User talk:Valereee/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome!

Hello, Valereee, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  - Bobet 14:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the speedy deletion tag from the Valerie Taylor article, since it does assert notability. Take your time in writing it. - Bobet 14:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I've always been interested in this writer because she shares my name! Valereee 15:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

July 2007 Wikiproject Food and Drink Newsletter

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter July 2007--Christopher Tanner, CCC 19:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Horseradish

Hi Valereee

your horseradish cultivation addition looks OK. I myself grow hoseradish. Perhaps you could have where it is grown commercially. Also there seems to be a large number of references to Pleasant, Barbara. "Horseradish", Mother Earth News, Oct-Nov 2003. There must be more authoritive sources that could be used. I would have put the cultivation section before culinary use, as you have to grow it before you use it! GB 11:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

August 2007 Wikiproject Food and Drink Newsletter

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter August 2007

--Christopher Tanner, CCC 16:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

September 2007 WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter September 2007
--Christopher Tanner, CCC 15:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter November 2007

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter November 2007
--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 04:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter December 2007

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter Decemberr 2007
--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 22:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter January 2008

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter January 2008
--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 05:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter June 2008

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter June 2008

--Chef Tanner (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter July 2008

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter July 2008

--Chef Tanner (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Treehouse Foods (March 31)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Treehouse Foods.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the .

Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!

• Please remember to link to the submission!

• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello! Valereee, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!

Hooray! You created your Teahouse profile!

	Welcome to the Teahouse Badge
	Awarded to editors who have introduced themselves at the Wikipedia Teahouse. Guest editors with this badge show initiative and a great drive to learn how to edit Wikipedia. Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges
Thank you for introducing yourself and contributing to Wikipedia! If you have any questions feel free to drop me a line at my talk page. Happy Editing! ~ Anastasia (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC Treehouse Foods was accepted

Treehouse Foods, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Mz7 (talk) 02:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Congratulations on getting your article TreeHouse Foods accepted. I hope its the first of many articles you produce. Best wishes

Flat Out let's discuss it 03:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

@Flat Out: Thanks for the kitten!  :)

Your submission at AfC Macroom Oatmeal was accepted

Macroom Oatmeal, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

valereee (talk) 13:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Neumeren u svemu

Hello Valereee. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Neumeren u svemu, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: WP:CSD#A7 does not apply to albums, and as the band has an article WP:CSD#A9 does not apply either. This may not meet WP:NALBUMS, consider PROD or AfD. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

@JohnCD: My bad! valereee (talk) 20:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

David Mena Rojas

hello valeree, I don't understand the deletion.

David Mena Rojas is a professional footballer and respect the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues--Lglukgl (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

@Lglukgl: There's literally NOTHING there at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Mena_Rojas . The page is nearly blank. If you would like to argue that this footballer is notable, provide some evidence.  :)

User talk:DGG has remove the speedy deletion tag.

David Mena Rojas and Dino Gavrić are professional footballer and the speedy deletion is not correct but it is my opinion no problem.

These aren't famous footballer so the information about they aren't many.

As I say below, the standard for passing speedy is not famous, and not even notable, but any indication of importance. The standard even for notability is much less than famous, and anyone who has ever played on the field in a top level professional club is notable. The article can and should be expanded, but we do not delete even very short articles. DGG ( talk ) 21:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Environment of Washington, D.C.

No, it is meant to be its own article. Robert4565 (talk) 17:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

@Robert4565: Okay, I'm going to revert to take myself off the review -- I don't feel familiar enough with this issue to accept or decline! Best wishes! valereee (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Valereee/Archive 1. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by StarryGrandma (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Gee_Langdon

Hello. I am rather on the horns of a dilemma. I have been asked by previous editors for reviews of Gee Langdon's books but, as these are from pre-internet days, there is nothing online. I recently attached references to newspaper reviews but, again, this was regarded as insufficient evidence. Although she has already been accepted as notable for her songwriting, the books appear to be the stumbling block. I am at a loss as to what more I can do. Please help. 86.31.237.88 (talk) 11:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

@86.31.237.88: Hi! If you feel the problem is being caused by the books, you might try resubmitting -without- the books in the article. See if the submission is accepted as notable because of the songwriting. Then at a later date, after the article has already been both accepted and survived the new article review process, you can add the books in. valereee (talk) 14:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Adam Horner Review

Hi Valree, you have denied my wiki contribution for my favorite actor Adam Horner. The page is here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Adam_Horner. You declined because the references were not strong which I do not understand considering not only are there articles to some of the biggest newspapers in Sydney. There are also media articles too. Could you please reconsider and accept this application. It does not make sense that it keeps getting declined!

Garymarsh (talk) 01:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

@Garymarsh: I declined the article because none of the references demonstrate notability. #1 isn't a news article -- it's a commercial site. #2 is also not a news article, it's simply a website. #3 appears to be the school newspaper, which only demostrates he's notable at the school he graduated from. #4 is an actual news story in a large newspaper, but he's one of a dozen people mentioned in one story of a multiple-story column. #5 and #6 appear to be links to pages that don't exist. I'm really sorry, but these references don't demonstrate notability at all. You can keep working on this article if you want, but in its present form I don't believe it's likely to be accepted. valereee (talk) 10:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

@Valereee: #1 isn't a commercial site, it is a third party press story about the movie. #2 I put up because it has nothing to do with the person and gives some good detail about his time on TPG etc. #3, I agree. I will remove this. #4 even though they are on the same page, they are all separate newstories. It is weird they have placed them this way on the site because in the paper its self they were half page spreads. #5 and #6 are newspaper articles I have hard copies of. I believe that the references supplied do show notability. Especially considering the last film he did opened to one of the biggest audiences UP has ever had. Garymarsh (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

@Garymarsh: #1 Christiancinema.com is a movie rental site, not press, therefore it doesn't prove notability. #2 as you point out is also not press, therefore no evidence of notability. #4, BARELY a news story, but I'll allow you that one because it's a major publication. #5 and #6, even if you have hard copies, are both local publications and don't prove notability. I'm sorry, but none of this provides evidence of notability. This actor is possibly not notable yet. He might be in future, but right now, possibly not.

@Valereee: Hi Valereee. I deleted the previous deletions as I am trying to re-edit the site with new references etc. It's going to take me a week or so, so I was trying to clean the whole thing up. I didn't want any new reviewers swayed by previous deletions. 23.114.215.64 (talk) 19:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

@23.114.215.64: Deleting previous comments is what is going to sway future reviewers against your article. It's considered deceptive. Please stop doing it -- it has already gained your article unwelcome attention from other editors. valereee (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Brown Political Review

Dear Valereee, thank you for your prompt review of the Brown Political Review article! I realize there's an extensive backlog, and I really appreciate the way you offered it a prompt and thorough review -- I really thought I would be waiting for weeks! However, in the most respectful terms, I wanted to point out something that was easy to overlook about the article that may have led to your labeling it as "non-notable." I perfectly understand that conclusion, which I probably would also have reached without some of this context that I think might be helpful.

I thought I might share some of the background with you. The magazine Brown Political Review exists in a de facto league with our nationwide competitor Reviews. These include the Harvard Political Review, The Yale Politic, Columbia Political Review, and The Cornell Review. I would humbly ask if you would mind taking a look at those links, because I think you'll agree that our sourcing pretty clearly surpasses these Reviews that have already been accepted to Wikipedia. This especially includes Harvard Political Review, whose sources are mostly self-referenced and include no outside national press or attention. Finally, another Brown publication with an identical circulation, The College Hill Independent, has an article with substantially fewer sources.

Even while our sources surpass those of Reviews that have been accepted, I also took notice of your comments about the sources we did include. I noticed that you mentioned how all references are from "The university's own website." I can understand how it looks that way, but one of the links, Brown Alumni Magazine, actually exists independent of the University; they are a magazine with tens of thousands of subscribers, like any other. However, I do think you're right -- because all political reviews accepted on Wikipedia, including Harvard, reference their university substantially. My hunch on this is that recognition from prominent universities probably does lend clout to those publications. I would humbly suggest that Brown Political Review is no different.

I also noticed your comment that "All references in national press...are not about the subject but instead are about the University." While you're absolutely right to point this out when it comes to the New York Times and Wall Street Journal article, I wonder if you had a chance to watch the entirety of the two FOX News links and MSNBC link (no blame there! I hate cable), where panelists explicitly debate our footage, and where the same footage is also accredited. On one FOX News segment, Bill O'Reilly of the O'Reilly Factor -- the highest rated cable program in the United States -- showcases a staff photo of Brown Political Review while he and a cohort debate if the coverage had an effect in changing their mind about the university. BPR's leaked transcript of the speech was also covered by the Village Voice. Again, I would humbly point out that I don't find this kind of publicity on the Wiki articles of competitor Reviews, and I think you would agree.

Of course, it goes without saying that I took all of your points with nothing but complete seriousness. As a result of taking your advice, I added three additional links: one from the Brown Daily Herald, an independent city paper with a circulation of ten thousand (you might remember that Harvard Political Review has similar references to the Harvard Crimson); another from Huffington Post, where an investigative report from Brown Political Review was syndicated and subsequently "went viral"; and a third from Slate Magazine, where our editor-in-chief was interviewed about our coverage.

With these new changes to accommodate your requests, our sources appear nearly if not identical to Harvard, Columbia, Cornell and Yale, all of which source in different combination their university's website, their university's alumni magazine, the local paper, and national press where their work was cited. On all of these counts I think you'll agree that Brown Political Review's sourcing is superior.

I wondered if you might be willing to take a second look. Thank you so much in advance for your consideration! It means a lot. (Bwofford (talk) 00:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC))

@Bwofford: Hi, Bwofford! I'm afraid I can't re-review -- there's an informal policy against it. But to answer the rest of your discussion, whether or not other similar subjects are in or out of Wikipedia is considered immaterial for purposes of proving notability. Each has to stand on its own merits, and some of those other similar subjects may be erroneously included. (In fact, sometimes 'similar subjects' get proposed for deletion because someone has pointed out that they're similar to a subject that's been declined! <G>) And I'm afraid you can't prove notability by giving =me= the necessary context here on my talk page -- that necessary context needs to be clear in the article itself, and must be backed up by references of a national or international nature. That is, a reference from the Brown Daily Herald won't do it. Huffington Post will. Slate will. A major daily will. You generally need at least three of these types of sources in your references. If you don't have these, even if I or another editor accepted the submission, it would be highly likely the article would be proposed for deletion during New Article Review.  :) Try going to the Teahouse -- I think I gave you the link? -- they're very helpful with articles that are likely subjects for inclusion but which have been declined on their first attempt. I do think this subject is likely to be accepted once the notability is =proven=. It just wasn't clear to me when I reviewed it. valereee (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

@Valereee: Great, thanks so much! I'll head over to Teahouse and see if I can get my bearings. You're great. 138.16.100.24 (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Reason for creation k v kunhiraman

Hi valeree You informed me that why i added an article on k v kunhiraman. I added article on k v kunhiraman because he is the one of the prominent political leaders in kerala. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thashreefmuhammed (talk • contribs) 04:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Youngcare, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Victorian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Notification of a June AfC BackLog Drive

Hello Valereee:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from June 1, 2014 to June 30, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2500 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

The AfC helper script can assist you in tallying your edits automatically. To view a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. Sent on behalf of (t) Josve05a (c) by {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} using the MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Youngcare, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Victoria (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Administrator review

I see you tried to start Wikipedia:Administrator review/valereee recently. Wikipedia:Administrator review is for Wikipedia administrators to request review of their actions, much like Wikipedia:Editor review used to be. It's not for editors seeking review of their actions by an administrator. The place for that is probably WP:AN. Would you like me to delete the Administrator Review page since it's not going to be responded to? —Tom Morris (talk) 13:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

@Tom Morris:Tom, yes, and my apologies -- I realized my mistake soon after!  :) valereee (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for your edits on Ebola virus outbreak in the United States Karlhard (talk) 01:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Ebola in U.S.

I've been trying to locate articles that speak to the opposition to bring the U.S. health workers Brantly and Writebol to the U.S. back in August. I can't seem to locate those articles. Do you think you could give it try? It would be relevant to the public concerns. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure, happy to give it a look! Both 'sides' of the argument? valereee (talk) 16:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I wrote a short paragraph about it and put in the public concerns section. Let me know what you think. Also, an admin came along and changed the title of the article based on a request back on Oct 15. I think it looks good and should settle the matter. I opened a section on the talk page. Comment there about it if you've the time. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Val, here's an interesting bit about Harvard students I thought might be a good addition to the public concerns section: [1]. What do you think? SW3 5DL (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks good -- I'll add! valereee (talk) 14:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I added it into the Harvard article, too, but one of the editors over there doesn't agree this is appropriate inclusion in that article. He/she may have a point, but I suspect it may partially be a feeling that it makes Harvard look bad so I'm arguing the point. valereee (talk) 09:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Great job, Val. Here's another bit I though you'd be interested in, [2], they are instituting new "Ebola checks" for travelers bound to the U.S. Thanks for all your hard work in the article. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween greetings!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Valereee:
Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia. Have a fun Halloween!
    – SW3 5DL (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews

Hello Valereee. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

A page you started (Macroom Oatmeal) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Macroom Oatmeal, Valereee!

Wikipedia editor Novusuna just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Looks good to me. I know you had some NPOV trouble with this one at first, and the reviews section still seems a little bit non-neutral, but hey, it's good for a stub-class.

To reply, leave a comment on Novusuna's talk page.

Learn more about page curation. valereee (talk) 12:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Reviewer Granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Mifter (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @Mifter: !

Elder rights activists Has Been Moved To Draft:Elder rights activists

As a precaution against your article, Elder rights activists, being nominated for deletion before you've had the chance to finish it, I have moved it to Draft:Elder rights activists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ormr2014 (talk • contribs)

Thanks, should have created a draft myself -- got excited when I discovered there wasn't such an article, but it was late at night so I knew I wouldn't be writing it right then and there.  :) valereee (talk) 10:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Signing

There's no need to put tildes in your edit summaries, edit summaries do not need to be signed and using the four tildes doesn't work there anyway. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 09:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry! I get on autopilot and just end everything with them. Thanks for the reminder!  :) valereee (talk) 10:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's better than not signing at all. :D — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 12:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, hello

Sorry for cluttering up your Support !vote. I just thought that I might be able to point you to something that may have changed your mind. I don't mean to harangue you and won't comment further on your reasoning. Take care and happy editing!  :-) Dave Dial (talk) 12:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@DD2K: Dave, not at all! I -like- discussing.  :) I should have probably discussed more first, actually, as I did change my mind. For another reason, though -- I think it's possible she'll start using the Rodham more consistently once she no longer is campaigning. Which then would create this entire discussion all over again if we've moved it to Hillary Clinton.

Hi again. I did notice the reconsideration and appreciate it. I've been busy lately(with a family emergency), so I think I've been a bit grumpy lately and don't wish to continue that trend. I'm babysitting my granddaughter this morning-afternoon, so won't have much time to check here again that much. Thanks! Dave Dial (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

She's a cutie! Hope you had a great time with her! valereee (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

speedies

Please immediate stop placing speedy deletion tags. the criterion for nocontext is the inability to even tell what the article is about; the criterion for no content is lack of anything that makes sense in any language. the criterion for A7 is lack of anything that indicates any importance or significance. This is much less than actual notability--any plausible good faith indication is sufficient.

Furthermore, schools may not be nominated for A7, people who hold positions in a legislature are considered always notable, people who have ever played in a regular season game for a fully professional club are notable.

We accept stubs. A single sourced sentence saying who someone is and what they have done is sufficient, not just to pass speedy, but to pass AfD and be kept in WP if what they have done meets the notability standards.

What you have done is the sort of thing that drives away good faith new contributors. We cannot afford to do that--such new contributors are essential to the survival of WP. As an administrator, I would consider one more such deliberate nomination as disruptive, and block you to prevent further disruption. for now, I have to go and apologize to the contributors whose articles you have tagged, and check that none of them got inadvertently deleted. DGG ( talk ) 21:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

@DGG: Okay, sorry. The instructions for no context didn't mention anything about 'inability to tell what the article was even about', and the criterion for no content didn't mention anything about 'lack of anything that makes sense in any language'. And the instructions for creating new articles seem clear that there needs to be proof of notability, which none of these articles had. And there was BEGGING for patrol. All the ones I patrolled were on their last day. So I decided I'd try to help. The approach you are taking to correcting me is the sort of thing that drives away good faith new reviewers -- such new reviewers are essential to the survival of WP.

we need good reviewers, and I want to encourage you to learn how to be one. The first step in becoming a good reviewer is to learn WP:Deletion policy and WP:CSD. For articles where you doubt notability, use either WP:PROD or WP:CSD, if there is any indication of possible significance. The basic distinction you are not making is the distinction between the very weak concept of "indicating significance or importance, and the much more demanding concept of proving notability. If there's any reason at all why someone might rationally think it important, it needs either a discussion at afd or a the lack of opposition at Prod if it appears obvious. The way to appreciate the difference is to read some of the very voluminous discussions at WT:CSD, where the issue is frequently explained. DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

@DGG: We also need good correction to newbie reviewers, and I want to encourage you to develop that skill. :) Here's how I'd suggest you maybe tweak your approach to someone who has, in apparent good faith, made the mistakes I made: "Hi! I see you've just started reviewing -- thanks, we need more reviewers! I do think maybe you've misunderstood the directions for reviewing. A really good source to read for understanding the issue is this one: WP:CSD Unfortunately the speedy deletion tags you've made are actually causing other reviewers and admins extra work, so I'm going to ask that you please stop making any more until you've read that source. Please don't feel bad that you've made this error, though -- we all make mistakes when we're first learning a new skill here on Wikipedia! If you have any questions about the process, ask me or at WT:CSD." See how that addresses the problem -- that is, it stops me from continuing to make those mistakes and directs me to information I need -- but doesn't make me decide I'd better not risk EVER reviewing again because if I ever make another mistake I'll be blocked for being disruptive? valereee (talk) 13:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

You are right that I have been too curt about it, and I apologize. The reasons I seem to have fallen into this are: First, I do not normally follow up most reviewing mistake, because of the great number of them, and concentrate on rescuing the articles. I normally post to the reviewer only when I see a pattern, and of course by then I tend to look only at the number of errors. Second, there are occasions where it is hard to persuade someone that they should change what they are doing, and this also tends to have an unfortunate influence upon my attitude. TThere is also a residue from the earlier practices at afc a year ago, when in fact most reviewers were declining articles for inadequate or mistaken reasons; it has been a long and difficult effort on mine and some of my colleagues to make a start in convincing people that if its good enough to pass afd , its good enough for mainspace. So my approach still tends to be that I expect to meet resistance. hen, I also am considerably influenced by what I consider the outrageously poor system of AfC, the inadequacy of the instructions, and the uselessness of the templates, so in dealing with anything connected with it I start out with an overly critical attitude. I'm trying to do something about it, but my feelings about the approach of the people who think they are running the system and their refusal to admit that even the worst aspects need fixing (as an example, we still tell editors to see the submission for the reasons even if its a copyvio and will have been deleted!)

There's a more general point that affect not just me, but anyone working with problems. I became an admin primarily to rescue articles from speedy, and said so at the time, adding I would also probably delete a few of the worst as I chanced upon them. In the event, in the follow 7 years I've by wow deleted over 15,000 articles and submissions, and rescued only about a thousand. At AfC , I've screen maybe 30,000 submissions,and rescued at most 5% of them. Similarly, in checking people's reviewing, what I focus on are of course the problems. In dealing with anything of the sort, where you are dealing primarily with things that need some sort of negative action, it is inevitable to get too negative. Everyone I know here who is involved with such procedures falls into this pattern, and the only way to avoid it is to not do too much of it at a time. And, most important, to be sensitive to the need to correct one's course when people tell me. I too will always make errors, and the only realistic approach is to be pleased, not angry, when people tell me about them. . DGG ( talk ) 23:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

DGG, no problem!  :) I do understand how it can feel to someone who is constantly faced with new people doing things incorrectly. One tends to want to react to the 100th person a lot more vehemently than to the first or the tenth. But of course for the 100th person, it's their first time making that mistake, and it's just as innocent as that first person's mistake was. So they don't understand why they're being treated as if this is the 100th time they've made the same mistake. Thank you for the apology and the explanation. valereee (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

partially related matter

Please, when you place a deletion tag on an article, whether csd, prod, or AfD, it is essentially that you say so in the edit summary. One or two of your prods have been turned down by another editor. I myself would have deleted the articles involved, but I can't revert that decline, so I've taken Nathalie Chung and Camilla Di Giuseppe to AfD. We do want and need your help, but the rules are complicated and it takes time to learn them properly. DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Help me!

I'm editing an article (Bread) that is rated as C-class and vital/top/high-importance by several wikiprojects and I see a section that has zero citations. However, it's a section that starts with a link to a main article for that topic (Sourdough) which is fully sourced. Is this an acceptable practice similar to not requiring sourcing in the lede when the supporting sections are fully sourced? I don't want to waste several hours of sourcing content if this is a perfectly acceptable practice! Thanks so much!

valereee (talk) 12:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The sourdough section should be an appropriate summary of the sourdough article. If it is (a summary of sourced content) then references aren't mandatory in the section. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 12:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Jeraphine! valereee (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Pings

Fixing pings won't work. A ping and a new signature have to be made in the same single edit. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Gah! Thanks, my mastery of html is pretty embarrassing.  :) valereee (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

That's actually not HTML... :p Any code here that uses the double {{ curly brackets or [[ square brackets is most likely part of the "MediaWiki language"/"Wiki markup". — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 14:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, then, no wonder I'm so bad at it! :D valereee (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Waterloo

Please undo this edit (which you accepted) because it breaches MOS:JOBTITLES "Offices, titles, and positions such as president, king, emperor, pope, bishop, abbot, executive director are common nouns and therefore should be in lower case" and "general" follows that rule while "General" does not. However "Marshal Ney" is correct because it follows the rule "They are capitalized only in the following cases: When followed by a person's name to form a title". -- PBS (talk) 12:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

My understanding of pendings is that I'm not responsible for making sure good faith information is correct as to content or style. It's to make sure pages aren't vandalized? However, I changed the General to general. valereee (talk) 12:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Groan! I had not noticed the rest of the edit

• captain-->Captain tick,
• colonel-->Colonel tick,
• Hendrik tick/cross (optional, it not really a MOS issue so I leave it to your judgement),
• guardsmen-->Guardsmen cross (generic (like soldier) not part of a unit name such as "1st Foot Guards").

-- PBS (talk) 12:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

No problem!  :) valereee (talk) 12:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal process

Hi there,

Regarding the Chili dog merge you proposed, just a heads up that the "It is proposed that..." tags go at the top of the articles, and only one discussion thread gets created at the destination (merged-to) page. I moved the tags and removed the redundant sections. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Rhododendrites - Thanks! I've merged before, but I've never merged anything I thought was likely to be controversial. valereee (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

AND: that explains why it felt like I'd done something different last time -- I must have followed the instructions correctly then, because I was thinking that some sort of notice had appeared on the actual article pages rather than the talk pages. Seriously I have to pull up instructions every time I do anything more complicated than simple edits, and even then I get it wrong at least a third of the time.  :) valereee (talk) 15:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I've been editing Wikipedia for quite a while now and still find there are processes I have to look up. The merge process is one you'll probably get down eventually. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Valereee/Archive 1. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by   Bfpage |leave a message  22:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Valereee/Archive 1. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by DES ^(talk) 01:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Welcome to DRN

Thanks for visiting DRN. The first step to volunteering is to read the DRN volunteer guide. After that its up to you how you start in. My personal recommendation is to select an experienced DRN volunteer from the DRN talk page as a mentor (TransporterMan, GuyMacon and Steve Zhang are some examples) and then take a simple case with 2-3 participants and moderate the case with your mentor advising you in the background. However, that is only my suggestion. You can proceed in whatever way you are comfortable as there is no rigid path to DRN participation. PS I am also available if you need help or have questions just ping me on my talk page. Good luck! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Keithbob! I've read the volunteer guide, but it's always good to have a mentor. I had thought perhaps the Murder She Wrote List of Episodes case might be a pretty simple one -- nothing requiring special knowledge, that is. Thoughts? valereee (talk) 19:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Great! Most DRN volunteers like to manage their cases by themselves (me included) but there are exceptions and you could ask a DRN volunteer on their user talk page how they would feel about it. That would be the most appropriate place rather then on the DRN page. However, my recommendation is to watch other cases silently to learn and then take a case with 3 participants or less (including filing party) as your own. The difficulty of managing a case multiplies exponentially as the number of participants increases. For example, you could put a note on this case saying that after both participants have created summaries you'd like to open and manage the case. I could help you in the background if you like. Or you could pick another volunteer as a mentor (I won't be offended).-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the advice, and the etiquette tip! :D I'll just watch for a while! Oh, very generous of you -- I'll take you up on that! valereee (talk) 15:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Valereee I just looked at the case and you are handling things perfectly. One small suggestion is to say that you are prepared to open the case and moderate it once SportsEditor has made his opening summary rather than saying "I am neither accepting or rejecting this case". That will make it clear to other DRN volunteers that you have things in hand and they can move on to other cases.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

PS you can also ping SportsEditor directly in the DRN case by including his/her name in your next post like this: [[User:SportsEditor518]]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Keithbob (Should I stop pinging you here? You've probably got it on your watchlist already.) Do you think I should give it a day and then say I'll open/moderate once he's made his opening summary, or do you think I should go ahead and do it now? I don't like to pelt noticeboaards with post after post, but I also don't want to not do it if I should already have. :D valereee (talk) 23:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Also: Aspirex just changed SportsEditor518's user talk page. It seems to be only a minor change -- he copied the discussion from the IP page and inserted subsection heads into the discussion, probably to make it easier for me to follow it -- but is that really kosher? valereee (talk) 10:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, yes please continue to ping me. I don't check my watchlist very often. I say announce your plans now at DRN before other volunteers come in and start to muddle things. That's my suggestion. I like to keep things clean. When other volunteers come in the participants get confused. Re: the talk page. If he made a post that is kosher if he changed something that someone else posted that is not kosher per WP:TALK but I would just ignore it. Keep you focus on the DRN and don't get involved in their little side drama.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see you have opened the case. Excellent. Now you are attempting to define the scope of the case and the core of the dispute. Super! You're a natural. Keep going!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Accepted versions on "Adamantium" article

Hello. Regarding the anon IP edit you recently accepted on Adamantium: just FYI, the reason that article has accepted versions is because anonymous editors continually add the same false bit of trivia claiming that the word originates with the film Forbidden Planet. That movie uses a different but similar word, "adamantine". Forbidden Planet is mentioned specifically elsewhere in the article as using "adamantine" to try and prevent the sort of edit that you recently accepted. I appreciate your assistance in rejecting these edits as they contradict the proper credit given to the creation of the concept, which, for better or for worse, has become very popular and well-known in the United States. Thanks. ComicsAreJustAllRight (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, ComicsAreJustAllRight! So sorry about that...I looked at it, and it appeared to be some sort of a good-faith edit, which in the case of anything but BLPs we're generally instructed to default to 'accept.' So hard to tell the difference sometimes between vandalism and not. I take it these kinds of edits are common...is there any way to expand the reason for protection that comes up to reviewers? valereee (talk) 20:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks and no worries. I don't know if there's a way to expand the description, sorry. The pending changes settings were put in place by User:CambridgeBayWeather. ComicsAreJustAllRight (talk) 20:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Dispute on interstate football seems to be restarting

Hey, Valereee. Thanks for your help so far. I've made the changes I was proposing to the Interstate matches article, and suddenly SportsEditor518 has re-emerged and begun changing it again. His stance on describing the popularity of interstate football in Victoria has softened slightly, but not to my satisfaction; so I think we need to re-open the dispute resolution and have the discussion we would have had had he not disappeared. They've archived the original discussion on the Dispute Resolution page; do we just keep discussing on the archive page, or bring it back to the main page? We're also having a style argument on some of the content which I'm not sure how to deal with. Aspirex (talk) 12:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Aspirex Well, hm. Okay, maybe it was just that he hadn't edited during the time that we pinged him, so we'll assume good faith.  :) Let me go see what I can do about either unarchiving the discussion to reopen it or starting fresh. Thanks! valereee (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Ping me if you need help taking the case out of the archive. Just cut and paste and change the auto archive date. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Keithbob Okay, I cut-and-pasted. I =think= I changed the date, but there's a second archive notification that has a number in it that I wasn't sure if I should change -- it doesn't look like a date. valereee (talk) 12:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll look at it and make sure it's right.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not much on code either but it looks OK and appears to be formatting correctly. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! valereee (talk) 15:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Australian Interstate Football

Was that thread prematurely archived? Is that why you had to re-open it? Robert McClenon (talk)

It was archived on schedule, but the users involved hadn't finished their discussion. valereee (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Job, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Underemployed. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Category:Regional dishes of the United States

Category:Regional dishes of the United States, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Ibadibam (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Valereee. You have new messages at Northamerica1000's talk page.
Message added 04:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Today's articles for improvement – discussion about changing project processes

• Hello Valereee:

A discussion is occurring at Change project processes regarding potential changes to the Today's articles for improvement Wikiproject. Your input is welcomed at the discussion.

Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 11:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Goetta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mush. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Please Close DRN Thread

Please close the DRN thread on interstate Australian football by adding the summary text and changing the status to closed. See the instructions on the DRN page for how to do this. If you need help, ask on the DRN talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Copying from other articles

Hello Valeree: Just a note that as per Wikipedia's rules regarding copy attribution, (see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia) which is necessary to maintain copyright integrity, at the very least users should state in an edit summary that content has been copied from an article, and provide a link to the article from where content is copied. I noticed that List of regional dishes of the United States did not have such attribution. I have performed this for you, and the attributions are located at the article's Revision history. In the future, please be sure to provide proper attribution in all articles when copying within Wikipedia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Northamerica1000, wow, I had no idea! So sorry -- I'll not do it again! Thanks for the info and the fix, and sorry for causing you extra work. OK, so at minimum, a note in the edit summary, and best practices would be a note in an edit summary at the source page as well plus a note at both pages' talk pages. Got it. And ten years later she is still learning fairly major things about editing Wikipedia... valereee (talk) 10:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Dayton, Ohio

Hi. Just wanted to let you know why I reverted your recent edit. Sections on food are magnets for promo editing, and where as I am sure that was not your intention, your recent edit did contain some referenced promo. There is one other instance of that in the section that should also be removed. However, your addition is the first strictly local establishment listed, and I think that sets a dangerous president, so I removed it. All the other establishments are chains based in Dayton. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 20:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, John! I'm not sure I understand why chains are considered less problematic than local establishments that have received significant national coverage? What did you see as 'referenced promo'? I added what I did because I was surprised to see Dayton listing only chains in its food/dining section, as I knew there was at least one local restaurant that had had coverage in reliable sources. valereee (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Goetta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mush. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

TAFI's List of articles

• Hello Valereee:

A discussion is occurring at the TAFI talk page regarding potential changes to the project's List of articles page. Your input is welcome at the discussion.

Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 04:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

TAFI List of articles purge, part II

• Hello Valereee:

A discussion is occurring at the TAFI talk page regarding the removal of entries from the project's List of articles page. Your input is welcome at the discussion.

Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 17:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

YGM

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 16:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Check this out!

Me doing some cool stuff. ;) Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 23:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Very interesting! valereee (talk) 15:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Ethical eating

I moved your article on ethical eating to draft space, seeing that it was very incomplete and fearing it might be vulnerable to deletion if left up in main space. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Sammy1339 It's actually a lot more complete than many stubs. It just has placeholders for the sections. I'd like to move it back to article space to hopefully attract other editors to help. valereee (talk) 15:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I disagree - it doesn't contain any information not already at ethics of eating meat, and furthermore, main space articles are not supposed to have empty sections. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Mugshot Publishing Industry Article Vandalism

Valeree My edit, that you removed, to the article Mug_shot_publishing_industry was sourced, other than Google groups. Although, in this instance, the Google group source is a reliable and very important source, as it is not only the first known complaint about the mugshot removal process on the internet, but a Google employee, John Mu, replied in that thread as well. BTW, other than sourced historical fact, I've also posted about litigation and legislation of the Mugshot Publishing Industry, so I'm not sure what you think I'm promoting.Mugshots (talk) 08:41, 13 August 2015‎

Mugshots, google group is really never a reliable source. It's not published. It's just one person, completely unjuried, voicing one person's opinion. It's almost the definition of not a reliable source. Adding a company's URL into an article is purely promotional. valereee (talk) 21:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Mugshots

Lorem ipsum

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. —valereee (talk) 12:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

section 1

1

section 2

2