User talk:Valereee/Archive 80

Women in Red | November 2025, Vol 11, Issue 12, Nos. 326, 327, 355, 356, 357 Recognized as the most active topic-based WikiProject by human changes. Online events: New: Alphabet run X, Y, Z | Food and drink | Women who died in 2025 Continuing, year-long initiatives: #1day1woman | Music Announcements: Global Translat-a-thon 2025 06 December 2025 Tip of the Month: Lists of deaths by year is a good resource for the December / January meet-up Women who died in 2025 Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help wanted! Want to apply your skills or learn new ones? Help us plan monthly events, design event logos, come up with a tip-of-the-month, and/or provide any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Tables on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 20:38, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 18:56, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Dear Valereee,

I do not believe that the section regarding the "I hate this city" quote should be included on the Aftyn Behn page. I agree with you that it constitutes undue weight and that the majority of sources provided are of particular bias. I further believe that the section violates Wikipedia's policy of remaining neutral in current events, as the display of the quote is not of any particular notability to the section or the article in general, and was furthermore used out of context per the entire conversation where it was taken from (Spotify). I understand that Wikipedia is not the news and should not be wielded by editors of any side to pursue a particular message, and I believe that the quote in question violates that key principle of neutrality.

If I am wrong, please let me know. I only hope to improve Wikipedia and keep the neutrality in place.

-LS EvenOvenlord17 (talk) 23:05, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Hey, @EvenOvenlord17. Once something is covered in multiple RS that aren't politically biased in the other direction, IMO we should cover it. IMO it's only undue weight if only media that are biased in one direction are covering it. Valereee (talk) 00:52, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Valereee. Thank you for your work on Robert Heisner. Another editor, MichealKal, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Nice work, thank you!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|MichealKal}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

MichealKal (talk) 06:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Fly By Jing

added a link pointing to Eater

Pandemic baking

added a link pointing to Eater

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

The discussion phase of the December 2025 administrator elections is officially open. As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• Dec 4–8 - Discussion phase (we are here)
• Dec 9–15 - SecurePoll voting phase
• Scrutineering phase

We are currently in the discussion phase. The candidate subpages are open to questions and comments from everyone, in the same style as a request for adminship. You may discuss the candidates at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/December 2025/Discussion phase.

On December 9, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's totals during the election. You must be extended confirmed to vote.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which typically lasts between a couple days and a week. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (you may want to watchlist this page) and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate who has not been recalled must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and must also have received a minimum of 20 support votes. A candidate that has been recalled must have at least 55.0% support. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:47, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I like this radical empathy thing you got going on. It won't always work but it is (almost) always worth trying. Note that Simple has a one-strike rule for importing stuff. Polygnotus (talk) 12:25, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh, interesting, @Polygnotus, I didn't know that, but it makes perfect sense. I've often wondered what editors at Simple make of the fact we often recommend people who seem generally well-intentioned go there to prove they can learn. Do editors there find it disruptive or frustrating, I mean. It sounds like they've got a good system for handling it: basically, this is your last chance on an English-speaking wiki, so start listening NOW. Thanks for the brownie and the kind words. I know I'm often wasting my time, but every once in a while we do manage to get through. That editor seems to have a lot of energy for the project, and I do think if they'd just start listening to experienced editors, they could become a net positive. Valereee (talk) 12:47, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't want you to not try in the future just because it didn't have the desired effect this time, because the next may be different. And yes, Simple is sometimes the end of the line, and they don't want to have to deal with people importing external problems so they just block them and move on. But people who can behave can use Simple to prove it. They appear to speak a language other than English so there is another option. Polygnotus (talk) 12:55, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

My understanding was that the English Wikipedia community stopped asking people to go to Simple Wikipedia to prove themselves, based on feedback from the Simple English Wikipedia community asking us to stop doing that. isaacl (talk) 04:42, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

@Isaacl, another thing I didn't know. Can you point me at that? If that's what they prefer, I would totally get it. Valereee (talk) 12:43, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Sorry; I didn't take note of where this has been stated. I just remember it being said on English Wikipedia. isaacl (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

No worries, if you see it again and remember, ping me! :) Valereee (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2025).

Administrator changes

• Chaotic Enby
• Rjjiii

Valereee

• Fathoms Below
• Tamzin

CheckUser changes

Spicy

Technical news

• Starting on November 4, the IP addresses of logged-out editors are no longer being publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account associated with their edits.
• Administrators will now find that Special:MergeHistory is now significantly more flexible about what it can merge. It can now merge sections taken from the middle of the history of the source (rather than only the start) and insert revisions anywhere in the history of the destination page (rather than only the start). T382958

Miscellaneous

• The December 2025 administrator elections are scheduled from Nov 25 – Dec 15.
• An Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in December 2025, with over 1,000 drafts awaiting review from the past two months. In addition to AfC participants, all administrators and new page patrollers can help review using the Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!

MediaWiki message delivery 17:43, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

The voting phase of the December 2025 administrator elections has started and will continue until Dec 15 at 23:59 UTC. You can participate in the voting phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/December 2025/Voting phase.

As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• Dec 9–15 - SecurePoll voting phase
• Scrutineering phase

In the voting phase, the candidate subpages close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies to vote has a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's vote total during the election. The suffrage requirements are similar to those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for a few days, perhaps longer. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (this is a good page to watchlist), and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a non-recall candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and a minimum of 20 support votes. Recall candidates must achieve 55.0% support. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:06, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm thinking Gaza genocide needs a consensus required restriction. Can't be bothered to comment on the case as have nothing meaningful to really add, only to say I think you hit the nail on the head there. I've strategically drifted away from that topic since the Jimbo fan club invasion, knowing it was only a matter of time before arbcom would happen. Regads, CNC (talk) 10:14, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I have a question. Drmies just posted a comment assessing the evidence, and then objection to the participation restriction. Since he is seemingly an uninvolved admin and you said any uninvolved admin can adjust it, I'm wondering: is the restriction still active? Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Hm, not sure. I've asked Drmies about it, and clarified that neither the subject nor the filer is restricted. Valereee (talk) 13:00, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

@QuicoleJR, looks like Drmies was objecting to the proposed pblock, not the participation restriction. Valereee (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Ok, that clarifies things. Thanks! QuicoleJR (talk) 17:01, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Hey Valereee--just a note to say I appreciate your effort in working through that and other cases. I wish you weren't the only admin taking it on. And I think one reason I put my comment where I did is that, I don't know, I think I was trying to be a regular editor, and it didn't feel right to put the weight of my position in "your" section, but maybe I should have. I'll consider this next time. Thanks again! Drmies (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

No worries at all, Drmies! But yes, if you're not involved, please do feel free to speak up in results sections even if you aren't really "working" at AE but have spent time and effort trying to figure out what is going on. It's hard to find consensus when there are so few people working there right now, and these PIA cases are always difficult to parse. I am often unsure I've figured it out correctly, and often what I'm hoping for is that someone will check my work. Valereee (talk) 11:52, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

I see your point, and I moved my comment to the admin section. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:14, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Do you think we should thread those exchanges between us in there in chrono order? I didn't want to edit your post, was just replying there to ask. Valereee (talk) 15:48, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

No, why? The time stamps will make it clear, IMO. I looked at a few other things too--ARBPIA is still the name of the game. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Only to make it easy to follow, but I don't have a strong opinion. Valereee (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

... to see you back. Sorry the IRL situation hasn't resolved, but it's good to know you're around. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:50, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, GS. Life sucks, but wp is a great distractor. :D Valereee (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Is this an EC violation? The user had their EC revoked for gaming in September, but they do not appear to have the intention to stop editing contentious-topic articles since then. This is not ideal. ~2025-40028-87 (talk) 22:23, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Hm. That article talk isn't tagged at ECR. Let's see if Doug Weller is available to give an opinion. Valereee (talk) 11:42, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

I don’t see anything that needs any action. Doug Weller talk 12:36, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

since you are proposing two weeks ban, i like to say something

My previous 1RR violation was filed by BilledMammal who is now blocked. They have weaponized reporting systems against perceived ideological enemies See decision. Now the same thing is happening again. An editor - who is not involved in the dispute has targeted me, who has filed 2 cases against two different editors at the same time, who has made statements that shows they are targeting editors who they see as pro-Palestinian. QuicoleJR has said Nehushtani's conduct has also been subpar in this topic area See here

This 1RR violation is an accidental one because i thought my first revert was an edit. I asked in admin dashboard was waiting to get feedback before the OP filed case against me. Now i'm being penalized for it

I would ask the reviewing admin to take this context into account, as I believe the circumstances show a good-faith mistake rather than any intentional edit-warring. It is important that enforcement be applied proportionately and in a way that does not inadvertently encourage bad reporting behavior that escalates disputes rather than resolving them. Cinaroot (talk) 18:07, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Hey, Cinaroot. You said I also do not think my first edit qualifies as a revert. Instead of trying to argue an edit can't be counted as a reversion, just don't revert when someone reverts you. Go talk instead. Valereee (talk) 18:36, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I never reverted anyone who reverted me. No one reverted my first or second edit in question. When it was brought to my attention that i violated 1RR, i argued i didnt think my first edit was a revert and asked at admin dashboard to get some neutral feedback. Nehushtani is retaliating against me because i participated in another AE they filed. Its all explained in my statement.

I know these are very complicated issues that requires lots of time to understand. I appreciate all admins working on it. But its equally important not to penalize editors because of misunderstanding. Cinaroot (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Cinaroot, I empathize. This area is a quagmire, and admins working here are up against it. Just don't revert. Talk instead. Valereee (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I was responding to your statement just don't revert when someone reverts you This is inaccurate. Cinaroot (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Okay, @Cinaroot, happy to talk. Without going back to check my understanding, is it correct that you made an edit, someone reverted you, and you reverted them? Valereee (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Its not correct. I made an first edit (no one reverted it), then i made another unrelated revert (a picture change ) because i didn't think my first edit was seen as a revert. No one reverted second revert either. In my first edit - i removed 3 sentences which was added 12 days ago. I didn't know when it was added. The articles gets 100's of edits per week. Newslinger has classified my first edit was a partial revert after Nehushtani disclosed when it was added. This information was not shared with me prior.

In terms of unrelated third revert ( about 20 hours later )- Newslinger has clarified - I'm no longer obligated to self revert and Nehushtani has engaged in WP:TITFORTAT

I was very clear - i was willing to self revert in my talk. Yet Nehushtani filed a case against me after i participated in another AE case which Nehushtani filled, which they think i made statement against them. Quoting their words They wrote a statement against me on a complaint I had filed in AE against another user Cinaroot (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I think your characterization of what Newslinger said is a bit selective, but even if it weren't, theirs is one opinion in an incredibly difficult place. Here's mine: This area is a quagmire, and you need to avoid reverting anyone anywhere anytime. Just talk instead. Talk FIRST. Definitely talk if you're reverting anyone. Definitely talk if someone reverts you. If anyone objects at any time to an edit you make, revert before they ask you to -- which you wouldn't even have to do if you'd just talked first. Just revert. Ask for page protection if to force discussion if necessary. There is no need for WP to be "correct" on any time schedule. Don't contribute to the problems there. Valereee (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree that I should be more careful when removing or reverting edits. A informal or logged warning would suffice. My first 1RR violation occurred in August 2023, and I have had no issues of this kind since then. That block was narrowly limited to a single article. A proposed two-week ban now feels punitive. WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE No need to consider first block in your judgement against me please.

Since the recent comments from Wikipedia’s founder encouraging editors to be bold— and encouraged to go against consensus to make changes to article they wanted, there has been increased disruption. Reverting is an essential tool in an article where there is so much conflicts and bad edits. Discussion is helpful, but it is not always effective or necessary. Cinaroot (talk) 22:22, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

@Cinaroot, are you saying you will not revert anyone who has reverted you in a CT but will instead immediately take it to talk? Valereee (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I havent directly reverted anyone who have reverted me in my recent memory in CT. I do not know how you get this idea. But yes - thats what im saying Cinaroot (talk) 20:42, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

@Valereee Why would you even propose an indefinite ban on PIA? These are areas with a high degree of conflict. If administrators keep handing out indefinite bans like candy, it will just drive away editors from wikipedia. I cannot even believe this

I made a mistake 17 months ago, when I was relatively new to this area, and using that to justify a permanent ban is indeed punitive imo. I don’t even remember that context anymore. That situation is not same as what happened now. I was 100% willing to self revert here. I was just waiting for clarification on admin dashboard and the editor who i reverted didn't ask me to self revert even after i explicitly asked them.

cc @Newslinger Cinaroot (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

@Cinaroot, an indef does NOT mean permanent. It means no defined time. An indef that isn't placed as an AE or community restriction can be lifted by any admin at any time, including five minutes later if they're convinced you understand what the problem is and won't do it again. That happens often. People get their indefs lifted quickly, often. I dislike time-limited restrictions because they mean an editor can just wait them out and not learn anything. But an indef requires discussion. An indef placed as an individual admin action is generally always best for a well-intentioned editor because you can recover from it fast. And a time-limited block is seldom lifted before it ends because many admins won't lift one. So an indef can be five minutes. A two-week block is usually two weeks. Valereee (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Whether an indefinite ban can be lifted 5 mins later or not, an indefinite ban should be applied only in cases involving serious incidents. If I were an editor who had violated 1RR numerous times, then such a sanction is be warranted. However, a second 1RR violation after a gap of 17 months barely meets that threshold. This is a topic area with lots of conflicts. Editors experience lots of emotional stress working here.

The only proportionate response in this situation would be a logged warning, or at most a one- or two-week logged block on the article. Any sanction beyond that is punitive rather than preventative.

I am seriously unhappy with your proposal AE case, and I believe such actions should be reviewed, as they risk constituting an abuse of administrative action and overreach. Cinaroot (talk) 20:30, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

@Cinaroot, I disagree that an indef is somehow for things more "serious" than problematic editing at Gaza genocide, one of the most contentious articles on Wikipedia. Disruptive editing is always serious, and at a highly contentious article it's a major issue.

An indef is to get someone to discuss what they're doing. It's not harsher than a time-limited restriction.

Of course PIA is an area with a high degree of conflict. That is why it is a contentious topic, that is why we warn you that it is a contentious topic. That fact doesn't mean we treat those conflicts as somehow not problematic simply because they're so common and understandable. It means we treat them as a big huge deal because they happen so often and are so disruptive they are a Big Huge Deal.

If you don't want to work in this area, it's fine. But you're going to work in this area, you're going to also have to realize that vios in this area are treated extremely seriously because they are so common and so disruptive.

I understand you are unhappy. You can ask for input at WP:XRV. Valereee (talk) 21:07, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

@Valereee@Newslinger I want to respect all of the administrators time and my own. I will not contest a one- or two-week ban on the article, or even a WP:CT/A-I for up-to two week if you want to be more strict (1 week preferred, but honestly i could take a break for two weeks). However, an indefinite ban or a timed site-wide ban would be punitive, and I would contest such a decision.

I also cannot support a 0RR restriction, as it is difficult to keep track of, and I am concerned that it would make me vulnerable to being targeted by other editors.

I already fixed by 1RR violation once Newslinger informed me its a partial revert. I will be more carful not to violate 1RR - Thats all i have to say about this. Cinaroot (talk) 22:20, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 19:01, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi, since participation is restricted, could you mention WP:NLS on AE in regards to any result of this editor. I had meant to bring it up, but did not have a chance. My views on the editor are mixed, but I think this at least merits mention, as it makes it difficult to refer to them in discussions. ← Metallurgist (talk) 04:58, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Why does this matter? It has nothing to do with the AE case, nor should it affect any action taken against them. We shouldn’t try to penalize editors for expressing their identity in their own language. It’s not ok. Cinaroot (talk) 05:20, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

@Cinaroot The policy says foreign language names are fine, they just need are recommended to have English in the signature. All I am asking is that the admin mention that since I am unable to comment on the case. I am not seeking a sanction in that respect. ← Metallurgist (talk) 00:50, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Metallurgist The policy says foreign language names are fine, they just need to have English in the signature. That's not exactly what WP:NLS says. Yes, it does say usernames with non-Latin characters are fine (usernames are the same across all Wikipedia languages, after all), but it does not require such users to have English in their username. It does recommend that users put a Latin transliteration of their username into their signature, but it's not required and can't be held against them if they choose not to. - ZLEA ^TǀC 02:20, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

@ZLEA That is correct, I misworded it. ← Metallurgist (talk) 02:38, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1328016354 are you actually soliciting comment on your sandbox or? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:11, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

lol no. I was reminding myself how to use the template. :D Thanks, Eek! Valereee (talk) 16:21, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

This user has recently been topic-banned, then gone on to make these edits: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Has the user violated the topic ban? They also deleted the topic ban notification from their Talk page. ~2025-40585-53 (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Deleting the tban notification isn't a problem. I've warned them; tbans are difficult for editors, I try to give them a bit of time to learn. Valereee (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I came here because I noticed that the topic ban warning you placed on the user's talk page was likewise deleted. I assume that too formally isn't a problem, though it does make it more difficult for other editors and administrators to see the history or track a pattern of behavior. In any case, how appropriate is it to have weighed in on an AfD on an article subject to the topic ban? Coining (talk) 15:33, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

It was before I warned them, it looks like? Removal of the warning isn't a problem, other admins will easily find it. Valereee (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

I didn’t realize warnings were also logged for administrators; I thought it was just the ban status, so thank you for the clarification. All of this of course was after the original notification of the topic ban, which had its own warning. In any case, my question was as much about the AfD contribution while topic banned. It’s still there. Should it be? I’m not sure what authority non-admins have to remove it. Coining (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I've striked that out. Valereee (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Coining (talk) 01:53, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

@Valereee @Coining Is this another topic ban violation by the user? The user has been advised to cease editing any and all articles (including subpages, talk pages, etc.) related to Israel and Palestine, broadly construed, even if it is not directly apparent to be associated with the conflict at hand. However, the user appears to continue testing the boundary, which reeks of WP:GAME. There are hundreds of topics to which one can contribute, so I do not see a valid reason for the user to be doing it unless there is lack of willingness to observe the topic ban. ~2025-41391-05 (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Well, I'll leave it to the admins to decide where the line is, though they do ask on their talk page a question about appropriateness of editing an article that I think is more clearly related to Israel and Palestine. Coining (talk) 02:05, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

@Valereee @Coining @Newslinger The user does not have the intention to desist from TBAN violations: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. ~2025-42280-62 (talk) 15:13, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

This reply on the first one, on which @Denisaptr@Valereee asked for a self-revert, shows a bunch of things (in addition to generally being WP:SNARKY) including inability to identify contentious topic articles (in this case, it's posted on the talk page of the article being edited) and an inability to track the time sequence of edits, because, yes, the edit was reverted by another user, but only after @Denisaptr's@Valereee's talk page notice.

That's not to minimize the other 13 edits. These are just further observations related to the first edit. Coining (talk) 16:01, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Responding to the ping. ~2025-42280-62, the extended confirmed restriction in the WP:CT/A-I disallows you from submitting conduct complaints within the topic area, as only registered users can be extended confirmed. Please leave conduct reports in this topic area to extended confirmed users. Thank you.

Coining, please note that Easternsahara replied to a comment by Denisaptr, not Valereee. I have posted a comment in User talk:Easternsahara § Another Topic Ban violation about the first edit. I do not believe the other 13 edits are within the scope of WP:CT/A-I. — Newslinger talk 18:49, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

You're correct; it was a comment by @Denisaptr. I misread it because of the ping of Valeree. I'll adjust my prior comment accordingly. Thanks. Coining (talk) 19:15, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 21:43, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

		Hi Valereee Season's Greetings and all the best for 2026
		Wherever you are and whatever you believe in (or don't), reach out for peace on this little planet of ours! HAPPY HOLIDAYS 🥳 Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:58, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Kudpung! Peace to you! Valereee (talk) 14:08, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2026!

Hello Valereee, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2026. Happy editing, Abishe (talk) 08:06, 25 December 2025 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 08:06, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Abishe! Valereee (talk) 11:26, 25 December 2025 (UTC)