that encourages good-faith editors and does not feed any would-be trolls.—Bagumba (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bagumba, I guess I don't agree that the response was fine. It felt to me like someone who decided to help out at requested edits, dropped in, made their best guess as to what might be a halfway reasonable response, and moved on to the next request. It wasn't helpful to someone making their first edit. What does 'please gain consensus before suggesting this alteration' even MEAN to someone making their first edit, much less their first edit request? That is a very high-traffic article with HUNDREDS of watchers, so there are many people available who understand the article, and answering an edit request there right now probably requires some level of familiarity or willingness to become familiar with it. This isn't some West Texas high school protected because someone keeps changing the name of the principal from Patsy to Pussy and someone's making an edit request to ask we change the stated location because they just put up a new building. —valereee (talk) 11:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

... made their best guess as to what might be a halfway reasonable response ... Maybe, maybe not. I as a semi-regular on that page would likely have said something as neutral and avoided outright saying the OP was wrong or assume I was necessarily up-to-date on the latest sources. You do have a point of regulars throwing the word "consensus" around, which might not be accessible to a complete newbie, but neither is pointing them that a way to an FAQ or giving them the impression that consensus cannot change because I am all wise (well ... I am, but ...) While I'm not saying edit request patrolling can't be improved, I am saying that the response in this specific case was fine, even if the (speculated) rationale behind it might not have been.—Bagumba (talk) 12:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bagumba, believe me, I've seen regulars at a page give unfriendly and unhelpful and sometimes deliberately obtuse responses to edit requests. Let's for the sake of argument leave aside the quality of this particular response; I'm not even sure it's important. My feeling is that on a page that is currently being heavily edited and is actively watched by hundreds, an edit request response from someone who is unfamiliar with the article isn't likely to be as on point as the most-helpful response that could be given by the most-well-intentioned regular, and so when a patroller lands on a talk page at such an article, it's highly likely the best move is to move on to the next edit request. Would you be more likely to agree with that? —valereee (talk) 13:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If we move away from this particular response, I'm indifferent on any process changes. Cheers. —Bagumba (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. What does move away from this particular response mean, exactly? EEng 17:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EEng, it was in response to Valereee's ... leave aside the quality of this particular response—Bagumba (talk) 00:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. EEng 01:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

an edit request response from someone who is unfamiliar with the article isn't likely to be as on point as the most-helpful response that could be given by the most-well-intentioned regular, and so when a patroller lands on a talk page at such an article, it's highly likely the best move is to move on to the next edit request – Yes, though I'd put it a bit more strongly: Even a mediocre response from a regular is likely to be at least as good as any response make by someone unfamiliar with the article. I've bolded part of your post because it's pretty much what we want, though I'd add that even better than the patroller recognizing they should move on would be for the system to never take the patroller to the page at all. EEng 17:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that would be a training issue. Having the edit request just not show up at the various lists for 24 hours would likely fix the problem without instruction creep and retraining of every new patroller. There's just really very little reason for an edit request to be funneled to a random patroller before 24 hours have gone by. Any page that has an urgent change needed is likely to have multiple editors headed there or working there already. —valereee (talk) 17:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything you just said, with the exception that I don't know what it is you're saying would be a training issue. EEng 01:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EEng, sorry, by 'training issue' I just meant that trying to get patrollers to recognize when their help isn't needed means 1. adding to the instructions and 2. getting each new patroller to actually read and internalize the instructions.

If instead requested edits simply don't show up at Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests and User:AnomieBOT/SPERTable and wherever else they transclude to for say 24 hours, we don't have that same issue. We don't have to train patrollers. —valereee (talk) 11:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right. That's what you said and that's what I agreed was the best thing to happen. We are in violent agreement. EEng 12:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to with the exception that I don't know what it is you're saying would be a training issue. —valereee (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you must be reading something I said backwards, but no matter. So... shall we summarize the possible changes to the process we're contemplating, and then where do we raise this? EEng 17:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That would be not unheard of, and yes. I think we could raise it at Wikipedia talk:Edit requests or at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). My best guess would be Village pump policy; only 39 watchers visited last edits at the talk page for edit requests.

drafting proposal

Something like:

Patrollers of requested edits at semiprotected articles sometimes are the first to visit a request at even heavily-edited talk pages. Often some familiarity with the article and recent talk page discussion would allow for more helpful response, and on pages that are currently being heavily edited, there are usually many editors available to help. We’re suggesting that edit requests on talk pages that are currently being heavily edited simply not show up at at Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests and User:AnomieBOT/SPERTable for 24 hours, or that they're greyed out for the first 24 hours to indicate they aren't in urgent need of help from patrollers, to give regulars at high-traffic articles a chance to respond. This will lessen the burden on patrollers at edit requests and increase the likelihood new editors’ requests will be answered by someone familiar with ongoing discussions at that article.

That's terrible, but as a draft. —valereee (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EEng,I've given it a copyedit. —valereee (talk) 14:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will be distracted for the next week or so but don't let me forget to get back to this. EEng 02:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I still have this in my ping list. Right now I'm busy grinding someone into a grease spot. EEng 00:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EEng, same —valereee (talk) 01:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're grinding someone into a grease spot as well? That's a side of you I haven't seen before. EEng 01:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not my choice; they're pretty much forcing me to. —valereee (talk) 16:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EEng is this still on the radar? —valereee (talk) 21:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I was just looking guiltily at it last night. The answer is yes, but I'm still just too distracted to concentrate on it. Don't worry, I never forget a commitment. EEng 00:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC) Not that I remember, anyway.[reply]

Zero worries, there's no urgency. —valereee (talk) 01:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still on my mind. EEng 05:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The elephant never forgets. EEng 02:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I really wish I'd followed up on this before now. Every day at T:Joe Biden we've got people swooping in out of nowhere saying the same stupid thing over and over: Get consensus first, Get consensus first, Get consensus first, Get consensus first, Get consensus first, Get consensus first, like they've helped by saying that. I'm so sick of people doing mindless things that help not at all and waste others' time. EEng 04:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Silver lining: we now have another really good example of why it makes sense to propose something like this. —valereee (talk) 09:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbor-treeish break

I have another thought on how to go about this, but first I need to understand something. Where do these protected edit requests come from? What I mean is, how do IP editors stumble into the place where they're told "You can't edit this article, but if you fill in this box that will make a post to the talk page, with this little template attached"? I had imagine that it pops up when they try to edit the article, but I logged out just now and I realize that, in fact, when an IP tries to edit a protected article, there is simply no edit button for them to click. So where, exactly, do these templated posts come from?

The reason I ask is that, it seems to me, the way to fix our problem is just to make is so the edit-request template is omitted from the post. In other words, we don't need options for how the request will be handled, what we need an option to make the post just a simple post, without the request template. EEng 19:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EEng, I think these must be people who are used to being able to edit, or people sophisticated enough to realize viewing source might let you edit. If you log out and click view source, you get an edit request button. —valereee (talk) 19:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, it's all coming back to me now. OK, so we need to investigate how that template pops up, and what mechanism can be inserted to modify that on an article-by-article basis, perhaps based on some magic word or template inserted on the article's talk page. EEng 20:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, I've already poured myself a glass of wine. Don't judge. But why is that better than having edit requests for articles (that have 400+ watchers who visited recent edits/have 50 edits per day) or edit requests less than 24 hours old simply not show up at the edit requests dashboard? That's probably where most of these eager beavers are coming from. —valereee (talk) 20:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not to butt in, but I saw "investigate how that template pops up". I'm thinking you may be referring to the set of templates that is MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext (shown when clicking "view source"). The one shown in the header after you click "submit an edit request" and are redirected to the talk page is Template:Edit extended-protected/editintro. The template popping up in the post itself is the preload: Template:Submit_an_edit_request/preload. Mobile editors can't see any of this, though, and when they click the pencil they just see "This page is protected to prevent vandalism", so how on earth they're submitting requests I don't know...

Regarding the "no consensus" replies, probably just a habit of using the userscript and giving the generic responses I think. I've been guilty of it too, but now that you mention it, I suppose it is a pretty unhelpful thing to reply with. Also worth noting Module:Protected edit request shows the banner. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PR, butt in any time. :) —valereee (talk) 14:28, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here at ANI, you assisted in an issue with the editing of

Fourthords, hm. It certainly looks suspicious. That article is the only one they've both edited, though. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Seiko888 —valereee (talk) 14:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the assistance, again! Wow, there was more going on there than I realized. Is there a protocol for reverting such "sockpuppet" account edits? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fourthords, yes, it's basically assume they need to be scrutinized. Some people just revert any edits by a blocked editor, but I try to see if they might actually have been good edits. Not all sock edits are bad edits. —valereee (talk) 02:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At the O'Neill article they've just been replacing the title "SEAL Team Six" (used by most of the sources and the location of

WP:COMMONNAME. Thus far, only that editor and I have been involved in the back-and-forth. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 01:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

May I ask of you once again? Since there's only been the one edit warrior at that article previously, it is my assumption that this edit by 72.234.105.182 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is one and the same, evading the blocks that have been put in place. What is the next step of recourse? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 03:32, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fourthords, goodness, that is one single-minded sockpuppet. I can put a short protection on the article, but you're likely going to need to keep it on your watchlist lol! —valereee (talk) 10:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the assist! If it recurs, should I pester you again, or is there a different, more-appropriate, venue I should be approaching? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:42, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fourthords, it's fine if you come here, but I'm thinking SPI would be more effective. They'll know whether it's appropriate to block an IP, they'll recognize a sock better than I will. I think since we know for sure there's socking happening, that's probably your best bet for a longer-term fix? —valereee (talk) 17:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP is edit warring and the following need PP, please?

Atsme, I protect the china article, but I'm not following on the HK -- is it a redirect page that's got the problem? —valereee (talk) 18:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both - the IP is removing material from the China article and creating a new article, then removing the redirect. Based on my research, the Hong Kong list (article) was deleted and a redirect was created which was supported by consensus. Atsme 💬 📧 18:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme, I'm sorry, I'm too stupid for this.  :) I think I've gotten it, but of course the wrong versions are probably protected. I'll leave a message at the IP's talk. —valereee (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Val.

List of lighthouses in Hong Kong needs to be restored as a redirect to List of lighthouses in China. Atsme 💬 📧 19:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC) ^{PS: I restored the redirect, and advised the lighthouse project.Atsme 💬 📧 19:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)}[reply

]

Ok, so the main article is protected and that means List_of_lighthouses_in_China#Lighthouses_in_Hong_Kong is in tact; so, should the redirect be speedy deleted? The IP removed the redirect and created a duplicate list to what we already have as a subsection per the aforementioned. The current List of lighthouses in China is not overflowing or in need of a split. I realize that spin-offs cannot be speedy deleted but this is technically a redirect, so what do you think? Atsme 💬 📧 17:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme, hm. I think I'd leave the redirect. They're cheap, and it's possible someone would type that in to see if we had that article yet. I'm thinking if the problem keeps recurring we protect it instead? —valereee (talk) 17:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See this, and then see the reverts I made today here. If you can protect both it may help. That IP needs to start a discussion because the article isn't so large that it needs a spin-off. It's just a list and it's convenient to have the locations in one place (despite WP:NOTDIRECTORY) but hey - if consensus agrees it should be a separate article, it's ok with me. The IP needs to start a discussion on the talk page of the China list and make that happen. Atsme 💬 📧 18:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme, yeah, I've recommended that. Don't hold your breath. Okay, I'll semi both for a short time. —valereee (talk) 18:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Val! If you are only protecting the page for 2 or 3 days, it isn't working. See this edit today. DumbBot also removed the pp symbol on the 16th presumably because the page wasn't protected, so that's twice now. The IP reverted immediately following DumbBot's removal, see this and this. Also see

List of lighthouses in Macau. They have also placed improper tags so I've replaced the redirects. There has not been any discussion on the Talk page to arrive at a consensus to move/split those sections. As a patroller, it is difficult for me to properly do my work when others refuse to follow WP:PAG, as is the case with this IP. They apparently want it known that there is a People's Republic of China and that China is not part of it, or so it seems by the edits and separation of the lighthouses. Should it be escalated to AN or ANI if you have concerns over longer PP or blocking the IP? I created a discussion on Talk:List of lighthouses in China for the splits, hopefully to stop the disrutpive editing. Atsme 💬 📧 11:54, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Atsme, I've indefinitely semi'd both redirects. I can't think of any reason an IP would need to edit a redirect that isn't going to ever become an article.

It's not all the same IP, is it? —valereee (talk) 12:12, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's the same editor using different IPs but who knows? IP:219.77.112.107 and IP:210.0.147.67, both geolocate to the same area in Hong Kong. Atsme 💬 📧 12:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC) Adding diffs: most active and least active but recent. 12:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Adding again - it is beginning to look a lot like vandalism based on this edit by 219.77.112.107 - a repeat offender. Then there are the brief edits by 210.0.147.67 - see this list. We also have this IP who is doing good work gnoming. Atsme 💬 📧 12:51, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Atsme, is that first edit just a link to the Chinese article? Where did it even insert it? It looks like in the categories, but I can't see anything there. When I click to vis ed it says no change. —valereee (talk) 13:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I've semi'd the china list for a week to try to get the IP to discuss. —valereee (talk) 13:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  It could be a high schooler jacking around - that edit wikilinks here. Vandalism? At the same time, I've got this and this going on which links to this - pure vandalism. The IP issue is still a cost-benefit argument. I say it costs more than it benefits but I'm only one editor in the trenches who has to deal with it. Imagine if we had global strike of registered editors/admins who have grown weary of the nuisance work. Atsme 💬 📧 13:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Atsme, IMO, as more and more people edit from smartphones, we'll likely have to go to requiring people to request to edit from a specific IP. Like maybe their first edit is for a specific IP to be whitelisted, and then they have to wait for an adminbot to get around to that. For dynamic IPs that means every session, so dynamic IPs would have a strong motivation to register an account. I don't see how we'll ever keep up if we don't go to something like that. —valereee (talk) 13:57, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  They're not going to stop are they? It's pure disruption. I've never been exposed to anything quite like this before. They refuse to discuss it at the proper talk page for whatever reason. They are following behind my notices at the various project pages and attempting to change the discussion venue. That's flat-out

  WP:NOTHERE disruption. This is a classic example of why I'm glad you're the admin and not me. 🤪🤣 Atsme 💬 📧 19:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Atsme, wait, what? —valereee (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  An IP ^{22:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)} I went to the project pages WP:WikiProject Lists, WP:WikiProject Lighthouses, WP:WikiProject China and posted the proper venue. An IP went to all project talk pages and tried to re-route the discussion. I went ahead and voted on Talk:List of lighthouses in China to help get the discussion going. Start there. Atsme 💬 📧 21:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Atsme, I've started an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/14.0.180.170#Suspected_sockpuppets based on what looks like obvious IP hopping to sock. It might be helpful if you'd add the rest of the IPs that were reverting, it's possible one of them will connect to an actual account. —valereee (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not an easy one, Val - sorry about that - but the same IP just reverted my edits at
  Military of Hong Kong and added back 2 sources with bad links that appear to be government PDF files. That page needs to be semi-protected. We may need to do that to all for a while and hopefully those IPs will register and stop their disruption. Atsme 💬 📧 18:37, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Atsme, open a section on the talk, and if they revert again I'll semi the page. This user seems to be a combination of completely ignorant and too-knowledgeable. —valereee (talk) 18:54, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I was actually in the process of doing that, but while looking for RS to see what's going on there, I found this recent NYTimes article. Now I'm thinking maybe a redirect or a move to People's Liberation Army in Hong Kong, perhaps with a merge of that section in the building article? Either way, it needs to be semi-protected so we can at least discuss it, and reach a consensus rather than waste the valuable time of our editors...including you and I. Atsme 💬 📧 19:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Atsme, wait...you mean running an RfA because I thought wasting my time dealing with stupid shit was a good idea was all based on a lie? —valereee (talk) 19:25, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  😂 Over time, we learn to waste time efficiently, like watching YouTube videos. It takes less effort. Atsme 💬 📧 20:06, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Atsme: May I know what your point is of removing an inter-wiki links? Or just that you keep removing it because you genuinely believe that's "gibberish" as you put it? Who's waiting whose time? 210.0.147.24 (talk) 10:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Val, what can it hurt to block those 3 or 4 IP addresses since they're being used consistently, and the behavior of all indicates
  Military of Hong Kong to Hong Kong Garrison is removed again, can you restore it before you PP it? ^{What a way to start off Christmas Day, huh?} Atsme 💬 📧 11:24, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Atsme, which 3 or 4, even? I've lost count, but there are more than 3 or 4. You don't think this is one person IP-hopping? Trying to follow what's happening at the redirects is making my head hurt. —valereee (talk) 12:18, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It's feeling more like trying to herd cats, huh? Thank you for all the effort you've put into this, Val. I'm feeling guilty that you've had to take the brunt of it, so I reached out to Daniel Case, a member of WP:WikiProject China. I'm hoping a project member will be able to get collegial discussions started where they're needed. Atsme 💬 📧 13:14, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Atsme, no, don't feel guilty at all, lol! I just wish I knew some strategy for dealing with this. I feel like it's a single person or maybe very small number of meatpuppets who are IP-hopping, but maybe it's actually multiple people being sent here from some Reddit subpage for people in Hong Kong and that's why they all sound like the same person and geolocate to the same area? I just feel like even blocking a dynamic IP is just a waste of time, all the person needs to do is turn off their wifi and turn it back on to get assigned a new IP. And then the next person who gets assigned the other one is blocked. —valereee (talk) 13:43, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize Reddit was used for that sort of thing - learn something new everyday! Well, it looks like semi-PP is a good option for now, and hopefully those pages won't have to be elevated to extended confirmed. Just an FYI, I have pending changes reviewer rights, just in case this is a waiting game for the IPs. The pages are on my watchlist. Atsme 💬 📧 13:57, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey- I am planning to contest that the clear consensus you saw on the DPP talk page is consistent with Wiktionary Neutrality policy. Note of course that I don't plan to challenge that the consensus exists: yes, you can string together some users to oppose Wikipedia policy sometimes. I plan to challenge the content of the concensus itself based on the contradiction with Wikipedia policy in the content of the consensus. My goal is to get to dispute resolution where I'm pretty sure I will get the non-Taiwanese foreign language content removed from the article. [1] Geographyinitiative (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC) (modified)[reply]

Geographyinitiative, no worries, contest away! :) —valereee (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help Geographyinitiative (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your description of how you call my editing disruptive uses a lot of metaphor like bludgeoning and nitpicking.

Could you clarify what area of policy you are describing and how it is that my statements fit this description and others' do not?

I do not recognize how I should be singled out as argumentative given that others are arguing with me.

Only those supporting a certain interpretation are free to make heard opinion? WakandaQT (talk) 05:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Responded at your talk. —valereee (talk) 11:51, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply on my talk.

A tendency to ramble and difficulty summarizing points to a length you would prefer is something I can see as a shortcoming though I'm not sure how difficulty expressing myself efficiently is considered disruption. People are free to "TLDR" if they lack the patience right? ::That's also why Simple Wikipedia exists.

Section creation times were 4:28/5:09/4:57/6:59/7:18 so the 4th/5th sections happened more than two hours later.

• I grok your overall point/intent that it was in a relatively short span of time (within 3 hours) but that's because multiple ideas of how to improve the article occurred to me while reading through it's many details.

I do not agree that sections were repeats. The closest to come to that is one section highlighting the removal of sources from the page. My complaint about the removal of those sources was related to the shin issue (a pre-existing source was removed because I used it) but I still felt it was a distinct enough issue to make a new section for: that said I should've made more effort to keep that clear and I did fail there as it got muddled in discussing the merit of Derrick Rose.

I disagree w/ "it didn't" because I think things should be done, and I'll make an effort to summarize those for you:

1. see if any RS gives uncuff time and add it
2. see if any RS gives other 2 officers' standup times and add them
3. introduce clearer anatomical positioning language (prone) already supported by RS
4. introduce clearer anatomical part language (shin) already supported by RS

Why I'm more rambly than the above 4 lines when making sections is I like to link to sources and quote them, which necessarily takes up more space, which is why I split them into sections as I separately thought of them.

Which part of

WP:TPYES

 ?

I believe I was abiding by the Use separate subsection headings to discuss multiple changes guideline, which aids in keeping what I want to say concise since those separate sections are shorter and more legible than if I were to just dump all 5 points into a single run-on section.

Comment on content, not on the contributor seems like a very good guideline here too, and I can't help but feel like the content of my proposals might be receiving less attention than it's clumsy wrappings. WakandaQT (talk) 05:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TALK and pages it links to is how to indent on talk pages and the reasons it's considered very important. I've indented your post above for you to show you how it's done. More information at Help:Talk_pages#Indentation

.

Re: separate subsections. Yes, we do separate discussions into separate sections. That doesn't mean you go into a talk page and open five sections because you've got five semi-related thoughts on minute details like using prone/facedown and knee/shin and knee, and how long the cuffs were on/officers were standing. You could have opened one section headed Minor Details.

Okay, now to the way you presented your proposal. You were rambling and writing in one-sentence paragraphs, which is just annoying. We use paragraphs for a reason: they tell other people which sentences form a complete thought. You can see I've grouped this post into paragraphs, and when I move on to the next point, I start a new one. They were also a lot of you wondering whether RS said anything about whatever. No one else is going to look up that answer for you. Go find out yourself. If you find that information in a reliable source, you can certainly bring it back and see if other people agree it belongs in the article, but I suspect other editors would conclude meh, for the same reason "shin and knee" was a meh: just because something is true doesn't mean it's noteworthy enough to include. Some things are just minutiae. Policy on that:

WP:VNOT

.

No one was arguing with you at that talk. A couple of people replied sincerely in your first couple of sections, but by the third section they were sounding annoyed, by the fourth they were making jokes, and the only response the fifth section got was "How effective ARE you finding it to open THREAD after THREAD of fragmented one-sentence paragraphs wondering things OUT LOUD?" That should have made it pretty clear your approach was not working.

You say the content of my proposals might be receiving less attention than its clumsy wrappings and people are free to TLDR. Well, yes, exactly. Both of those are why you need to learn to write short for your own sake: it will get more people to listen. But the problem for Wikipedia is that just the fact posts are on the page means someone is going to spend some amount of time on them. Volunteer time is our most precious and limited resource. Editors' time is already wasted at contentious articles because of all the other crap they have to deal with there. You do not want to be the person making that worse.

You're pretty new here. Wikipedia has a very steep learning curve. In addition to learning how to interact with other editors and how to write succinctly, there's policy. A contentious article is the absolute worst place to try to learn any of those things. I strongly advise you to edit somewhere else while you're learning. —valereee (talk) 12:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I figure if we kept indenting indefinitely it'd get pretty big, it seems more important for conversations where it's more than 2 people than for 1-on-1 convos.

Not sure what you mean about semi-related thoughts except that they relate to an article and using accurate language, but they're still different issues potentially supported by different sources. The problem is I had several complete thoughts (paragraphs) about each separate issue, so there would be no clear division if grouped together.

What makes a true thing noteworthy is RS mention which was given for shin, and since "the back of the knee" is a thing it also makes it noteworthy to specify which side (front) lest people picture this as some kind of harmless Hogan leg drop.

No one was arguing with you at that talk

Perhaps you overlooked the instances?

1. Gobonobo insinuated it was OR after reverting an edit to remove the source I supplied, and asked me not to change the page.
2. Levivich insisted "all of the reliable sources say" facedown which I think insinuated a lack of support for 'prone' even though there was some

Or is "replied sincerely" some kind of code for "won't recognize disagreement as disagreement" ?

It's very apparent my sections weren't vandalism to anyone who does a quick skim (which spacing may aid with, it's harder for some to skim thick paragraphs) so it doesn't seem like a waste of time.

The thing about saying not to edit contentious articles is there's probably not as much to do on non-contentious ones because people will agree on changes, or there would be no need to use the talk page because there's not enough activity that you need to be worried about rapid reverts.

never want to intentionally disrupt valid inquiry, even if I think it's ultimately wrongheaded

I have reflected upon the "disruptive editing" warning you issued ("other editors" being yourself... they should have a singular first-person version of that warning template, perhaps?) for use of the word intimidation. In the narrow sense of "fear injury or harm" as defined on Wikipedia it clearly is not appropriate, but broader definition includes "deterring by threats" in which case issuing any threat of blocking a user is by that definition intimidation.

Your reply did not actually list the consequence, but you did use the term "disruptive" which I was aware via

I would think a better way to avoid a sense of threat would be to not use vague buzz-terms like disruption and be more specific about the nature of objection. I would like to thank you for subsequently doing this in response to my request, and I hope this is something people can open with in the future when warning users because it builds a foundation of trust and understanding instead of paranoia and confusion.

If I could explain why I may have jumped to that subconsciously defensive/fearful state (feeling intimidated) it could have to do with EEng's use of five all-caps words (ARE / THREAD after THREAD / OUT LOUD) in his 7:23 reply, though upon re-examining my sections tonight I think I am calmer because it occurs to me that this might have been intended as a humorous jab of my own avoidable use of caps in my replies to Gobonobo at 5:09 ("contact as SHIN") and 6:37 ("it is not OR since").

When writing them the policy against caps did not come to mind though I subsequently noticed it and changed it to italics instead on some new ones I was writing. WakandaQT (talk) 04:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WakandaQT, when the convo gets too indented, we outdent a comment. Outdenting isn't needed in 99% of conversations, though. It is less important here in a convo with two, but it's still helpful as when we start a new point, we also outdent. Like this:

First point

first response to first point

second response to first point

response to second response

response to response to second response

response to response to response to second response

response to response to response to response to second response, outdented

response to outdented comment

Second point

So basically all of your one-sentence paragraphs above look like new points. —valereee (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

—valereee (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! With 15,257 views, your hook for "The Girls in 3-B" is one of the most viewed hooks for the month of December. All the more impressive since it registered this total in a 12-hour queue. Accordingly, it has been included at DYKSTATS December. Keep up the good work! Cbl62 (talk) 19:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cbl62, thanks! —valereee (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some (hopefully) edible things Hello, Valereee. The article for improvement of the week is: Edible Please be bold and help improve it! Previous selections: Christmas ham • Bengali cuisine Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions[reply]

Gråbergs Gråa Sång is wishing you the season's greetings.
Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's solstice or Christmas,
Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus,
or the Saturnalia,
this is a special time of year for (almost) everyone.

Thank you Gråbergs Gråa Sång, and to you! —valereee (talk) 13:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	For stepping in to help an IP out with Template:Did you know nominations/LaVon Mercer. CMD (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you, Chipmunkdavis! :) —valereee (talk) 15:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Pasdecomplot (talk) 15:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please use

Pasdecomplot, sorry, what did I post that was a personal attack? —valereee (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NM, figured it out and struck, with apologies. —valereee (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks, Lee Vilenski! And to you! —valereee (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

🔔🎁⛄️🎅🏻 Atsme 💬 📧 04:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Atsme, and Merry Elfmas to you, too! —valereee (talk) 13:43, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Donner60 (talk) is wishing a foaming mug of Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{

subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec20

}} to your friends' talk pages.

Thank you, Donner60, and the same to you! —valereee (talk) 13:43, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
	Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you and your family. Whispyhistory (talk) 17:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And to you, Whispyhistory! —valereee (talk) 18:55, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Valereee, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, csdnew 01:32, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply ] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Hi, this is a message to let you know I removed a duplicate in the successor states section of the infobox of the page regarding the Papal States. The Principality of Pontecorvo was already mentioned in the same section above. Feel free to review my edit and let me know if you have any questions, as there have previously been concerns regarding my edits. Thank you. Firestar464 (talk) 04:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Firestar464, thanks for letting me know. I agree that looks like a completely uncontroversial removal of duplicate information. —valereee (talk) 12:04, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contribution(s). However, as a general rule, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generalisation, other talk pages are strictly for discussing improvements to their associated main pages, and many of them have special instructions on the top. They are not a general discussion forum about the article's topic or any other topic. If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at the Teahouse. Thanks. Edits at RSN have gone off-topic. The topic is Tibetan Political Review. Pasdecomplot (talk) 15:17, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]