Valoem

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peter Luger, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page German. 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) 09:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

The content was merged without the unsourced text and unreliable sources. Thanks QuackGuru (talk) 03:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

I sorry I do not agree with this merge there are plenty of reliable sources. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 04:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

You restored unreliable sources and unsourced content. Please read the section below. QuackGuru (talk) 04:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Where? Also thanks for letting me know something I wrote was bold merge., I'll replace again source if needed, but I'm not see anything issues. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 04:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

You didn't notice any problem with this edit? QuackGuru (talk) 04:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

It appears advert Emilynorelll (talk · contribs) vandalized the article I restored the original version I wrote. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 05:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

I tagged the spam you accidently restored. QuackGuru (talk) 14:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Okay we can start a formal merge process. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

That was a copyright violation by copying text from Wikipedia without attribution. I will undo your edit and do it again. QuackGuru (talk) 21:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Where? Please fix. Thanks. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Undo the merge and then it will be fixed or I will undo and redo. QuackGuru (talk) 21:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Okay done, but please readded the additional sources I added. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

I will read it shortly without the sources that failed verification and the minor copyright violation and without adding two images. One image is enough for juul. It would be better to add an image of a Pax device. The draft I mentioned will also be added to the page. QuackGuru (talk) 21:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Ok, two picture look to cluttered. I am sure those are reliable sources. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Some sources did not pass V, but I already fixed it. QuackGuru (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Which ones, and can you merge it? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Done with merge and expanding page. I fixed the ones in the draft a while ago. QuackGuru (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

The article is actually better and more descriptive. Nice job! Valoem ^{talk contrib} 22:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

That's not what they say for my editing at the other vaping pages. Later on there will be fireworks at the other pages. I am patient. If I have to wait a year or two then then is fine with me. QuackGuru (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Template:Z33 QuackGuru (talk) 04:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Template:Z33 QuackGuru (talk) 14:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'm not involved in any of this crap, but now may be a good time to take a break, and have a nice walk or something. TimothyJosephWood 14:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Getting anti-fringe trolled right now. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 14:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Timothyjosephwood: Hey, I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about the person calling me a shill, hard to AGF after that. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 19:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. RexxS (talk) 15:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

I am not sure how to use this talk feature. I BEG you, PLEASE do NOT put spoilers for "The Dark Tapes" film. You can have a full plot synopsis without spoilers. I am sorry, but people check out WIKI pages BEFORE seeing the film. PLEASE do not include the spoilers, I know for a FACT they look at wiki before watching the film. You will entirely spoil the movie for everyone. I beg you, please revert to my changes or just remove it from wiki. PLEASE. It ruins years of work, spoils the film, I beg you, please revert to my chances without the spoilers. Sorry, I dont know how to sign this. The Dark Tapes was done by three people mostly. The entire strength of the film is not knowing the spoilers. Please, we beg you, switch our wiki to spoiler free, we are not a big studio, people only find the film through word of mouth and often research the film via google and will read wiki before seeing the film. PLEASE switch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HorrorMaster (talk • contribs) 23:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC) 05:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC) Please, I am begging you, you do not HAVE to put up spoilers. I am fully aware that most people do on wiki. 4 years of work and $65,000 of my own money went into this money. The only reason to watch it is for the twists and turns. Give a play by play playout with the spoilers included adds nothing for people who have seen it. PLEASE, PLEASE PLEASE give some consideration to what I asking. Can't you just switch it to what I corrected? I understand you can put spoilers, it does not mean you HAVE to. I wont make a cent on the movie as is, I just want to break-even. PLEASE. Surely wikipedia does not exist to take money from creators of films. This is exactly what the listing does. PLEASE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HorrorMaster (talk • contribs) Reply

User:HorrorMaster, all the content is unsourced. Why should unsourced content be restored anywhere on Wikipedia? QuackGuru (talk) 15:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

@QuackGuru:, There is an exception with plot summary in film, WP:PLOTSUM (all FA film articles have unsourced plot summary and here is the guildline Wikipedia:FILMPLOT, Since the film is the primary source and the infobox provides details about the film, citing the film explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary.), however if HorrorMaster actually works for the studio and can prove it I won't revert. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 19:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

The sky is very blue for this case. QuackGuru (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

I am the creator/writer/producer/director of the film. If you can guide me what to do to prove myself, let me know, or if you need posters and or anything added, please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HorrorMaster (talk • contribs) 21:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alec Torelli is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alec Torelli until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Kleuske (talk) 14:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Neckbeard (slang) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neckbeard (slang) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jip Orlando (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

  User:Valoem/KnowledgeLake, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Valoem/KnowledgeLake and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Valoem/KnowledgeLake during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 08:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

“Hi, I’m sad to report that I’m not Leon, (I could use some helicopters) just a neophyte wikiperson who seems to have chosen a tricky interest to edit. I removed this section because the language seems biased and doesn’t mention that Tsang and Kirk happen to know each other, that there’s some mystery around where Kirk got so much money from in the first place when he’s known to have lost an awful lot, and why Tsang would be lending money to someone who clearly didn’t need it? Curious. And I haven’t even mentioned the Triads. Also, though sources may exist they hardly amount to the New York Times. Reporting on speculation amounts to tabloid sources in my book, but I’m learning that the process here is down to the shifting sands of individuals’ whims.” Hey ho. we stumble on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royston McGee (talk • contribs) 19:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Royston McGee:, you have not shown a "tricky interest", but an account with the single intention of promoting Leon Tsoukernik and his affiliations. Sources include CardPlayer, HighStakesDB, and PokerNews have written the story the exact way it is written here. I have not found any sources regarding Tsang as being a Triad member nor is there speculation from any sources of Matt Kirk's net worth. If there are sources this is Wikipedia, and you can add them, but they must be reliable. Your argument "why Tsang would be lending money to someone who clearly didn’t need it" is the silliest argument and suggests direct affiliation with subject in question. People don't have cash on hand, at the time Tsoukernik had a good reputation winning multiple awards in poker. High stakes players loan money all the time. In this case it was Tsoukernik who started a credit game, unfortunately sources says he only pays what he wants and not what is owed, unfortunate indeed. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Someone has suggested that an article that you previously created seems identical to the following article: Absolute Beginner. I don't know if that's true since I don't know what the previous article look like. 79.67.85.74 (talk) 12:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Killing_of_Patrick_Harman. Zazpot (talk) 08:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48Reply

Hello, Valoem. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Sol Forman".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 23:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joe's Steaks + Soda Shop is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe's Steaks + Soda Shop until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 17:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dalessandro's Steaks is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dalessandro's Steaks until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 22:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Have you had a chance to read my comments on Talk:Trenton tomato pie‎ or Talk:Sicilian pizza‎? -Apocheir (talk) 20:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

[[User:Valoem|<font color="DarkSlateGray">'''Valoem'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Valoem|'''<font color="blue">talk</font>''']]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Valoem|'''<font color="Green">contrib</font>''']]</sup> : Valoem ^{talk contrib}

to

[[User:Valoem|<b style="color: DarkSlateGray;">Valoem</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:Valoem|<b style="color: blue;">talk</b>]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Valoem|<b style="color: Green;">contrib</b>]]</sup> : Valoem ^{talk contrib}

Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 20:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Anomalocaris: Did I fix it? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yes, thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

  User:Valoem/2008 Turkey UFO sightings, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Valoem/2008 Turkey UFO sightings and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Valoem/2008 Turkey UFO sightings during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. LuckyLouie (talk) 22:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

  User:Valoem/Charlie Redstar, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Valoem/Charlie Redstar and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Valoem/Charlie Redstar during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. LuckyLouie (talk) 22:55, 24 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

  User:Valoem/Bonsall UFO, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Valoem/Bonsall UFO and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Valoem/Bonsall UFO during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. LuckyLouie (talk) 22:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

  User:Valoem/Laredo, Texas UFO crash, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Valoem/Laredo, Texas UFO crash and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Valoem/Laredo, Texas UFO crash during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. LuckyLouie (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

  User:Valoem/Hopeh Incident, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Valoem/Hopeh Incident and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Valoem/Hopeh Incident during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. LuckyLouie (talk) 23:03, 24 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

I will probably !vote for deletion. Only one source is cited and it's purely local. A story like this needs to have some evidence of national-level attention (I suspect it will eventually attain that, but we can't use that as reason to keep). Daniel Case (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Daniel Case:, Thanks for letting me know, sorry I don't have regular access to the internet at this time. I don't know if this changes anything, but she has been covered in national news Inquisitr, Huffington Post, another Huff Post Inquisitr again. She disappeared 2016 and has been receiving continued coverage on a new weekly basis for the entire year. [1], [2], [3]. I am not sure if this defines notability in this instance, I tend to look for test of time or inclusion in documentaries or docudramas, but I wasn't sure. Let me know if this changes anything. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 17:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

This was not suitable for a nac nor does your close suggest you did anything other than vote count. Please revert your close so an admin can do it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Personally, I'd put the DoB back in. If it is unreliable then the article can explain why. Unless there is a better, more accurate, source for it that says differently?

It's really not up to us, as Wikipedia editors, to cast doubt on what someone says about themselves unless there are good sources that do this. Particularly when it is as relatively trivial as a birth date. It really makes little difference to who he is, or what he has (allegedly) done. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi you unprodded the above article but didn't leave an edit summary explaining why or address the problems that I noted. I was curious to know why you unprodded the article. I know that it is not mandatory to give an explanation or improve the article when deprodding but it is useful. Cheers Dom from Paris (talk) 09:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC) Dom from Paris (talk) 09:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Domdeparis: Yes I did leave a message in the talk page and posted a message on a Vietnamese editors page I was hoping they would be able to find additional sources since English sources may not exist. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 05:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on User:Valoem/Maiden Media Group, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Legacypac (talk) 00:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for creating the above article. The previous Wikipedia article on this subject was deleted several years ago. I'm no new article patrolling individual or suchlike, just basically trying to say I'll be happy to help expand this article with you (and maybe others) over the coming weeks.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sounds great! Valoem ^{talk contrib} 17:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

  User:Valoem/List of auteurs, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Valoem/List of auteurs (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Valoem/List of auteurs during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 11:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Legacypac:, I’ve informed you in the past to please discuss with me before notminating a user page in my space. This one is important please withdraw the nomination in good faith thanks. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 17:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have no recollection of such notification, but feel free to make a case at the MfD and I'll consider supporting your keep rational. Legacypac (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Valoem, depending on whether everything was merged, this could be a case for deletion review. But it will be more practical to imply merge in the additional people--at least all of those that do not have a source. If the source is only a book, without a page number, there might be some challenge, so it would be clearest to try to find them, at least as a first step. I think they are somewhere in the edit history of the merged article. If you can't find them, let me know. DGG ( talk ) 21:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Richard Yong, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Malaysian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Fredgoldbergv.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 01:46, 10 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hey, uh... regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goat people, would you mind elaborating? "Keep" just amounts to throwing out the views of half of the commenters: 7-6 in favour of keeping (disregarding the fact that a number of "keep" or "rename" comments didn't present coherent arguments or misquoted policy) is at best "No consensus, default to keep". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Hijiri88:, I believe sources provided by Cunard specifically addressed the issues presented at AfD since AfD is technically not a vote. I have elaborated the keep with a possible rename. The second source provided Field Guide to the Little People: A Curious Journey Into the Hidden Realm of Elves, Faeries, Hobgoblins & Other Not-so-mythical Creatures states "The most famous of these are the Panes, Satyrs, and Sileni of classical Greece", which suggests the article is not synth. It appears that clean up is better than deletion or merging based on policy based rationale. Do you have an issues? If you do insist I don't mind changing it to no consensus defaulting to keep, but I do believe the sources provided lean this toward keep. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 15:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Spartaz, and will add that the sources cited in the close rationale are not independent and objective. The text and especially the forewords of Field Guide to the Little People: A Curious Journey Into the Hidden Realm of Elves, Faeries, Hobgoblins & Other Not-so-mythical Creatures and Animal Dreaming: The Spiritual and Symbolic Language of the Australasian Animals explicitly argue that paranormal creatures are real. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I understand that you have been on an anti-fringe movement, however the sources provided are published secondary sources, I would be more than willing to see what Hijiri88 opinion is here as to how to proceed, a no consensus close is not an objection I have. Hijiri88 asked only for an elaboration, which I am more than happy to expand, there are additional sources which are can be provided, on top of that the source Animal Dreaming: The Spiritual and Symbolic Language of the Australasian Animals clearly states this is mythological. Also your claim that the first source suggesting these are real, though I am not seeing evidence of this, it does not suggest the source is not independent. Are you saying that Field Guide to the Little People: A Curious Journey Into the Hidden Realm of Elves, Faeries, Hobgoblins & Other Not-so-mythical Creatures is the creator of this myth? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 17:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Insinuations that I'm part of some nefarious "movement" won't gain you any traction here. There are many reliable academic sources published on the study of mythology. The two sources you have given as a closing rationale are not independent of the belief in paranormal creatures, and can't be considered an authoritative source of fact about how mythical creatures are categorized. I'm not sure how anyone can read the forewords contained in both of those books and miss the arguments for why readers should believe in the supernatural realm. Again, there's a good chance higher quality sources are available, i.e. scholarly studies of mythology by objective academics. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Not sure how you came to the claim of "nefarious" movement, only that you have a history of bias against fringe topics including reverting time slip against consensus because another editor added fringe information. Also your explanation does not mean the source is not independent of the subject and there are no issues with the source Animal Dreaming: The Spiritual and Symbolic Language of the Australasian Animals and here are additional sources The Mythology of Grimm: The Fairy Tale and Folklore Roots of the Popular TV Show, but yes there are high quality sources regarding this myth in fact another editor posted the Chinese myth in the discussion with this source here. I'll change it to no consensus to resolve any issues. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 17:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Valoem Just a reminder. Your personal opinions, e.g. I understand that you have been on an anti-fringe movement and you have a history of bias against fringe topics, are not appropriate here per WP:TALKNO. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Then you have misinterpreted the context which I was speaking, in no way did I intend the comment to be interpreted as a personal attack. I don't think it was neutral to merge an entire article because some random editor added fringe information, I hope you understand where I am coming from. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Your disdain for other opinions are such that im not going to waste community time at drv. I have undone your close. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

No, your abrasive personal attacks against me will end now. If Hijiri88 (talk · contribs) asks me to reopen the case. I will gladly. You have fabricated evidence against me here and I will gladly discuss this. You have also personally threatened my family with the edit "Do you have children Valoem", an edit which you deleted out of the history that I will request to be restored. I elected not to engaged you anymore, but if you continue this childish desire for victory, you can take it to ANI. I gladly discussed with you. I have spoken with LuckyLouie (talk · contribs) on his talk page and any editor acting in good faith which both Louie and Hijiri88 are. How would you like me to proceed? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

What discussion did we have bearing in mind you removed my request to revert without comment. You grasp of events seems very tenuous today. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I made a follow up here on DGG's talk page. The proper channel as you know is WP:DRV. Your edit history against me is bad faith editing. Feel free to open an ANI if DRV fails, but grow up and move on. You do not engage me directly without a profound apology of your past behavior. Your behavior as an administrator is unbecoming. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I don't know anything about goat people or most of the other issues in this discussion, but I happen to still have this user talk page on my watchlist, so I'll comment. A non-admin closure is not appropriate in this case, because the outcome is a close call and controversial. (The fact that it's a close call is obvious, because you apparently changed your mind about the outcome.) See WP:Non-admin closure. I would suggest that you revert your close and either relist the discussion or wait for an admin to close it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Any admin who is not Spartaz may do as he likes and I changed my close to make an uncontroversial close. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

By the way, you should use the template {{nac}} when performing non-admin closures. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sure. Also there is no other possible close than no consensus or keep. Goat people is a historical concept stemming from multiple cultures. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

That's your opinion, and a supervote. The other editors who commented to that effect were unable to provide reliable secondary sources; an admin (with the technical ability to close as "delete") might have dismissed those !votes that essentially amounted to unsourced personal opinion, which would give a clear consensus to either delete or redirect. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Valoem, regardless of other matters, a nac was not appropriate in view of the diversity of opinions. I suggest you revert yourself. DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

If any editor @Mx. Granger:, @LuckyLouie:, or @Hijiri88: still wishes for me to reopen the discussion I will gladly. I also have no issues if @DGG: would like to reopen it please feel free do to so. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 04:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Given the number of subsequent edits, I unfortunately have no idea how to do it properly. If someone does, please do it for me. DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Done Valoem ^{talk contrib} 04:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I had some trouble following your response on a talk page. In turn, I've indented your text and moved over some of the trouble-causing asterisks at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Goat_people (cf. Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_others'_comments). :bloodofox: (talk) 20:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dr DisRespect is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr DisRespect until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Add that these are Doxing and personal attacks. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Dave Dial (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Are you seriously suggesting my defense to your comments and highlighting comments you actually made is a PA? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 15:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

You have accused me of being a banned sockpuppet. Mischaracterized my interests, accused me of lying about myself and have tried to dox me. If you believe these things, then you should take them to the appropriate venues. Which is SPI and/or ANI. If you do not believe these accusations, then you should apologize for making these accusations on various Talk pages and drop the doxing attempts. Either one or the other, bud. Dave Dial (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello seems like I saw you made an article like ninja can you help me with this thank you so much :) in advance. Personale (talk) 07:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Personale:, the article need some reliable sources though I am certain this person is notable. Here are some sources [4], [5], [6], and [7]/ Valoem ^{talk contrib} 13:04, 11 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Valoem it's very hard for me as im still quite new, but i will try if i have enough time thanks for the sources. :) Cheers. Personale (talk) 07:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

does this source necessary? cant find any about him. [8] though

Personale (talk) 05:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for attempting to restore the article. I really don't know why one editor is so against having another AfD discussion, so I've resorted to Talk:Bust_of_Cristiano_Ronaldo#Request_for_comment:_Should_the_article_"Bust_of_Cristiano_Ronaldo"_exist_in_main_space? in an attempt to get editors to re-assess notability. You can comment there, if you'd like. The comment you left lower on the page is kind of part of the discussion, but that won't transclude and might be overlooked by other editors participating in the RfC. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:13, 12 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Another Believer: this is clearly notable and passes GNG. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I agree, which is why I started this discussion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi, edits like these are pointless, since it's a bot-built page and Legobot (talk · contribs) will merely overwrite your edits (see the page history). The page is a list of ongoing RfCs; each entry begins with a link to the actual RfC, and you should follow that link, read the RfC and comment there. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

No I see, they are left for discussion on talk pages, I was unaware at the time. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Fwb-logo.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Primo-hoagies-logo.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sophia Rossi is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophia Rossi until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:36, 30 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Template:Z33

Alexbrn (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

You're edit warring here and you still haven't provided much of a justification for this particular edit. Time to pump the breaks and work on gaining consensus. Nblund ^talk 12:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

What edit wars? There is a solid disagreement, the version you have edited purposefully removed Nugesser's strong argument which he provided as a lawsuit against Columbia. It is the strongest piece of evidenced used by media for his presumed innocence. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 15:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

You're an experienced editor, I'm sure I don't need to explain what "edit warring" means. Nblund ^talk 00:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Nemu64. Since you had some involvement with the Nemu64 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Valoem. I have redacted a comment made by you on the talk page of Emma Sulkowicz. Please do not call people liars in this context or ask for such to be inserted in the article itself without sources to back up the exact phrasing you're using. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:19, 1 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I highlighted multiple sources that used that exact word. Removing such claims can result in an ANI. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 01:49, 1 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Template:Z33

Just a formality, since you're active in this area and don't appear to have been notified. –dlthewave ☎ 01:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Please self-revert [9] as a violation of "You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article." restriction. As an aside, per WP:SECONDARY wikipedia summarizes secondary sources and depends primarily upon them, not primary sources like the memo itself Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Valoem, I work on behalf of JUUL UK, would it be possible to add the UK official website to the external links section?^[1] Website: https://www.juul.co.uk/ 89.197.82.107 (talk) 14:05, 24 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Greetings! I'm bothering you because you are a recent contributor to the Home video page. Might I ask you to weigh in at talk:Home video#First sentence? Thanks in advance for any response. Jeh (talk) Jeh (talk) 09:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'd like to ask you to consider undoing your closure of this discussion, and let an administrator handle it. At around 6:4 in terms of numbers, any consensus to overturn my closure is at the least not very clear. Close calls should be left to administrators, per WP:NACD. Thanks, Sandstein 10:56, 1 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

For what it's worth, my first thought on seeing this was the same. But, the more I looked at the discussion (which, by my count, I made 7:3), I was OK with the WP:NAC. Our instructions talk about, cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time. Even if this doesn't meet the patently obvious clause, it does meet, not been closed in a good time. Maybe we want to re-word that to be and instead of or? In any case, I've listed this at WP:ANRFC. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:32, 1 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

@RoySmith: Thanks for the follow up I actually though my close was the only possible close. Sandstein (talk · contribs) questioned it so I reopened. The problem is all the usual DRV closers have participated in this DRV, I was just trying to do some basic maintenance. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 14:49, 1 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

@RoySmith and Valoem: Thanks to you both! Sandstein 15:22, 1 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

I can't claim I've looked closely at your record, but what I recall and what I've seen recently makes me think you'd be a fine admin. If you do put yourself forward for that at some point in the future, would you please place a note on my talk page? Thank you. Hobit (talk) 22:13, 1 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Hobit: Of course, I appreciate you comment, you can nominate me if you want. :) Valoem ^{talk contrib} 15:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello, what are you trying to achieve with the lists of casinos by state? That information is better integrated into overview articles where it can be presented with more context about the scope and history of gambling in the state. In the case of a few of the articles that you demerged, I wrote the "Gambling in X" article specifically to provide better context to eliminate the need for an anemic list article. Also, in states with just 2 or 3 casinos, why would you want to present them as a list, when the policy is generally to prefer WP:PROSE. Toohool (talk) 06:26, 6 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Toohool:, There have been many templates and most states should maintain such a list as historically they did. I think it makes it easier to see casinos by state in that way. I think 3 or more should have lists. I agree if it is two probably just merge with gambling in that state. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 08:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

What do you mean by "there have been many templates"? History is not a reason to do things - the "history" of these state casino lists only exists because one editor wanted to split up List of casinos in the United States years ago. "Easier" is not really the right criterion either; as an encyclopedia, we should strive to cover topics with the depth and context that they merit, rather than splicing out topics into a vapid "quick facts" format. If a reader wants to see the 12 casinos in Oregon, why wouldn't we want to put that list alongside information about how those casinos came to exist and what other major forms of gambling those casinos compete against? Toohool (talk) 08:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

It is completely reasonable to merge the small ones, but for states like PA, NJ, LV or any with an extensive list, I disagree. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 17:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Agreed that larger lists like Nevada, Oklahoma, Mississippi, etc. should remain as separate articles. The NJ and PA lists are anomalous in that they're currently bloated with stuff that shouldn't be in there (in PA, you included the list of off-track betting parlors, which are definitely not casinos; in NJ, there is a list of non-notable online casinos, as well as an unnecessary list of former names of casinos). With proper trimming, those lists are better off being merged I believe. Toohool (talk) 03:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Buttermilk Crispy Tenders is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buttermilk Crispy Tenders until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

阁下的编写帮助了我很多，这是一条来自中国的感谢信。--420peace (talk) 16:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)Reply