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

Gourmand Cookbook Award

edit

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

September music

edit
 
story · music · places

Thank you for good advice! - Recommended reading today: Frye Fire, by sadly missed Vami_IV. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm glad it was helpful! Thanks for the story link, I always love looking through your photos. Just added one at Leberkäse. Valereee (talk) 10:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Happy because my story today is about a Czech mezzo soprano who is mentioned on the Main page on her birthday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Three stories related to today in memory, 11 September, 20 July and 20 June, the latter piece of art also pictured on the Main page. - Thanks for the Leberkäse. I went to the place with Graham87 (but no Leberkäse then). The latest pics have dumplings - and I thought of you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I see those Plum dumplings! What's the brownish-black powder? I looked at knedle, but it looks like there are multiple photos there already unless that powder garnish deserves explanation and a photo. Valereee (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Poppy seed and powdered sugar, from my friend's Slovak grandmother. Off to rehearsal for concert tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Today is Schoenberg's 150th birthday! On display, portrayed by Egon Schiele, with music from Moses und Aron, and with two DYK hooks, one from 2010 and another from 2014; the latter, about his 40th birthday, appeared on his 140th birthday, which made me happy then and now again. - See places for a stunning sunrise, on the day Bruckner's 200th birthday was celebrated (just a few days late). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

My story today is about a man who played jazz when it was banned by the Nazis, - you can listen to how they played it later. - What do you think of my talk page corner for "help wanted", recently recommended? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

My story today features a pic I took from my position in the choir, I can also offer varied delightful music, some from Venice, also with pics I took (some good food there, one more to come), - note the rose in the clarinet ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

This week's article for improvement (week 39, 2024)

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

Human geography

Please be bold and help improve it!


Previous selections: Polling station • Caroline Islands


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


Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • Opt-out instructionsReply

CT Template

edit

Hello Valereee. I see that you have added to my talk page a contentious topics template regarding editing pages related to abortion. I'm wondering if this was in error as I've made no edits to this topic area other than a talk page contribution. Elisha'o'Mine (talk) 23:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

(talk page watcher) Elisha'o'Mine, we use "edits" to refer to changes of any page, including talk pages. Either way, the point of the alert template is to spread awareness of the need to adhere more closely to policies and guidelines in a given topic area. We want people to be aware of that even if the restrict their involvement to talk page comments. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:31, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2024-39

edit

MediaWiki message delivery 23:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank You

edit

I want to thank you for you level-headed contributions, counsel and insight on my talk page discussion. I mean well but when I get frustrated I can go to place which isn't healthy. I appreciate you. MaskedSinger (talk) 13:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, MS, and you're welcome for whatever help I gave. Valereee (talk) 16:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I also commend you for de-escalating that block admirably. Andre🚐 17:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, Andrevan. Valereee (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you! Can I ask you something. I would appreciate your advice. MaskedSinger (talk) 16:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, go ahead. Valereee (talk) 20:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. I came across a law firm in the news and was thinking of creating an article for them. I looked them up and they appear to satisfy notability.
So far so good.
I looked up the founder of the firm and he has a Wiki article - problem is that it has an undisclosed paid tag on it which comes from the creating editor being part of a sock puppet ring.
The problem with a sock puppet ring is that it infects anything that comes in contact with it so is it a problem for me to create the article for the law firm? MaskedSinger (talk) 06:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's not a problem if they do satisfy notability requirements. The sockpuppetry is only a problem if it moves over to the new article. Valereee (talk) 13:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ok thanks! MaskedSinger (talk) 20:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Notice of noticeboard discussion

edit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Andre🚐 21:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tea with milk nationalism

edit

Hi Valeree, various IPs are putting Singapore in and out of the "country" field at Teh tarik. I was wondering if I could pull on your expertise as to what the 'right' answer is, given the tea is older than both countries. The article says teh tarik originated near rubber plantations, of which there were some in Singapore. I really don't think anyone was tracking the culinary habits of the labourers to know if one plantation beat others to the idea of pouring tea a bit more dramatically. List both? CMD (talk) 01:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey, CMD! Hm, that article seems to have a lot of issues. I'll see if I can't spend some time on it today! Thanks, always happy to go take a look at foods that are important outside the core anglosphere! Valereee (talk) 11:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
English is the main language of Singapore! CMD (talk) 12:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
lol I actually thought about that and checked...it's not core Anglosphere! It's apparently "middle" Anglosphere. New terms for me. :D Valereee (talk) 12:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sometimes I think academics just make stuff up! I am close to taking genuine issue with that map, where Belize is core anglosphere while Singapore is not. I have now looked up the James Bennet book, and Belize gets one mention: "Caribbean blacks are accustomed to multilayered identifications as citizens of their unique island communities (a strong identity typically under- estimated by outsiders), as blacks, and as English speakers. The latter is seen in, for example, Anglo-Caribbean solidarity with Belize and Guyana against Hispanosphere claims, or for that matter Anglo-Caribbean solidarity on the Falklands crisis against Argentina." It has four mentions of Singapore, but mostly in the context of it being part of a network of Chinese-language territories. There's joy to be had though, Wales is singled out as one of a few exceptions within the core anglosphere, which some people I know would be happy to hear. CMD (talk) 13:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Well of course they make stuff up! That's their job: finding connections others haven't found yet, and arguing for the validity of those connections. That's my theory of why so many of them seem to have such a hard time when they first start editing. No OR/SYNTH is the exact opposite of what they've been trained to do. :D Valereee (talk) 13:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Well then, I'm off to make my academic contribution. In this paper, I aim to contribute to the existing body of knowledge on teh tarik. Through a comprehensive series of meals, this study will demonstrate how teh tarik is best consumed in the morning with roti kosong. By addressing key emptiness in the current stomach, the results will ultimately enhancing the broader field of good tea... CMD (talk) 13:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
So, re: Malaysia, Singapore, or both? Actually, instead of listing both, I'd probably go with listing neither in the infobox. 'Malay peninsula' is IMO sufficient for the reader and will likely draw fewer IPs in to edit war. The countries split in 1965, well after the invention of this beverage, so it's completely understandable both countries claim it. It's a regional dish, served in multiple nations and (OR warning) apparently particularly important to Malaysia. But that would need more research. Valereee (talk) 16:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 26 September 2024

edit

IP question

edit

Moving from another user's talk:

I am new and apologize for my ignorance but this confuses me. I'm an atheist and would not like seeing wikipedia citing religious text for accurate history. However, the existence of a Psalm about remembering Zion, and yearning for Jerusalem is evidence of Jewish yearning existing prior to 19th century. We can assume the factual details in the psalm are unreliable or false, but the existence of a psalm about Jewish yearning, which predates the 19th century, still seems to show those sentiments are not new. I don't think masked singer was relying on the truth value of people actually crying on the rivers of Babylon.
Also, it was said that masked singer assumed another editor was Muslim but when I read the cited comment and discussion, it referenced Islam, which is a topic that is obviously important to that other user from looking at their edit history.
I feel you are not being fair. Obviously I'm ignorant, but I thought I would share my interpretation. 75.172.5.197 (talk) 5:35 am, Today (UTC−4)
IP, no worries, happy to help. The fact Psalm 137 references Zion is fine to use for the fact it references Zion, and in fact we do that at that article. We can't interpret what that means with regard to the historical beginnings of Zionism, per WP:OR. We need someone else, preferably an academic in a recent peer-reviewed publication, interpreting what it means w/regard to dating the beginnings Zionism.
The simple fact a user edits around Islam doesn't mean anyone should assume that editor is Muslim, and even if they are Muslim, it doesn't mean they shouldn't be editing in topics about Judaism. It's assuming a Muslim is unable to neutrally edit about Judaism and a Jew is unable to neutrally edit about Islam. By the same logic someone might argue that you, an atheist, shouldn't be editing about religion at all. Or even about atheism, as you might not be able to edit neutrally. Valereee (talk) 10:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
FWIW this isn't what I was saying. My point was and is this:
For sure we all have WP:AGF in mind, but if an editor with a certain perspective makes controversial edits which are going to provoke editors of the oppositive persuasion, I would have thought it's a clear violation of WP:NPOV.
For instance, if I am a Barcelona fan and make controversial edits to the Real Madrid article, they'd most likely be reverted, I'd be called a vandal and possibly blocked.
This is nothing about making an assumption, it's looking at their previous edits and the way they swing. And if you call them out you're accused of making aspersions. But what if you're aspersions are correct?
I've seen on other articles, editors who are clearly anti-Israel making anti-Israel edits. There is no conflict here? What about WP:ADVOCACY?
The reality is that with the way the media and academia operates, there are going to be significantly more sources villifying Israel. Not to say that it doesn't deserve criticism, but it's very easy to craft a narrative that is Wikipedia compliant but also isn't neutral, independent or factually correct. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
You may not accuse an editor of POV pushing without diffs to back it up. If you believe an editor is not editing neutrally, show the diffs of those non-neutral edits.
It literally doesn't matter what religion the editor is or isn't, any more than it matters what their favorite food is, how tall they are or whether they're a ginger. What matters is their edits. If you cannot show, with diffs, an editor making non-neutral edits, you cannot accuse them of editing non-neutrally. And even if they are making non-neutral edits, calling out their likely religion is always going to get you in trouble.
If you are not 100% clear on that, you should not be editing in this contentious topic area. Or probably any contentious topic area. The blocking administrator expressed reservations about you being unblocked. If you cross the line again, the block is quite likely to be reinstated for some combination of CIR, RGW, AGF, and/or to prevent damage and disruption. Valereee (talk) 11:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I am clear on that. I'm not quite clear on RGW. What does it mean? MaskedSinger (talk) 12:05, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
WP:RGW is Righting Great Wrongs, a reason some people want to edit Wikipedia that is at cross-purposes to the project's mission. People who come into an article -- often a contentious topic -- because they're outraged that their own understanding of the subject isn't what Wikipedia is presenting about that subject are said to be here to Right Great Wrongs, and it's considered being WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Valereee (talk) 12:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oh ok. Thanks for explaining! MaskedSinger (talk) 12:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Valereee, I appreciate your explanation. I don’t want to take up your time so please feel free to ignore unless you availability and interest.
MaskedSinger made a claim that ‘emerged in Europe in the 19th century’ is untrue. Another editor somewhat snarkily said MaskedSinger was using the Bible and Wikipedia as sources (in my opinion, saying "Right." was rude). MaskedSinger referenced Wikipedia articles highlighting what MaskedSinger perceived as contradiction. MaskedSinger did not edit the Zionism page and cite those Wikipedia articles as reliable sources.
MaskedSinger’s reply when asked for sources was to respond with a general and ambiguous ‘world history’ and then it was implied, MaskedSinger was disrupting the page. Later someone threatened ANI/AE and characterized MaskedSinger’s statements as nonsense. I understand why MaskedSinger may have felt ganged up on and bullied.
I don’t see where MaskedSinger claimed the bible is a reliable source for history. MaskedSinger explicitly refers to the bible as a primary source. As per WP:USEPRIMARY, the bible would potentially suffer from the disadvantages of primary sources and NOT be a reliable source for history.
I agree that the bible cannot be used to date the beginning of Zionism. I don’t understand why the bible cannot be used on the talk page to defend MaskedSinger’s point that ‘yearning for a return to zion’ is not a 19th century emergence.
Later in the conversation nableezy provides a quote from Stanislawski, an academic, which directly supports the point I interpreted MaskedSinger to be making:
“Many, if not most, Zionists today regard Zionism as a natural continuation of two millennia of Jewish attachment to the Land of Israel and aspiration to return there in the End of Days.”
Stanislawski goes on to argue that Zionism is NOT a natural continuation. However, if ‘many or most Zionists’ regard it as the natural continuation, should the lead to Zionism be expressing only Stanislawski’s viewpoint? Nableezy seems to think so.
Regarding assuming an editor is Muslim and should therefore not edit the Zionism page. With respect, this is not an accurate representation of what MaskedSinger said. JoyfulRant (talk) 19:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hey, @JoyfulRant! I'm not actually going to discuss content. I'm only explaining policy. I'm also not going to try to argue my interpretation of behavior vs. your interpretation of it.
The Bible can be used by academics for such an interpretation of Psalm 137. Wikipedia cannot make that interpretation ourselves, as that is considered WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. We follow the sources. When a WP:RS makes that connection, we can report on that. Valereee (talk) 11:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I saw you added a generic Introduction to contentious topics explainer to my talk page. The second sentence gives a statement that the explainer does not imply there are issues with my edits, but it also does not say my edits are okay, and the rules state users are not allowed to discuss contentious topics unless they have 500 edits and an account at least 30 days old.Am I correct that the logical takeaway is that my edits were NOT okay since I do not meet the 500 edits and 30 days rule?  
I apologize, the system had explicitly told me I was not allowed to reply or talk on other pages. I incorrectly assumed since the system didn’t stop me, I was allowed to discuss the topic.
I noticed you added an edit request for my topic and see that edit requests are an exception to the new account rule. Do “edit requests” need to actually explicitly propose a change to the article or can they just bring attention to a source or provide additional potential sources for editors to consider, like I did? The Edit requests pages is a bit confusing because it says to establish a consensus with editors before making edit requests and seems to assume users want to propose changes to the article. JoyfulRant (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@JoyfulRant, you aren't allowed to do anything at any topic related to the Arab-Israeli conflict except make an edit request. The edit you made at Talk:Origins of the Six-Day War wasn't added as an edit request, but on reading it I thought it seemed like that's what it was (rather than a comment, which you can't do) so I added an edit request template to the post.
The edit requests instructions arguably need to be adjusted for this, as obviously you can't gain consensus. But the point is that you shouldn't be making edit requests that would need to gain consensus. That is, asking for a correction to a quote, which is what you seem like you were doing, should be fine. Fixing a typo would be fine. Basic, noncontroversial edit requests are fine. If a change needs discussion, probably you shouldn't be suggesting it at this point. Typically we don't protect talk pages because we do want editors who aren't 500/30 yet to be able to make these noncontroversial edit requests.
Do be careful about your editing at talk pages around the conflict. Admins could interpret such edits as intentionally violating the 500/30 rule. Valereee (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Women in Red October 2024

edit
 
Women in Red | October 2024, Volume 10, Issue 10, Numbers 293, 294, 318, 319, 320


Online events:

Announcements from other communities

Tip of the month:

  • Unsure how to expand a stub article? Take a look at this guidance

Other ways to participate:

  Instagram |   Pinterest |   Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 08:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

This week's article for improvement (week 40, 2024)

edit
 
Eight gold Spanish escudo (1687), issued during the reign of Carlos II of Spain
Hello, Valereee. The article for improvement of the week is:

Currency of Spain

Please be bold and help improve it!


Previous selections: Human geography • Polling station


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


Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • Opt-out instructionsReply