Open main menu

My pressEdit

You made the news. Just a passing mention mind, no indepth coverage yet. ;) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and again here (at the bottom). Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Wow, and here it is again [1] in a separate story about the same issue. Think I'm notable yet? 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Multiple mentions in a Slate (magazine) article. [2] Pretty good and accurate article actually. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

ANI Notification (historic)Edit

This is to notify you that I have opened a complaint about your behavior in the Victoria Pynchon matter here:

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive757#Complaint About Editors' Behavior In Victoria Pynchon Deletion Discussion

Pernoctus (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I modified the link for the record when the discussion was archived. --MelanieN (talk) 15:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

AN Notification (historic)Edit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wikipedia editor paid to protect the page "John Ducas". Thank you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Recent RfCs on US city namesEdit

for reference
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

April 2012: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2012/June#WP:USPLACE was not officially made into an RfC or officially closed.

September-October 2012: On another page, Talk:Beverly Hills, California/Archives/2012#Requested move was closed as "No move".

An extensive November 2012 discussion involving 55 people was closed as "maintain status quo (option B)". Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2012/December#RfC: US city names.

A discussion in January 2013 later was never officially made into an RfC or officially closed; discussion died out with 18 editors opposed to a change and 12 in favor. Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2013/February#Request for comment .

Discussion started in June 2013: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2013/June#Naming convention; speedy-closed per WP:SNOW.

December 2013-February 2014: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2014/February#Should the article be at Bothell or Bothell, Washington? . Closed as "no consensus to change existing practice (that is, USPLACE)."

January-February 2014: Associated proposal for a moratorium on USPLACE discussions. Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2014/February#Moratorium on WP:USPLACE change discussions. Closed as "There is a one year moratorium on changing the policy at WP:USPLACE unless someone can offer a reason that has not been discussed previously."

August-September 2018: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Proposal to eliminate comma-state from unambiguous U.S. state capitals.

Beach and BergeronEdit

Do you know a solid wiki contributor good at differentiating pages and synthesizing biographies? Victor Bergeron doesn't have a personal page despite his biographies. What is there is a page named after his restaurant, but then it reads like it is supposed to be a personal page. Ideally there should be a separate article page about him and one on his chain. Donn Beach is in the same boat. His article is really more about him than the restaurant, but lists the restaurant as the name for the article. I realize he changed his name to Donn Beach, but he did not change it to Don the Beachcomber. It seems a nickname should not be the article's main title if it is supposed to be a person page. If separate articles on the person vs. the restaurant can't be done, it would seem that at least a person's legal name should be at the top. Regardless, there appears to be a lack of consistency. At a minimum it seems that the Don the Beachcomber page should be renamed to Donn Beach, with a redirect for Don the Beachomber wikilinks going to that page? I know the Don vs Donn is confusing; he changed his name to Donn, but only Don made it into the restaurant name. There was likely already other Hollywood "Don Beach"s.

@Nicholas Nastrusnic:, I'm not ignoring you; I just haven't had time to look into this yet. I definitely will take a look and see what I think should be done. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

No worries, was just a thought in case you knew someone. I did some basic improvements, and tried moving the page to Donn Beach with this reasoning: This article is ostensibly first about the man, and not the restaurant. There was more to Donn Beach than the restaurant. His legal name was Donn Beach. However, my attempt to move it failed, saying such a page already exists.

The Donn Beach page is a redirect. If we decide to do that move we can deal with the redirect page. But we should probably propose it at the talk page first. That's always a good idea when you are thinking of moving a page that has been at a particular title for a long time; we shouldn't assume the move is non-controversial. That is not a heavily edited page but a move discussion might bring out some page watchers. And if it doesn't but someone objects later we will have covered ourselves. I haven't even given it enough thought myself at this point. I'll look into the whole situation when I have a little more time. In the meanwhile you could go ahead and post something on the talk page. I don't think it would have to be a formal Move Request, just a talk page message with your suggestion and reasoning. I'll chime in within a few days. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
OK, I'm on it. The article has been about the person, not the restaurant, from the day it was written, and the person's name is Donn Beach, so you are right that should be its name (with a redirect from D the B). I will take care of that. Then I will make some improvements to the article based on new searches I have done. Once I took a look you got me hooked. 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
@Nicholas Nastrusnic: I have done the move and added a couple of excellent references to the article, which I used to update and expand it. That's all I can do for now but there is a lot more good info in those references if you want to explore them - including about the drinks (he mostly used rum because it was cheap but extolled it as the finest type of liquor to be had) and the role of Sunny Sund. (I'm going to make a redirect from her name.) Also we need to check the article for name consistency; I think we should refer to him as "Gantt" until 1945 or so (apparently he did his military service under that name?) and after that should call him "Beach". One other thing: as a result of the move there are a lot of double-redirects out there now, see this. Would you want to tackle those? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
P.S. It will be a day or two before I can look into Bergeron/Vic. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, you have done more than enough and things I can't do. I was thinking about needing to add Sunny as well but had no good material on her (a shame). She deserves her own page. Beach had been totally obliterated on the International Market Place page, so I added some things there instead. I will look at your citations later to expand after I finish some other articles. Thank you again.

Here's a couple more articles with biographical material about Beach and Sund. [3] [4] (lots of good material there; the original bar had 25 seats!) [5] (according to this he DID legally change his name to Don Beach-comber - which is how he was named in a 1942 LA Times article - and Donn Beachcomber before settling on Donn Beach). There is a wealth of material out there! and at that I had to reject a couple of things as not reliable. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
And one more [6] - I think we almost have enough to expand Sunny's redirect into a page. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


Hi, I don't want to revert for the third time but look at this edit hitory. Two IPs are trying to give false information without proper ref or consensus. Since they are IPs, they won't be very responsive and I would like remove the false info ASAP. Please let me know what best could be done here. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 08:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@ImmortalWizard: Looks like the IPs got bored and left. In future, I would request semi-protection of the article at WP:RFPP and cite WP:ARBIPA. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, it's not really Indo-Pak, more like India-Bangladesh, but it will work anyways. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

FAC reviewEdit

Sorry you to bother you, but unlike others' advice, I decided to be bold and started commenting Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alf Ramsey/archive1. It would be appreciated if you, or any other expert have a look at them and give me feedback. Thanks! THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 14:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I just dropped in on the FAC myself. I'll admit part of it was trying to rebuild bridges with The Rambling Man, however as I did the original GA review and have supported the improvement of the article to FAC for some years, it should be clear it's something I would have done regardless. As for your comments, I think there are insightful and welcome - I asked you to focus on content, and that's exactly what you are doing, so that's good. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Revert 2Edit

I just wanted to reach out to because Beyond My Ken removed my tag here because apparently he doesn't think it is required. However, he didn't reach for consensus on the talk page where my provided reasons. I leave it up to you. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 22:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

What I use as the ideal source requirement for an article is: at least one inline citation per paragraph (except the lead which does not require sources), and sources for any direct quotes. Looking at your list on the talk page, I agree with it; pretty much everything you have listed does indeed need references. You name some paragraphs, like the last paragraph of “playing career” and the first of “1995-98”, as needing an additional source. You are also correct in listing direct quotes; those do need to be sourced. And you are right about “Appointment and first years”, it has multiple paragraphs without any sources at all. If this was a Good Article it would need all of these things fixed. Note that people are often less demanding, or less compulsive about sources, for articles which are not identified as Good Articles. Don’t demand Good Article standards at pages which have not been nominated as such.
So having identified the problem, how best to deal with it? I don’t advise putting a “sources needed” tag on the entire article; it just annoys people. People will often object to or remove a general tag on the article if MOST of the article is well sourced, which this one is. If an individual section is really bad, like the Manchester United section which has whole paragraphs and even whole subsections unsourced, I would tag that with a section tag for references needed. Anyone who looks there to see “hey, why is that tagged?” would immediately see the problem. It can actually be best to put your list on the talk page WITHOUT tagging the general article, just saying "I notice there are some places that need additional references," and wait a few days to see if page watchers will respond.
A tip about your list of places to improve: You list a dozen or so sentences without saying where in the article they are, which is unhelpful; a person trying to add references doesn’t know where to look. Always say what section you are talking about so they can find the problem sentence easily and not have to search through the whole article for it. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry MelanieN I didn't read this prior. This is a wonderful explanation and exactly what I needed. Please check the message I left at Ferguson talk after reading this. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 23:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!Edit

Hello MelanieN, I want to thank you for everything you've done for me. I am grateful there is an admin like you. Without you, it wouldn't have been possible for me to remain an editor unblocked. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 01:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the note, Wizard. I am glad you have a new mentor and you are listening to him and doing what he says. You will be a productive and respected member of this community yet! -- MelanieN (talk) 05:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

hatting extended discussion. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

  The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Hi MelanieN, Thank you so much for the protection! I have some questions:

1. After protection period, if Lester1231 or if he uses another ID of his to come back to change and add those slanders words again, is that considering an editing war? If he comes back and changes it again, should I change it back to what it is now? 2. Due to the history that Lester1231 did many personal attacks to the main composer Roc Chen, I believe he is intentional to vandalism Roc's reputation and the wandering earth page. If we talk in the talk page, such slanders or rumors of "Roc's music is not original but copy" actually got more spread, which is exactly what he wants. Can you give me any suggestion on how to deal with this to protect the wandering earth film and the main composer? Thank you again.Wraper11 (talk) 04:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Wraper11: Thanks for the barnstar. To answer your question: Do what you are supposed to do: Go to the article talk page and explain your position. Not by attacking Lester1231, not by trying to "protect the film and its composer", but by explaining WHY you want the material removed, based on Wikipedia's rules. Lester says the allegation is reported by sources. He cites sources to prove it. Why do you object to that material? Is there something wrong with the sources? Do they not say what he claims? Wikipedia uses what is reported by Reliable Sources, and that will determine what goes in the article. The result will be determined by discussion among you, not by me. If you and the others there can't agree on what the published material says, I can ask a Chinese speaking Wikipedian to come to that article talk page and help interpret. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello, MelanieN. 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
@MelanieN, I sent you an email about two questions as in private would be better as those contents are not published yet. Can I ask you another question here about using Wiki: now the page is protected and we're talking in the talk-page. What about if after the protection period is over and Lester1231 come back and just went ahead and made those changes again despite the result from talk-page, will that behavior be considered a violation of Wiki's rules? Wraper11 (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you have commented at the talk page. That is where this will be decided: by discussion among the involved people there. At this point there are three of you discussing; if that is all there are, and if two of them are in agreement, then that will be the decision. If Danny does not have an opinion, as he says, then it is still just you and Lester, I could try to find additional Chinese speakers to comment. But the bottom line is: try to find a compromise, try to find some kind of agreement on wording. For example he seems to have changed his proposed wording from "copied" to "trace of suspected mass imitation". Maybe you could propose something like "commentators have noted similarities to"? And maybe you can reach some agreement about the "additional composer" you seem to be arguing about.

At the talk page you claimed that Lester1231 is the operator of the "Soundtrack" magazine. How do you know that? If you don't have specific evidence - for example, that he has admitted it himself - then you must not make that kind of accusation. Just as I have told him to stop describing you as the "film crew". Anyhow, if you look at his talk page, he seems to have agreed not to use Soundtrack as a source, so that isn't important any more. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@MelanieN Here's the specific evidence showing Lester1231 is the operator of the soundtrack magazine(I have drawn arrows for you hope it's easier to understand, start looking at top right): Wraper11 (talk) 12:47 pm, 6 March 2019, last Wednesday (2 days ago) (UTC−8)

@MelanieN you said "he seems to have agreed not to use Soundtrack as a source", I only saw he said "I will follow you to remove the "Soundtrack Magazine" title from the main page or just keep the media name in references" meaning he is still using it as a source and keep it in the reference. Correct me if I'm wrong. Also, how about the case that if Lester1231 is intentionally sabotaging the reputation of Roc(the main composer) and Wandering Earth by adding suh copying issues word, what can we do in such case or deal with such person? All the sources he used are all started him, you don't have to belive me but I noticed he started personal attack Roc ever since 2012. Wraper11 (talk) 21:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Look, you really need to STOP ATTACKING LESTER and start focusing on what the article should say. For example, "Soundtrack is not what Wikipedia considers a reliable source, so we should not use it for anything." Wikipedia policy on talk pages is "discuss the content, not the other editors." -- MelanieN (talk) 02:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
BTW Lester said, at the talk page, that you once said you were "official film crew". Is that correct? -- MelanieN (talk) 03:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@MelanieN Ok, thanks for the advice, but I really really have one question: on the talk page I didn't post the evidence that Lester1231 is the operator for soundtrack magazine (Lester1231 is operating soundtrack magazine) because I don't want to attack him anymore, but look at what he just posted, attacking me. Now under such circumstances should I go ahead and post such evidence to the talk-page? I haven't done so because you said stop attacking, but I think he should remove his attacked part too. Wraper11 (talk) 7:24 pm, 6 March 2019, last Wednesday (2 days ago) (UTC−8

Well, you might start by answering my question: did you tell him you were "official film crew"? -- MelanieN (talk) 7:53 pm, 6 March 2019, last Wednesday (2 days ago) (UTC−8)

@MelanieN No, I have never told him such, and I'll appreciate you help me using Wiki better. How should I deal with such case that IF I know someone is intentionally doing the vandalism? Wraper11 (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

For starters, stop calling it vandalism. It's an editing dispute, a disagreement about what should be in the article. Discuss it at the talk page, see what the consensus turns out to be. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, so even if I know someone is intentionally sabotaging, but I should not call it vandalism publicly, and there's no other way to report him and the only way is to use the talk-page from one page to another page, am I correct? Wraper11 (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I have listed evidence showing soundtrack magazine and it's operator personal attacking roc chen the main composer at the talk page. Do you think this is a way, according to the rules of Wiki, to prove soundtrack magazine can not be trusted as a reliable source at the talk page? Wraper11 (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Don't ask here - ask at the article talk page. Where people who can read Chinese can evaluate what the operator said. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I just want to check in with you if the way I wrote, is in a good manner according rules of wiki. Wraper11 (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi MelaineN, is it right that I delete my own words from your talk page, or that's against the rule that you the talk-page owner can delete them? Wraper11 (talk) 05:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Wraper11, I don't want anything to be deleted, but if you want I can "hat" (hide) this discussion. Is that what you want? -- MelanieN (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
MelanieN Yes please hide them. Also, since the protection period is over, and it looks like pretty much everyone is not supporting the idea of add Lester1231's words into the page, just wondering, what will happen if Lester1231 or someone come back and just edit it similar what Lester1231 have done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wraper11 (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Cathedral Catholic High SchoolEdit

Thanks for the second eye and comment. I have a very messy local school case that seems related but worse than this one. A school was replaced by a new building on a different site (same school name). 20 years later the city opens another high school in the original building. Both schools now claim the history of the original school.There's a similar case in Montreal, but the original school never actually closed. A new school was build and took over the name and history (trophy cases, etc) of the original school.. An unexpected enrollment crunch lead to the original school not closing, and continuing under a new name. Again, which school is the continuation of the original school? Meters (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Meters, I see that you have been keeping an eye on the CCHS article for a long time: thank you! I have posted a discussion at that talk page with some options. I was going to ping recent editors of the articles, except that there really don't seem to be any current users following either article. If I can't get any participants maybe I'll ask for opinions at WikiProject Schools. Do you have any other thoughts where I might publicize the discussion? I suppose I could make it into a formal RFC, what do you think about that?
BTW I realized that part of the problem was that our treatment has been inconsistent: the USDHS article said it "was" a school and had "closed", while the CCHS article describes USDHS as predecessor and lists it as "another name" in the infobox. So I BOLDly changed the lead of USDHS to say that it moved to the new location, rather than being dead. That situation is actually pretty straightforward, although how to handle the alums is unclear.
Yikes, those other schools sound messy! Can they just both be allowed to claim the history? Or do they each insist that it's minemineallmine? -- MelanieN (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm a member of the Schools project and I watch more than 2000 high school articles I'm.embarrassed to say that I had forgotten that this issue had cropped up before on this page. Rather than continue making changes (and possible mistakes) I decided to leave it as was while your thread settled. I don't know if there is a hard and fast rule that determines that a school that is replaced by a new school is a continuation of the original school even if the name changes vs a closing of the original school and an opening of a new school. Either way the articles have to be consistent. We either have one school which moved to a new location and changed its name, or one school which closed and was replaced by a different school. In the former case we should have one article and one set of alumni, and in the latter we should have two articles and two separate lists of alumni. I'm not a local so I don't know the history of this case, but I'll do some digging looking for refs. Sometimes in cases like this there is clear evidence the schools are separate entities (e.g., an overlap period where both schools were in operation while grades were gradually phased out at the old school and in at the new school) or that they are they same entity (e.g., the school board's stated intention to "move" the school).
I'll do some fact finding to add to the talkpage thread, and t'll check the school project archives to see if this has been dealt with before. If not it's worth getting the project involved both for the input and to formalize the decision for future cases. Meters (talk) 07:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I am a local so I'll see what I can find in the way of contemporary sourcing. It is my recollection that the Diocese (rather than a school board) intended all along for the schools to be regarded as a continuous entity - first it was a high school for boys, then a girls school was merged into it to make it co-ed, then they needed a bigger campus so they moved it to North County - changing the name in the process. Some evidence: the entire faculty, adminstration, and student body moved together to the new campus; the "new" school maintained the same traditions (mascot etc) as the old school; I would bet money (not having seen it) that all the old athletic trophies and such from USDHS are on display at CCHS. Your logic suggests that the school articles and histories should be merged. That would certainly settle the alumni issue! Merging would be a big job but I might take it on if that is the decision. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Can you help me with vandalism on Cousin marriage law in the United States by stateEdit

User [[user:|] keeps vandalizing Cousin marriage law in the United States by state. I am undoing the edits. But I am not sure what to do if the user persists. Thank you in advance. HoldingAces (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind, the user appears to have stopped. HoldingAces (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
HoldingAces, thanks for being on top of this and deleting them so quickly. The user stopped, even though nobody had warned them. In the future if you see this kind of activity, you might post warning notices on their talk page. If you use WP:Twinkle, you can use its phased warnings (level 1, 2, 3, 4). If you don't, just create a section heading "Month, year", such as "March, 2019", and use templates listed here. The reason to post the warnings: if they continue to be disruptive, the warnings make it easier for an admin to block the user. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Great! Thank you for the links. I will study up on them and be prepared for the next time. HoldingAces (talk) 15:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

BLP violationEdit


I just saw this edit summary. Does this need revdelling? Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 00:42, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I guess so, because somebody already has. Thanks. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
There's nothing about it in the deletion log, so it must have been suppressed, not just revdelled. Adam9007 (talk) 02:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Right, because I can't see it either. Whatever it was certainly must have needed to be outtahere. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk PageEdit

Sorry to bother you, could you check out the LONG thread on my talk page and let me know your thoughts / weigh in? I know you know this topic. Nicholas Nastrusnic (talk) 16:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm just out the door for an overnight trip. I'll check it tomorrow. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Nicholas. I took a look at the article and the discussion. I'm sorry to say that the other user is correct: we can't keep that as an article because there aren't independent reliable sources about it. I know that is unpleasant to hear; nobody likes to see their hard work criticized or even deleted. The other person suggested putting it through proposed deletion; that's not terrible, because even if it gets deleted, it can easily be recreated later. The alternative is Articles for deletion, and if an article gets deleted by that process it is much harder to recreate. What is clearly really needed is an article about Jeff Berry. If you feel like you can't tackle a BLP article, maybe I could try; you have some good sources there about him. Here's what I'm going to do: I'm going to suggest that the article be taken out of the encyclopedia for now and moved to your private namespace. That will preserve the information and the references, for possible use in a Jeff Berry article. And if you later find more references you can add them and move it back to mainspace. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

"Wannabe Demagogue"Edit

I'm not as familiar with you as others seem to be, but I found your argument for Trump being a "wannabe demagogue" absolutely superb. That whole [Talk:Demagogue] page is pretty fascinating. And I admit I went there knowing Trump would be a major topic.

Anyway, the way your argued for this particularity is worth further consideration. I think you should totally write up an essay on it and submit it to a news service that might be receptive. You see, the thing I like about the "wannabe demagogue" concept is that it is both a negative and a positive. The negative is obvious. But it's also a bit of a positive because the foundations of the US have this far successfully prevented full blast demagoguery.

That is a perspective that fits reality more than most others and I just think it is worth being communicated to the masses.

Cheers and thanks for your contributions :) lethalenoki (talk) 05:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, lethalenoki, nice to "meet" you. Thanks for the suggestion but I think I'll pass. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019Edit

  Hello. It appears your talk page is becoming quite lengthy and is in need of archiving. According to Wikipedia's user talk page guidelines; "Large talk pages become difficult to read, strain the limits of older browsers, and load slowly over slow internet connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." - this talk page is 132.2 KB. See Help:Archiving a talk page for instructions on how to manually archive your talk page, or to arrange for automatic archiving using a bot. If you have any questions, place a {{help me}} notice on your talk page, or go to the help desk. Thank you. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:30, 12 March 2019

When you’re done explaining talk page archiving to Melanie, maybe you could find time to explain to my grandma how to suck eggs. There’s probably a template for that too. —Floquenbeam (talk) 03:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
It's not even that big of a talk page. Levivich 04:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
@Jax 0677: I assume this was a joke. Mkdw talk 18:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Never assume. I don't know Jax but I gather, from discussion elsewhere, that this is his usual way of leaving a calling card. Thanks for visiting, Jax, and please leave your card on the silver tray by the door. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank youEdit

Nicholas Nastrusnic (talk) 01:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Insights neededEdit

Hello! I'm currently in the process of cleaning up a few articles related to ethnic and racial stereotypes and managed to come across this "gem". The problem seems quite clear - the article obviously conflates Arabs and Muslims, and adds a profound religious element to a page that is supposed to be dedicated to race. I was considering starting a discussion on the talk page regarding this, but it seems to be rather inactive. Taking into consideration that no other article exists devoted purely to stereotypes of a particular religion (apart from Stereotypes of Jews, but Jews are an ethnoreligious group), removing "Muslims" from the title seems like the most reasonable option. As someone with a diplomatic potency in dealing with sensitive matters, you seemed like the perfect person to ask: what steps should be taken next? Esmost let's talk 01:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Esmost, and thanks for the note. This is not an area I work in so I think it would be good to find other people who are more familiar with it. (Any stalkers want to take a look?) But offhand I think your analysis is correct; the article is largely about Arab stereotypes rather than Muslim stereotypes. The article may have taken its its title from that report "100 Years of Anti-Arab and Anti-Muslim stereotyping". Go ahead and start a Move discussion, and I will chime in. The last section needs to be dealt with; it illustrates the conflating of "Arab" and "Muslim" that happened after 9/11, but it illustrates it by example rather than defining it. We need some sources, preferably scholarly, that analyze that conflation. But I think the article title could be changed even before that gets fixed. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


Pst! You may want to add your signature to your most recent comment at Talk:2019 college admissions bribery scandal. :) ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! (I should reread my advice at my own user page: "Use page preview!") 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
No prob! :) ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Here is a little barnstar for you. I hope you are doing well. :) Jim Carter 14:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Hey, good to see you! Drop me an email now and then to let me know how you are doing. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

A laugh tracked to you (or was it Mrs. T?)Edit

Laughing point

May your laughter stay large, and your angst ever small. Lindenfall (talk) 23:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that's cute! -- MelanieN (talk) 23:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Even I can't believe I'm back already, making you work for it again. That darn Watchlist! Seems this account is all vandalism: User talk: You can steer me to take my copious complaints to the front desk, if you like. I'm unsure of the protocol. Lindenfall (talk) 00:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Even though it is probably the same person all along, we don't assume it is - because IP addresses can and do change. So we warn them, in a section titled "Month, Year," and it creates a track record so that an admin can block them the third or fourth time they do it. Even then the block is not indefinite, because again the IP can change. Frustrating, isn't it? But you did the right thing; you warned them. And I warned them for the other one they did. And if they keep it up we can shut them down for at least a little while. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Oddly, that IP has never been blocked. I guess they know how to play the system: make two or three vandalism edits, then go away for a month. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Mrs. T... so, you don't mind me coming to you with these? I just don't want to put you to extra work unnecessarily. That other one never got blocked, either. It seems to me that they have several accounts going ( they can talk to themselves, perhaps, as mentioned previously... is that sockpuppeting? Or, just schizophrenia? lol) Not sure, but these may be more of those, too: User Talk:2A01:388:475:150:0:0:1:297 and User Talk: (no TALK, and USER red-linked, so: Every time I go back to unravel that swath of law firm edits from February, I seem to only find more weirdness and fakery instead. Lindenfall (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm fine with you coming to me. (I remember from when I was new here, how helpful it is to have an admin that you "know" and can ask about stuff.) I will not always be able to give you definitive help; for one thing I am not a CheckUser and am not especially active with vandalism control. But I may know who to ask if we need someone in that area. About the ones you linked above, I too am baffled why they would add promotional material to half a dozen different law firms. What's up with that? I see that one person warned them about it on their talk page. Your question at User Talk: was very insightful: they may well have been trying to establish a track record. (Not that it will do them any good: they need to have a registered username to become autoconfirmed.) Here's the real problem: those long IP addresses, the ones called IPv6, tend to change frequently - multiple times a day sometimes. So it really does no good to warn them or establish a record of their problem edits or even block them, because they will be back in no time with a new address. About the only defense against them is revert the edit and protect the article - except in really egregious cases where we can do what's called a rangeblock (blocking an entire range of addresses). If any of my more tech-savvy stalkers would care to chime in here and explain the problem of IP vandalism more clearly, be my guest. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
For IPv6 addresses, blocking Special:Contributions/2A01:388:475:150:0:0:1:297/64 - a /64 range block - does basically the same thing as blocking a single IPv4 address, and so helps with the whole changing IPs thing. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, @Galobtter: — would that I knew what that meant, lol. The link goes to an IP that may be part of this spiderweb, but I don't get your meaning... blocking that IP would block the network of recently problematic profiles? (As in, you can see that they are linked to the same IP range? And, not that I'd know what to do with that, if it's the case... After all, I'm here bugging Miss Mel over it, because she seems nice and is patient.) Lindenfall (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
The gilded game remains on, Mrs. T. Is it okay to stick this template on a user's page? (TALK page?). I keep looking, but I can't find the instructions for the CheckUser thing to happen that you'd mentioned before, and we seem in need of it. (I didn't want to put the actual template on your page.) Thanking you, Lindenfall (talk) 00:22, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Also, could you point me to someone who knows much more than I do and is good at curtailing vandalism? Or, does CheckUser take care of that, too?Lindenfall (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Lindenfall. First, a request: when you want to start a new discussion, start a new section, at the bottom of the page. Don't tag it onto a two-week-old discussion and make me go hunting through the talk page to find the new stuff.

Will do. (@MelanieN:, since there are already three sections about this here, I'd merely hoped to not make you chase through multiple sections to ascertain the status quo of essentially one topic.)Lindenfall (talk) 20:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Next, about CheckUser. CheckUser is not a generic anti-vandalism thing; it is a way of determining whether two Wikipedia accounts are being operated by the same person. We call that sockpuppetry and it's against the rules. The CheckUser tool requires a very high level of trust and even most admins don't have it. Some of the limits CheckUsers observe: they will not publicly connect a username to an IP address for privacy reasons. (Although they may take action themselves, if they find out information they are not willing to share publicly.) They will not go on fishing expeditions, along the lines of "this editor seems like they are not a new user, would you please check and see if they match any existing user?" What they will do, is check whether a particular user might be a sock of some particular previous user. You usually have to have a specific question, not just "please check this person and see if they have any other accounts". They will run a CheckUser if you have a legitimate suspicion of who it might be, but they won't usually just run a check on somebody's whim. And no, you can't just slap the Template:Checkuser needed on someone's user page. (The thing you referenced above is not a template; it is a category, a list of pages where someone has used the template. It is usually empty because that template is rarely used.) What you can do: if you suspect someone is a sock of some specific other user, file a report at WP:SPI. That's complicated so it's easier to go to the talk page of a CheckUser and see if they are willing to look into a suspicious account. Some CheckUsers will respond to general queries. Here is a list of current checkusers: WP:Checkuser#Users with CheckUser permissions. You will find User:TonyBallioni to be approachable and able to explain this stuff better than I can. He can certainly explain, better than I can, when you should (and shouldn't) request a CU, and how to do it. For that matter, if you are having a problem with a particular user, you can always see if Mrs. T. has any general advice to offer.

As for how to curtail vandalism, there are several things you can do - in addition to reverting the vandalism. One is to post a warning on the vandal's talk page, using the standard warning formats found here: Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. There are escalating warnings, from a mild one (level 1) to a final warning (level 4). We go through the warnings to give them a chance to stop it; we don't just jump right to level 4. Put the warning template on their user talk page, in a section headed with the month and year, for example "April, 2019". Each time they vandalize, you can post the warning again, at a higher level each time. What that does is establish a track record - evidence - making it easier for an admin to evaluate the person's record and block them if that becomes necessary. Another thing you can do, if they are persistent and currently active, is report the user at WP:AIV. Another is to request protection of the page they are disrupting, to prevent any vandals from editing it; you do that at WP:Requests for page protection.

There, have I confused you enough? Do keep asking questions; that's what I'm here for. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Generic comment here: the best thing to do if there is a legitimate suspicion of socking that requires the user of CheckUser is to file a report at WP:SPI (you can use Twinkle to do this). Just note that CheckUsers will not publicly connect accounts and IP addresses, and that evidence of socking needs to be presented in the form of diffs before we will run a check. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

See alsoEdit New 10th edition (expanded): You may also have one listed twice; I also believe it is Slave Labor Graphics Nicholas Nastrusnic (talk) 02:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that! You are quite right, I listed "Remixed" a second time instead of "Caribbean". I have fixed that. I don't think I will mention the reissue/expansion of Sippin Safari; IMO booklists usually list only the original edition. I already have the nola reference in the article; I will check out the other two. Thanks for the input! -- MelanieN (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Oops. I already added it today before I read this. I am not good at timely conversation threads:) The one thing with the 10th Anniversary edition, it IS expanded. I don't have the original, and only picked up the expanded a week or so ago, but this version is very clear when it says "this page is new" or whatever. For example, I used the 10th Anniv edition to cite something in the Zombie article today that is NOT in the original edition. Anyways, if you need to revert it I understand, but I think they are different enough you may want to compare the two.Nicholas Nastrusnic (talk) 00:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Adding the book is fine. As you say, it is in a sense a new publication. However, I thought that was way too much information about the Von Tiki. I was able to reuse a lot of that material in other sections of the article, particularly the commentaries about Grog Log and the origins of the renaissance. I'm afraid we can't include the Von Tiki recipe; that is overkill for a biographical article. If there are other original drinks that you would like to devote a paragraph to, we could add them. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Nicholas, some advice: don't edit war with Drmies. If he says something is promotional, it is. (And this was.) If he deletes your references, it's because they are not from reliable sources. (And they aren't.) Please don't try to stuff into the Beachbum article every single thing you can find about him online. Information has to be important to his biography, and it has to be from Reliable Sources - which means published material with editorial standards, not blogs. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I'll certainly heed your advice, and just placed the issue on the talk page rather than going back and forth. I have little time for that and is not where I want to use my time on wiki! I would stress though, Ooga Mooga is NOT a blog. It is a credible, if not the MOST credible, source for information on mugs (which ones are real, which are fake, who made them, etc.). There is simply not a better source, and to a certain extent if it can't be used it is basically Wiki saying that a great deal of very accurate knowledge will be intentionally and selectively omitted from the Wiki. Paper publishing is dead and it just doesn't exist in another citable way that could be used; we are simply not going to see yearly paper based price guides on these like you might have in the past.
Also, sometimes a true piece of accurate information can only be made from (for example) a picture of a drink menu which appears on a blog. Even if the picture appears on a blog, if that blog is the only way that one can cite the picture of the menu (because pictures are so hard to place on wikipedia), I don't see how the fact that the image is on a blog is problematic. A picture is a picture. In fact, I have seen enough of these books I know they are getting the pictures they put into their books from off of the very same blogs. The tails is wagging the dog, and Wiki has a ton of confirmation bias issues here.
With all that said, I have no skin in the game if the content stays here. I was just trying to lend a hand in adding some interesting bits to the article once I saw what you wanted to do with it and was trying to help. For that reason though, I'll happily defer to your wishes on it :) Still, I do need to point out that it seems many wiki editors are quick to dismiss anything that appears to be bloglike, seemingly without knowing much about the site or the author. I've seen some of my web based citations get dismissed as being from "a blog" when the editor assumes bad faith on my part, knows nothing about the topic, won't put it up on the article talk page, and is removing content from an author who is highly knowledgable and may in fact know more than a person who pays to publish less credible information in a paper book. It is often a very knee jerk response.
I also don't see how it is "promotional"? I don't think someone like Bosko designs a tiki mug for just anyone. It shows Berry's impact, in the same way when Berry designs a drink for Sven Kirsten it shows Kirsten's impact. There is no difference, yet we are saying it is OK to have on the wiki content saying that Berry is honoring Kirsten (because of his contributions/impact), but we can't have content saying Bosko is honoring Berry on a subheading that is ostensibly discussing Berry's contribution/impact on Tiki culture? It is like if Donn Beach has a mug designed after him (he does).
The other citation that got removed by the other editor was on a review of the Remixed book that I placed to see if it met your standards as a credible secondary source to aid in the creation of a later article on Remixed. That add was meant to be a trial balloon for you to see to get your thoughts, and wasn't me just trying to cram things in. But with that said, I'll be caught in a catch 22 if I can only do an article on Remixed if I can show sufficient praise worthy reviews, but if in doing so those are regarded as promotional, I can't include them. That would be like one saying the Berry article is just meant to be promotional for him, but I know that is not the case. Anyways, more time spent here than I intended. I've appreciated your help. Cheers Nicholas Nastrusnic (talk) 03:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, lots of stuff to deal with there. Two main issues: reliable sources and copyright. I'll talk about sources in this section, and copyright in the section below, so as to keep the discussions separate. OK? So: This is an encyclopedia. Anything we put here has to be based on independent reliable sources. Independent means without a conflict of interest - not the person or subject themselves, not someone with an axe to grind (for instance, we shouldn't use a political party for information about a candidate; we shouldn't use a client or competitor for information about a business). Reliable sources are predominantly published sources (not just in print; there are reliable sources published online also). What makes them reliable is two things: editorial control, and a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Editorial control means that somebody is in charge, somebody checks or oversees what is published; it is not a free for all. So for example among published sources: Most major newspapers have those two things and are considered reliable - but some printed publications, such as the National Inquirer, have a reputation for making things up and are not considered reliable. Many online-only news sources are considered reliable; many are not, because of bias or a lack of fact checking for accuracy. There are a few blogs, such as Lawfare (blog), that have such good editorial control and a strong reputation for accuracy that they can be used here. Most blogs have no editorial control - the blog owner can just say whatever they want - and so most blogs are not accepted as sources of factual information. Any site where information can be uploaded by anyone, with no editorial control except perhaps deletion of offensive information, is not considered reliable. Even IMDb, which a lot of people try to use here because it is such a rich site of information about all things film related, is not considered reliable because it is reader-generated. You could add yourself to the cast of a movie, if you wanted; you would probably get caught by their screening process, but you might get away with it. For that reason even Wikipedia is not acceptable as a Reliable Source. If you try to use Wikipedia as a cited source (as I did sometimes when I was a newbie), it will get removed. Books are often considered reliable but it depends on who the author is, what their bias is, what their reputation is. Self-published books are usually not accepted since there is no control over their accuracy or bias; they are basically the same as blogs.

About "promotional": that mostly means attempts to make money, such as by selling something or increasing the reputation of a person or business. That wasn't your intent with the mug, so I wouldn't have called it promotional, but it was UNDUE for a biography and without reliable sourcing. If some reliable publication had mentioned the mug in an article, then it might have been considered. (For example, the Grog Log Challenge was sourced not just to the bar that was doing it but also to an independent reliable source.) Reviews are fine provided they are from an independent source. Both positive and negative reviews can and should be included. Reviews, provided they are from significant sources and not just from special-interest blogs, can definitely be used to demonstrate the notability of a subject such as a book. Not reviews or book-jacket commentary from the publisher; not reviews at Amazon or other online sources.

There is much more about this at Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and there is a noticeboard WP:RSN where it is possible to ask about the reliability of a particular source. In your case since you are just learning, I would advise that you ask on a talk page first before going to RSN about a source; they are likely to be pretty impatient toward questions where the answer is considered obvious and not controversial. For sure ask here with any questions, either about WP policy in general or about a particular source. Talk page stalkers, please chime in here if I left anything out or mis-stated anything. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Fair useEdit

There are two reasons why I think the image here Exotica_(Martin_Denny_album) should be fair use for here: Tiki culture#Exotica & Lounge. I wanted to see if you concur, and if so, how to "bot proof" the image.Nicholas Nastrusnic (talk) 00:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Nicholas, you should read this: Wikipedia:Non-free content. My hunch is that it would not qualify, per rationale #1 - i.e., you could find other images that could serve the same purpose - but this is outside my area of expertise. @Ronhjones: you do a lot of work in this area; can you give Nicholas any advice about whether he can use that album cover image, Exoticamartindenny.jpg, in the Tiki culture article? -- MelanieN (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I wanted to check first. It seems because that album is what eventually gave the name to the entire genre featured in the subheading it would qualify, as well as being in tandem with the article's mention of the person on that very cover as well. It "fits" very nicely in that regards, and I can't think of a single different picture that would be a better fit there. I will defer to the two of you and your expertise, thank you.Nicholas Nastrusnic (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Nicholas Nastrusnic: I agree WP:NFCC#1 (Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.) will probably kill such a use. No other images on that page are non-free, and there is already one image in the quoted section. I also suspect it would also fail WP:NFC#8 (Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.) You can always ask at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. There are lots of images on Tiki Culture on commons - have you checked all of them c:Category:Tiki culture? Ronhjones  (Talk) 17:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Ron and Melanie - thank you for the advice as always. There is indeed a different cover I could use there, but it is being allowed on commons under the same premise I am proposing for the other and I don't want to "highlight it" and get it kicked off :) The one I would use is even better than it using the same rationale, but with that said I really don't want to create a problem or negative energy for another person by using their image as an after the fact litmus test. Since I have you on the horn (thank you again) I'm OK with just letting go of it and trying later just to see what happens and learn, maybe it would pass muster but it sure seems tough! If I can take advantage of your further appreciated coaching, Donn Beach could really use a TRUE head shot of really ANY kind. Do you have suggestions on how to tag a low resolution commonly found headshot of him taken off the internet for such use? The man has been dead for I think about 30 years now. I'm not asking for any guarantees or either of you personally sanctioning it. Just general thoughts. Thank you again :) Nicholas Nastrusnic (talk) 23:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
About album covers: my impression is that under fair use we generally allow the use of the album cover in the article about the album, and that's all. Just as we allow the image of a book cover in the article about the book, and that's all. I think you should plan to only use photos which are released for general use. As for taking a head shot of Donn from a picture "found on the internet", forget it. If that picture has been on the internet, it is regarded as "published," and we can't get around that just by cropping out a part of it to use. I admit that copyright restrictions are annoying, especially when there is a PERFECT picture we would like to use, but Wikipedia cares very strongly about copyright and we just have to live with that. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
At this point I would take ANY picture, but OK. It just seems incredibly odd that a dead person can have a biographical article on wiki without even a head shot to identify him or her. The published books who are using the very same pictures don't hold the copyright to them, so you can't go to them to try to get permission. If one can't determine where anyone holds the copyright for a picture, and those people even if found can't demonstrate that they even own it to give permission for wiki to use it, seems like a lot of tail chasing when everyone but wiki is using the image. At some point selective omission of factual information (even if graphic, as in what a dead person looked like) is as detrimental to knowledge as inaccurate information. Cheers.Nicholas Nastrusnic (talk) 03:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, let's talk about copyright. Wikipedia cares very strongly about copyright, and here is why: misuse of copyrighted material can get us sued. Lawsuits cost money. Losing a lawsuit can cost a LOT of money. Wikipedia doesn't have much money - since it doesn't take advertising and relies on donations and grants. So it is very important to Wikipedia not to do anything that could get them in legal trouble. That explains our strong policies about WP:Copyright infringement and WP:Biographies of living persons. Quite aside from the lawsuit issue, the arrangement at Wikipedia is that anything published here is free content; anyone else can take and use it for any purpose. They are supposed to credit Wikipedia for it, but they often don't. See Wikipedia#Methods of access. There are even book companies whose content is entirely copied from Wikipedia articles; they are called Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. So when we put something here on Wikipedia, we are announcing to the world that they can use this anywhere for free. We mustn't do that unless the material really is that freely usable.

Pretty much EVERYTHING that has been published - whether in print, or online, or just on someone's facebook page - is considered by us to be copyrighted. There are a few exceptions, and they vary from country to country, which is another reason to be careful. And some things are OK to use because they are in the WP:Public domain. Pictures and images are particularly tricky; see Wikipedia:Copyright#Guidelines for images and other media files. Even for a picture that you took on your own camera, you own the copyright unless you release it. I can't begin to explain all the rules for images, except that they are complicated. My own approach is to use only images from Wikimedia Commons, because those pictures have already been screened as appropriate to use here. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Saikat Chakrabarti‎Edit

the arguments against keep are better reasoned and more persuasive Open palm, insert head. You have got to be kidding. Trackinfo (talk) 06:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding ProtectionEdit

Hello,thanks for protecting Delhi Capitals in 2019 article, but I also want to protect following 6 more articles

Thanks(Mr.Mani Raj Paul (talk) 08:14, 24 March 2019 (UTC))

Mr.Mani Raj Paul: I am taking a look. But first, a warning: it looks as if YOU were the one who copy-pasted that material into the Season Summary section here: [7] Don't do that, ever. See WP:COPYPASTE. Rewrite the information in your own words, and supply the source in a reference citation. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
OK, I have taken a look at all six articles. I see that you are very active in improving the articles; thank you. But I don't see vandalism that requires protection, so I am declining to protect at this time. I do see some people disagreeing with you, particularly about whether or not to include a certain table. But disagreement over content is not vandalism and is allowed. Please realise that you don’t own the article. Other people, even unregistered people, are allowed to make constructive edits. I see in a couple of places you and an IP editor are disagreeing about whether to include a table or not; that’s a content disagreement and should be discussed on the talk page. That doesn't mean, revert them and say in the edit summary to go to the talk page. That means, YOU go to the talk page and start a discussion. In a content disagreement, both parties are equally required to discuss. Thanks for the note, and ask again if actual vandalism starts to happen. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for suggestion, But I also rewrite the information(Some Words) with my own there any tool to check Copyright material?(Mr.Mani Raj Paul (talk) 02:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC))

You yourself are the primary tool - when you add something to the article. Assume that everything is copyrighted. Don't copy/paste it. Don't even do a WP:Close paraphrase where you change a word or two but other wise use it directly from the source. There should not be a single sentence that is actually copied from the original. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I now written a Season Summary in Delhi Capitals in 2019 ,I written it with my own words ,is this Okay?? Please check , Thanks (Mr.Mani Raj Paul (talk) 11:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC))

Well, it is not copied so that's good. (Is the "Season summary" going to be a paragraph about each game?) Some tips: don't use words like "magnificent", that is not neutral. Also: Put a space after each period (full stop) and every comma. I realise that in Indian English there is not a space after a full stop, but that is the way it is done in most other countries and at Wikipedia. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, IP users always interfere with these articles,they always remove sections ,this is not good thing ,help me regarding this.i always talk with IP Users but they not respond. I not want to vandalism these articles. Help me regarding I think article protection is good choice.(Mr.Mani Raj Paul (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC))


Hi, you denied my request for full protection of a page here saying there is a content dispute. There is not. The list is online right here That is the only valid source. The list is being changed to be inaccurate. There is no reason for me to argue with anyone about it, or for the page to be left showing an inaccurate list. The list is right there, you can see for yourself. Click the link, then the letter "D", and the world factbook developed countries list is right there on top. Led8000 (talk) 00:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Then explain it - not to me on my talk page, but on the talk page of the article. No one has touched that talk page in years. It is there to resolve disputes. Go there, lay out what the issue is, and explain why it should be the way it should be. Courteously. And ping the other editor so that they can come and reply or be convinced. You can't take the attitude that "I am so right that I don't even have to explain why I am right." That makes you look equally at fault for the disagreement. If you justify your edits on the talk page, then you have the high ground. And if they don't respond and just keep adding the "wrong" edits, then you might have a case for calling them a vandal. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Can you please apply indefinite full protection to that page, based on my past explanations? The temporary protection just expired and I know it will continue to get vandalized. You can see what I did on the talk page, and there was no response or explanation before or after it was vandalized again, which happened before I corrected the page again and it got temporarily protected. Led8000 (talk) 12:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
OK, let's get one thing straight: we do not full-protect articles indefinitely. We full-protect only when necessary to stop an ongoing edit war, and for the shortest time possible. If there is a problem with ongoing edit disputes, we try to resolve them rather than locking the article. I see you did get someone to full-protect the article for a week. When the full-protection expires, we will not extend it just on the possibility that edit warring might resume. We do not protect pages pre-emptively, but only when necessary to prevent disruption and for the shortest time that will accomplish that. So, let the protection expire and see what happens. If the other user resumes their changes, let me know and I will talk to them on their talk page, ask them what they are basing their changes on, if they have a source or what, and explain what can happen if they keep adding unsourced content. (BTW is there really not a more up-to-date source for this list than 1991?) -- MelanieN (talk) 15:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for recognizing it and saying you can help out with the article. The list is technically up to date. It has been published as an identical list in every World Factbook for over 20 years. I think that Wikipedia should properly represent sources and should not be inaccurate. This link is the part of the current CIA World Factbook where you can see the current list of "Developed Countries", according to the World Factbook. If you click the letter "D" after you click that link, the list is the first entry. Led8000 (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Led8000: I notice that the article lead is self-contradictory: it says "This list of DCs is identical to the list in The World Factbook published as early as 1991" but then it says 10 countries have been added since then. So it's not identical to the 1991 list? You might want to clear that up, now that the protection has expired. Maybe change from "identical to" to "based on". -- MelanieN (talk) 16:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
It is identical. There is a list of "developed countries (DCs)" and "less developed countries (LDCs)" in the World Factbook. The Wikipedia article said 10 countries were added as members of the "Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development". It inaccurately said India was added as a member of that organization. I corrected and updated a few things in the article. Led8000 (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Is this the right place to contact you about a protected page/ edit you have made?Edit

Or is there another section of the website that is more appropriate?Scotthart1 (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Scotthart1. Yes, this is the right place. Unfortunately I am leaving town in a few hours and won't be back until Sunday so I probably won't be able to respond in time. I am guessing you are talking about the discussion at Talk:Donald Trump that I closed. Go ahead and make your comments about it there; other people may want to chime in too, and if most people want to re-open it, that can be done. Put your comments at the bottom of the section, underneath the line that says {{hab}} . That way your discussion will be outside of and below the closed part. As for why I closed it: Wikipedia talk pages are subject to WP:Talk page guidelines: "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic: the talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not vent your feelings about it." Talk pages are for discussing what should be in the article, but not for expressing opinions, or engaging in political or philosophical discussion or disagreement. A little bit of such discussion can't be helped, especially at political articles, but when it becomes a long debate it is disruptive to the page. Closing it was not intended as criticism of you or any of the others participating in that discussion; it was just a recognition that the section was going very far astray from discussing specific changes to the article, and was becoming a political debate rather than a Wikipedia discussion. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


An article you created or have contributed to has been nominated for deletion
Click the image for an important message.
Like, it's April Fools' Day today, you know? North America1000 09:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)







on!    North America1000 09:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Northamerica1000: A message you may have contributed to has been nominated for hatting. Reason: Too clever. (AFD = April Fools Day = Articles For Deletion; OK, that is cute, and you got me.) -- MelanieN (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Wow, several people have stated that I got them after sending my fun. Nice! North America1000 00:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Guideline questionEdit

Hey there... long time no speak. I need some direction. I use the "ALL dates to dmy" and "ALL dates to mdy" tool from time to time. In addition to standardizing date formats, it also does several other things, one of which is delinking years from "xxxx in yyyy" pages (like 1975). I didn't think anything of this since on several of the film articles I had created a couple of years ago, I had also linked them to "xxxx in film", and had had those edits reverted. However, another editor has reverted my changes, and simply said "consensus in favor of Year in Radio links being left as is in radio station and television station pages. Radio and TV station pages operate in a special "realm" in many rules and consensus discussions (see BURDEN) for all their odds and ends". The issue I have is they have provided no evidence of consensus for that position. You can see the discussion on my talk page at User talk:Onel5969#Year in Radio. Personally, I really don't care, except for the reasons I stated on my talk page. This is an experienced editor who I have never (to the best of my recollection) interacted with. They seem to have a special interest in this field. So, and I apologize for my long-windedness, what is the best forum in which to bring this forth? Should there be an RfC? And if so, where? It seems untenable, as suggested by the other editor, to start discussions on thousands of talk pages. Any direction would be greatly appreciated. Onel5969 TT me 03:42, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, OneL! Thanks for the note and sorry for the late reply; I’ve been offline. I’m not at all familiar with that issue, but I note that the other user makes it sound as if he is speaking for a Project - “That’s not the way we do things” for example - so I would suggest you post the question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio. I see there was a somewhat related discussion about dates there in January. Or if you want an admin opinion, you could ask at Bearcat’s talk page. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
No worries... sometimes real life gets in the way.  . By the time I asked you this question, the other editor had taken this to ANI, which is frustrating, but whatever. But thanks for getting back to me. Onel5969 TT me 04:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

List of most-liked YouTube videosEdit

Hi, many different IP and registered users are vandalizing this page continuously (you can also watch this), I think the pending changes settings isn't enough, can you change the actual protection to a "normal" protection please? I think it is better--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 19:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Luke. I certainly agree. PC works does not work well when a page gets this much editing activity. I have semi-protected it for two weeks. I left the PC protection in place, and it will persist when the semi-protection expires. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Of course, removing the article altogether would solve the problem quite efficiently -- except we can't do that. Never mind.   O3000 (talk) 00:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, vandalism began again, what should we do?--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 07:47, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Luke Stark 96: Reviewing the history: this has needed semi-protection almost continuously, and PC has never worked. I have eliminated PC and semi-protected the article for a year. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very very much :)--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 15:36, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

for your infoEdit

Good morning, I just copied and pasted to another editor User talk:Escape Orbit an edit made to User talk:Factfindingmission for the same reasons ~ concerning Kirstjen Nielsen ~ I'm not experienced enough to warn someone so I noted to him/her that 'Below is a copy of what I think your doing' and pasted exactly what is on Factfindingmission's talk page, if it was not appropriate please let me know ~Mitch ~ hope you had a good vacation ~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Mitch, but you should revert that. Those warnings were specific to Factfindingmission and the details refer to that person's editing. Escape Orbit has not reached the 3RR level. At the article page, I have reverted their second insertion saying that the material is disputed and needs to be discussed at the talk page. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

thanks ~ I undid but how do I revert ~ I'm sorry to take your vacation time away from you ): Mitchellhobbs (talk) 17:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

That's all you need to do. Undoing is the same as reverting. It's still in the history but you have withdrawn the comment. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


I hope you'll have a great vacation! --bonadea contributions talk 19:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm back! -- MelanieN (talk) 20:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the warning!  Mandruss  20:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
LOL! Look out, world, she's back - is that what you are saying? -- MelanieN (talk) 21:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Something like that. The opposite of what I mean, obviously. ―Mandruss  21:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Jeff Berry (mixologist)Edit

 On 19 April 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jeff Berry (mixologist), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Jeff "Beachbum" Berry has been described as "the Indiana Jones of tiki drinks"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jeff Berry (mixologist). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Jeff Berry (mixologist)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft:GPS HospitalityEdit

Good morning MelanieN Hope you had your coffee,

I sent this draft for review, If you are the reviewer please let me know what I have to do to improve in order to be accepted, also there is a section in Burger King franchises (at the bottom) and GPS Hospitality for ref of why I started this article ~ thanks ~ mitch ~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Good morning, Mitch. No, I will not be the reviewer. I am not generally a new page patroller. As the notice says, someone will review this, but it won't be immediate since there is quite a queue waiting to be reviewed. In the meantime, you can keep tweaking it or you can just wait for a response. My only suggestion would be to try to find more references from mainstream or general-interest sources. You currently have only one such source, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution; the rest of the sources are trade papers which may not be enough to make the company meet our guideline for notability. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Cool thanks MelanieN ~ mitch ~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 16:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
GPS Hospitality ~ Thanks for your help MelanieN sorry didn't know Mitchellhobbs (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Mitch: Wow, that was fast! Congrats on the article. Just in general, it isn't a good idea to post the same question/request to multiple people at the same time. It's not against any rule, just a courtesy. People reply thinking they are the only one you asked, and then when they see you asked a dozen people they can get a little frosted. But not a biggie. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Mel ~ can I call you Mel if not that's cool. I was just reaching out to the ones I trusted including you!~ I don't know if you have been to my main page but if you verify my first ref ~ that's me ~ thanks Mitchellhobbs (talk) 23:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Userspace protectionEdit


I'm intrigued by your claim that user talk pages are only briefly protected, and that user pages are seldom protected at all. Both my user page and user talk page are indefinitely protected, the former because I asked for it (even if it was just after some vandalism), and if memory serves, the protecting admin said he believes it should be a default for user pages. I do think the fact they're both indefinitely semi-protected has caused vandalism to shift to other pages in my userspace (indeed, only yesterday this happened), but I daresay most new users will not know to go to those pages instead so I guess it's still a good thing. I never knew that user pages had a filter on them, though even semi-protection hasn't completely prevented my user page from being vandalised. If other pages in my userspace continue to get vandalised, I can see them needing protection too, so I'm wondering if you reckon indefinite protection for my user talk page has (in the long term) done more harm than good? Cheers. Adam9007 (talk) 01:20, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Adam! Well, let’s see. Your user page was created in April 2015. It was vandalized by two different new users in June 2015 and was then semi-protected indefinitely per your request. [8] As far as I can tell, the only filter that has ever been activated on your page is 630 when someone tried to move the page. There are many earlier filters - filter 279, 466, 397, 633, and others - that limit edits to someone else’s userpage, and they have been triggered on my page numerous times, but not on yours. The specific filter that prevents new users from editing someone else’s user page, filter 803, was instituted in October 2016. Your page was semi-protected before that time, so that is why that filter has never been triggered on your page. It and many others have been activated on my page, which is not semi-protected but has not been vandalized by IPs or new users in recent memory - although it has been vandalized a few times by autoconfirmed users.
No, I don't think the filter/protection causes vandalism to shift to other userspace pages. Although you can ask for specific userspace pages to be protected if they become targets. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:58, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, let's hope they don't become targets :). My talk page certainly will if it was to be unprotected. By the way, do these filters also protect user subpages, or just the main user page? Adam9007 (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Filter #803 protects only a user's main page from all editing by new/unregistered users (in effect, semi-protection). There are other filters that block certain things from user talk or other subpages; see this page's filter log for examples. I think the idea is that new/unregistered users have a right and possible need to comment on user talk pages - certainly an admin's talk page - but there is no legitimate reason for them to comment or edit on someone else's user page. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not quite "And proved the Philistines were almost certainly Canadian"...Edit

But it's still pretty damn good:[9] Enjoy! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:34, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Poway synagogue shootingEdit

Hi, I rolled back your edits on my new New York Times source. This source was based on an interview that the synagogue rabbi gave on The Today Show Sunday morning. The San Diego Union Tribune source, and others, were written on Saturday when the facts weren't all known. Yoninah (talk) 23:37, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Yoninah: Yes, I know, but I have trouble accepting the rabbi's version. All earlier reports, based on multiple reports from multiple people who were actually there, said that the attack occurred during the service, and in fact during his sermon. But he says he was walking into a banquet hall? At 11:20 am? when there was a service going on that had started at 11? What was he doing in a banquet hall? And then there's this: "As they were waiting for the authorities to arrive, Rabbi Goldstein continued the sermon he had started inside the synagogue." Huh? Had he interrupted his sermon to take a stroll through the banquet hall? I just really have a problem with his version. Let's give it a little time, but I have a feeling the eventual weight of testimony is going to support the version that the shooting began in the synagogue itself, while the service was underway. I know we all love the New York Times and regard it as the newspaper of record, but let's consider the possibility that the rabbi's recollections are a little scrambled - not unreasonable considering what he's been through. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for considering it, though. An Orthodox Jewish Shabbat service in America starts around 9:00, not 11:30, so being in the banquet hall, possibly for a Kiddush, makes more sense than being in the sanctuary. And the source said he continued his sermon that he had begun in the synagogue. Yoninah (talk) 00:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
That synagogue had announced a service beginning at 11 am.[10] -- MelanieN (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC) and "Chabad of Poway was hosting its Passover Holiday Celebration which was scheduled to begin at 11 a.m., according to an event announcement. The celebration was to end at 7 p.m. with a final Passover meal."[11] -- MelanieN (talk) 00:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
And in this report [12] he says he was PREPARING for his sermon, and walked into the banquet hall to wash his hands. This at 11:20 when the service was supposed to start at 11. And in his version he heard a loud bang and turned around to see Lori Kaye lying on the floor. Most other versions have said she put herself between him and the gunman AFTER he began firing. We may never sort this out, but I want to give some weight to other versions besides just his. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I just thought I should tell you...Edit

FEAR THE TREE! -- MelanieN (talk) 00:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

...something once said to me for exactly the same reason, your mascot is a tree. :) Springee (talk) 00:43, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I am utterly flabbergastedEdit

By the Shenanigans at Collège-Lycée Léon l'Africain, especially this!   Clearly something is very wrong here, and I don't know what to suggest...   Obviously this should never have been allowed to happen, and it could easily happen again at any time. Could this be a pending changes candidate? Adam9007 (talk) 23:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

It looks OK now - with the nonsense removed. Better a one-sentence stub that makes sense, than something twice that long that doesn't. (Clumsy machine translation, you think?) You're right, it is scary that it was so bad for so long - and then in French for a long time! No, I don't see it as a candidate for protection. Maybe a candidate for watchlisting? -- MelanieN (talk) 00:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, it's on my watchlist (and presumably M.Bitton's too), but we're not on here all the time, so this (and other things) could easily slip through the net again. I'm far from fluent in French (it's very rusty because I haven't really used it in years), so I wouldn't know if it's a pants machine translation but it wouldn't surprise me if it was. Adam9007 (talk) 00:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
@Adam9007: Yes, it's on my watchlist. I'm not sure what translation you're referring to, but the part that I removed is a mixture of nonsense and vandalism in romanized Morrocan Arabic. M.Bitton (talk) 22:55, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
@M.Bitton and MelanieN: It's a shame it wisnae translatit intae Scots. Gin it wis, it micht hae been unnerstuiden. Awtho there's a Scots version o Wikipaedia, a gey wheen o fowk conseeder the leid tae be a deealect o Inglis. It wad housomeiver aye be conseedered tae be vandalism (a howp this isnae...). M.Bitton, a wis referrin tae the French translation. A didnae notice the Arabic acause a dinnae ken the leid (forby, a wisnae takkin tent tae the text). Gin it said 'Adamu9007 wa baka dazo' a wad hae unnerstuiden it. Adam9007 (talk) 00:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
I dinna ken you were bilingual! 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 00:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Awtho a gey wheen o fowk conseeder Scots tae be a deealect o Inglis, Scots is afttimes conseedered tae be a separate leid. The feck o fowk that talk Inglis are mair bilingual than thay ween  . (daes this need tae be translatit acause o WP:SPEAKENGLISH?  ) Adam9007 (talk) 12:29, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
No, I can more or less follow it. Scots is more like a separate language than a dialect, but it's close enough to English to more-or-less figure out. Kind of like, if you speak German you can pretty much follow what is said in Yiddish or even Dutch. Or like Spanish and Italian. That's when it's WRITTEN. Spoken is another matter. There are people from Scotland that I can't understand even when they are speaking English. 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Yep, all of that is in our article on the subject   (I was going to say that I'm sure I read somewhere that Urdu and Hindi are more-or-less mutually intelligible when spoken, and that it doesn't appear to be in there, but then I read the article again  ). Also, even my limited knowledge of Japanese (specifically, Kanji) has given me the ability to, very occasionally, understand the odd word or two of Chinese, but only when written (not that I read a lot of Chinese). Interestingly, there was a proposal to delete the Scots Wikipedia on the grounds that it isn't a separate language. Adam9007 (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
@Adam9007:You should have trusted your gut instinct. M.Bitton (talk) 23:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
@M.Bitton: I think this is the source I was referring to, and it does seem to corroborate yours :). By 'the article', I was actually referring to the Wikipedia article, which does have this information, just not where I expected it to be   (apparently, there's a thing called Hindustani). Adam9007 (talk) 00:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
@Adam9007: An interesting article (from a pro-Scottish independence activist), though I'm not convinced that "frustrated language" is the correct translation of "langue manquée". M.Bitton (talk) 23:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
@M.Bitton: I don't think it is either, but what do I know?   Adam9007 (talk) 01:05, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Il y a 40 ans, j'étais un Québécois anglais et je n'ai pas encore tout oublié. I've added the school article to my very long watch list of school articles. Meters (talk) 01:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
@Meters: Merci beaucoup! Adam9007 (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Il n'y a pas de quoi. Meters (talk) 18:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Spygate moveEdit

All I was trying to do was to obtain consensus regarding a possible move. Please let me know if there's anything I can do to help in that respect. R2 (bleep) 22:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to restart the discussion, using your proposal and others. I'm working on it now. Please participate there. Thanks. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Great, thanks. You're the perfect person to cut through the clutter on this. R2 (bleep) 22:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Let's hope. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
I've never been a fan of multi-option surveys since they so rarely lead to consensus. But let's see what happens. I guess we could do a runoff if there's no clear favorite? It just seems like this will never end. R2 (bleep) 00:07, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Since the previous discussion was closed with a new one taking it's place do you plan on pinging everyone that voted in the original? PackMecEng (talk) 03:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Maybe tomorrow. It's bedtime here. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree with PackMecEng. In addition, MelanieN, would you be willing to request that all participants include at least their first three choices? I ask because there are editors who have a clear preference for options 6 and/or 7 (the ones that don't include "conspiracy theory,") but it would be helpful to also get those editors' preferences on options 1 through 5. (E.g. their position might be, "I object to including 'conspiracy theory' in the title, but if we must, I prefer that we do it in such-and-such way.") R2 (bleep) 18:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion, but I'd rather just let people express their opinions. A few are suggesting one option, some are suggesting several, some are expressing opposition to some of the alternatives - I'd rather let them do it and see what we get. It might become necessary to hold a kind of "runoff" between a couple of options, but let's see. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circularEdit

Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Pattern emergingEdit


Lately, a pattern of disruptive editing seems to have been emerging across multiple articles, namely Discrimination against asexual people (protected twice recently), LGBT symbols (which I see you've protected several times in the past), and List of LGBT-related slurs (also protected twice recently). The disruption is that editors keep removing content on asexuality for a(ce)phobic (or at least what can be perceived as a(ce)phobic as they offer no real justification for their statement(s)) reasons. It was particularly bad at one point, and when I looked at the history of LGBT symbols, I saw that it has been going on for longer than I had thought (it's actually more widespread than I thought it was until today when I saw LGBT symbols). I think this whole thing is at best part of a wider content dispute as to whether or not asexuality material should be included in LGBT articles. I'm also wondering if these articles ought to be pending changes protected? I'm not aware of any discussion in which a consensus has been formed and I'm reluctant to go to AN or anywhere like that just yet. I'm not sure what should be done here (pending changes is the only thing I can think of right now), but this obviously can't be allowed to go on indefinitely. Adam9007 (talk) 02:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I’m not sure it is a pattern but I do see repeated disruptive editing at all three of these articles. It doesn’t look like sockpuppetry; the IPs, even on similar edits, geolocate very differently. I think it’s just that articles about all kinds of sexual classification seem to be targets - and that’s not recent. Based on the histories, all three of these seem like good candidates for long-term PC protection, and I will impose it. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Lol, I was in the middle of adding to one of those articles when I saw it had been PC protected :). But anyway, all three articles have been targets for a(ce)phobic (or again, what can be perceived as such) disruptive editing lately, and there have been waves of it prior to this one. It could even be a co-ordinated attack of some sort, what with the "aces aren't lgbt" and similar comments... (for the record, the majority opinion out there seems to be that aces are, though I'm not sure what the consensus here on Wikipedia is...) Adam9007 (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Of course, PC requires that people have the page on their watchlist. And if the editing starts coming too thick and fast PC doesn't work. But it should help by keeping the bad edits out of the 'pedia until someone reverts them. While still allowing productive editing by IPs/new users. Hey, I can dream, can't I? 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi MelanieNEdit

I recently made this edit in Wisconsin#Agriculture:

In 2012, Republican governor Scott Walker instituted a program to encourage dairy farmers to dramatically increase production, which resulted in a supply glut and years of depressed prices. This had a crippling effect on the industry, leaving it vulnerable when in 2018 Canada, China and Mexico imposed tariffs on American farm exports in retaliation for tariffs imposed on them by President Donald Trump. The New York Times reported that by April 2019 Wisconsin dairy farmers were facing “extinction.”

sourced from Stung by Trump’s Trade Wars, Wisconsin’s Milk Farmers Face Extinction

This three-sentence edit about Wisconsin's most prominent industry, posted deep in the article, was challenged as UNDUE by an editor. Another editor then challenged it, falsely allegedly my edit was in the lede, and after I explained that it was not, that editor repeated the false assertion, among others. As shown in this Talk thread, the two editors have not been persuasive in their objections and I strongly believe that I have debunked their objections, and I now have reasonable belief that their true motive is WP:WEDONTLIKEIT and the edit is being filibustered.

What is proper approach to resolving such a deadlock? soibangla (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)Edit

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.


  • In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
  • Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Pretty Sick Melanie: Tea Pot Dome ScandalEdit

The entire section "Comparisons" has a political agenda. All the "news" sources referenced are notoriously left leaning AND some of the sources actually used literally have the word "OPINION" in their Url but are presented as "News".

Why you insist on rolling back my changes, especially when I presented supporting evidence of the bias of the sources as being my "Opinion", quite frankly leaves me with a strong sense of hypocrisy and underlying political agenda on your part. Really sad what Wikipedia as showed so much promise years its just another political tool and you are facilitating that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhawkinstx (talkcontribs)

Hello, Jhawkinstx. I guess you are referring to my edit of April 2,[13] where I removed your addition of opinion to the article. I also tried, at your talk page, to explain to you that you can’t just insert your own opinion into Wikipedia articles and suggested that you read WP:NOR. You didn’t get the message and continued to add OR/POV material to the article. Those additions have been reverted six times by five other editors, and at one point you were in danger of a block for edit warring. You have been on a single-subject crusade here for more than a month, trying to change or eliminate a single, neutrally worded sentence supported by seven references. If you have a serious argument to make about that sentence, make it at the article's talk page, Talk:Teapot Dome scandal. But don't keep trying to insert your opinion into the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


I object to this, because it misrepresents the context of my comment. You should not have inserted a section header nor inserted your comment out of order.- MrX 🖋 16:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Agree that's improper because it breaks context. If you agree that a new heading is useful at that point, best solution is to restore the lost context by quoting "Are we good enough now?" at the beginning of your reply, using {{tq}}. ―Mandruss  18:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
MrX, you reverted my subsection header so it's moot. The two discussions are now pretty much intertwined. It turns out we did reach consensus on the changes to the Mueller report sentence and it is now in the article, so I guess it doesn't matter any more. However, I would think you would prefer to discuss the addition of the new material under a more informative heading. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't see that a consensus has been reached at all, except among very few editors. If I have not made myself clear, I object to the one sided presentation in the lead. - MrX 🖋 20:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, MrX, but I'm really having trouble understanding your position. The material in the article's lead - those few sentences whose wording has been under discussion at the talk page - is about the Mueller and Barr reports. You haven't made any substantive contributions to that discussion, but you apparently consider the material to be "one sided". I gather what you want is to add a bunch of other stuff, to the lead no less, about Trump's stonewalling of Congress's requests. How is that going to affect the current content or make it less "one sided"? Are you asking people not to improve the content about the reports until all the stonewalling stuff has been thrashed out - which could take a week or more? I'm not trying to be obstinate, I just really don't understand where you are coming from. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC) I'm going to move this comment to the article talk page, where it better belongs. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

It is instructive to note that consensus is not a popular vote, much like the electoral college. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 01:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Los AngelesEdit

Hi there. I see you just protected Los Angeles. Could you please have a look at this editor just before you on that article? Most of their edits make huge deletions, and the source for this particular edit is a link to a Google page. Warnings on their talk page have been removed. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 19:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

They have been doing the same kind of things on dozens of pages. I gave them a final warning, and I will keep an eye on what they do. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Rashida TlaibEdit

Have you thought of ECP here? Doug Weller talk 18:02, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Doug! No, I really hadn't. All of the recent vandalism was by IPs - nothing suggesting a need for ECP. All past protections (and she has needed repeated protection) were semi. What I am going to think about, if the attacks continue, is indefinite semi - or at least long-term semi. The article is on my watch list so I am keeping a close eye on it. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
P.S. I have a kind of rule of thumb for watching the news: Did someone get attacked on Twitter today? Check if their article needs protection. Did a judge make a controversial decision? Check if their article needs protection. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:41, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I only look at the article when my Watchlist notes possible vandalism. I like your rule of thumb. Doug Weller talk 18:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

More at Talk:Jean-Pierre Petit, unfortunatelyEdit

An anon IP, who has a bizarre personal vendetta against me for implementing a consensus of an AFD is openly lying about my actions. Much as I try to avoid the drama-boards, I figure this is a time for ANI. XOR'easter (talk) 20:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, XOReaster. I have asked another admin to take a look at the situation. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC) P.S. Oh, I see you went ahead with ANI. I'll watch that. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I probably won't have time to participate much this week (and I've probably already wasted more of my finite lifespan hobby time on this than I should have). XOR'easter (talk) 15:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
User:XOR'easter, if we can deal with the IP situation (something I am working on), I would encourage you to stay involved at that article. You and Deacon Vorbis seem like the voices of reason and Wikipedia policy there. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate the encouragement. With luck, my schedule will free up in the next-week-ish interval. XOR'easter (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Burris Laboratory SchoolEdit

Thanks for the semi there. As it was the same size, I'm assuming it's the same content I had oversighted yesterday. School isn't out in Indiana until mid June. Please either extend semi until then or keep a close watch after expiration. That was just reprehensible editing. I'm asking as I will be indisposed around that time and it isn't a closely followed article. There also exists a culture of "screwing with Wikipedia" in Indy and the Hoosier college towns. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 01:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

You mean the stuff I revdel'ed? I don't know if it's the same content since I can't read oversighted material, but it was pretty bad. If you want to ask the same oversighter to evaluate it be my guest. But I wouldn't consider most of the vandalism there to have been college-level screwing-with; most of it was way too juvenile, "we hate the principal" stuff. Of course there's always a lot of that toward the end of the school year. Thanks for your constant attention to that and many other school articles. I'll watchlist this one. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Wasn't saying it was college's high school kiddies in college towns. No explanation...just a pattern I've noticed. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 03:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!Edit

A kitten to thank you for your contributions and mostly as a compliment to your inspiring user page!

NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 17:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Nikke, nice to meet you! Thanks for the kitten and the kind words. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

LGBT symbols articleEdit

Hello. The "require autoconfirmed permission" user access you added to LGBT symbols on 15:36, 4 May 2019‎ is not stopping IP-only editors from making vandalism edits or adding/re-adding problematic content: 13:33, 14 May 2019, 13:37, 14 May 2019, 15:14, 14 May 2019, 18:53, 17 May 2019, 19:24, 17 May 2019. As with other articles in Wikipedia that have needed it, I think this one also needs to be page protected to only edits by registered editors. Pyxis Solitary yak 04:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@Pyxis Solitary: My understanding (I could be wrong of course) of Pending Changes protection is that unreviewed edits don't become visible until they're reviewed. It still enables constructive edits by IPs, whereas higher levels of protection don't. Adam9007 (talk) 13:51, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
That is my understanding, too. And I reviewed one edit so far. But these ones are not constructive and they're getting through (which might indicate that a Dr Jekyll registered editor is a Mr Hyde troll). Pyxis Solitary yak 15:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Pyxis and Adam! According to WP:Pending changes, pending edits are supposed to be invisible to "the majority of Wikipedia readers" until they are accepted Then it says that logged-in editors can see them. I had thought only PC reviewers could see them, but I just checked with my alt account (which is not a PC reviewer) and I could see pending edits. So apparently they are only invisible to anonymous (and presumably non-autoconfirmed?) editors. You two are able to see them even while they are pending, but casual readers are not. IMO the WP:Pending changes page is very confusing and I may try to get it clarified. In the meantime, I am almost to the point of thinking PC isn't enough for that article and it may need semi-protection. I'll continue to keep an eye on it. If it gets to the point where unconstructive edits are coming really fast, like three or more a day, let me know. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
So kind of like what happened at Asexuality? It was PC protected but now semi protected indefinitely. In fact, if it wasn't for that, I'd have said to keep an eye on that too, for with this, I foresee 'Asexuals are not LGBT' disruption and edit wars. In fact, I foresee more of that at Discrimination against asexual people now because of that. There's already been that kind of disruptive editing at List of LGBT-related slurs. Adam9007 (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Anything L/G/B/T/Q/I/A/P+ related is going to be a hot button and a magnet for ding dongs. (Jeez ... just looking at the alphabet soup I typed reinforces my preference for my personal universe: good ol' homo.) Pyxis Solitary yak 07:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The Lara Logan article has an outdated 1RR ruleEdit

For some reason, the article has an Arab–Israeli conflict DS tag which imposes 1RR on editors. Can you or any other admin fix this? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

This was added in 2011 by User:Wizardman, apparently because some of her reporting had become controversial, or because of a 2011 incident where she and her crew were arrested by the Egyptian army while covering the Egyptian revolution; she was assaulted and raped because she was believed (falsely) to be Israeli. Anyhow, Wizardman is only sporadically active these days and I don’t see any real connection now to the Israel-Palestininan conflict since then, so I am going to remove it. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Outing : perhaps due for RfCEdit

Greetings. The question you raised here (about "outing" editors' real, personal details in Wikipedia if they have already revealed them) is evidently quite important. I'd suggest you turn the discussion into a standard Request for Comments so that the result could be of a more binding nature. All you have to do is amend the heading and add an explanatory edit summary. Take care. The Gnome (talk) 10:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Gnome, and thanks for the suggestion! There actually already is an RFC on this. It's at Wikipedia talk:Harassment#RfC: Clarification of OUTING. GMG posted a link to it a week ago, but maybe I should call attention to it again. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer, MelanieN. I'll try and post there as well. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Burnham, BuckinghamshireEdit

Well, it happened again. I wouldn't be surprised if this ends up needing PC protection or a lengthy semi protection too. Adam9007 (talk) 18:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an eye on this. I'll wait a bit and see. It's hard to justify protection over disruption that happens once every three months. But let me know if it happens again. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Eskimo PiEdit

I just saw your witty sections and now I'm all depressed. SlightSmile 11:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Slightsmile, thanks for the note. What, not even a slight smile? Don’t let a few puns get you down. They’re not intended as punishment. Just be a pundit. Use them as a punch line. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Atleast I know that my cold will be gone in 7 days as opposed to a full week. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Haywood GilliamEdit

Hi, about your note? Why are you removing the judge's campaign donations from his article? I thought it was standard practice to do this for judges and I took the cue from the Edgardo Ramos page, another judge who donated to Obama and then got appointed by Obama. YouNotSneaky! (talk) 03:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I have posted a note about this at Talk:Haywood Gilliam; let's discuss it there. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
FYI, this was Hidden Tempo. I rolled back the contribs that were the latest, but probably worth someone familiar with our AP2 articles looking through the rest. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:36, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Tony, thanks for the info. I'll check it out. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!Edit

  The Reviewer's Barnstar
This is for your valuable efforts for reviewing articles under pending changes protection. Thank you PATH SLOPU 02:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Path, how nice! -- MelanieN (talk) 04:29, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Please review the personal attacks against me on the talk page for Theodore McCarrickEdit

I am requesting that you as an administrator review the personal attacks that have been made against me by Thucyd and Display name 99 on Talk:Theodore_Edgar_McCarrick#Protected_Edit_Request_2. --PluniaZ (talk) 20:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, PluniaZ. Yes, I saw those. They are not personal attacks, and they do make a valid point: when you make a protected edit request trying to get an administrator to add your preferred version to the article, that is indeed an attempt to game the system. I see that you started an RfC with your reasons for wanting particular edits added or removed. That is a good approach; maybe that will generate some more helpful discussion there. In the meantime, be careful not to resume edit warring at the article when the protection expires. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
I did not request that you add my preferred version of the article. I requested that you remove a specific sentence with malicious and false claims about a living person, Donald Wuerl. I will report that sentence to the Biography of Living Persons Noticeboard. --PluniaZ (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


Hello MelanieN, thank you for you for your work on here. You declined two of my reports at RFPP and I just wanted to offer diffs in case you missed some of it. These diffs are from the last few days.

Clearly some of these edits wouldn't look like vandalism to someone unfamiliar with the topic area so I understand. I am only expecting to get a short protection period, to get the ball rolling. Since these articles about upcoming major events always suffer from heavy vandalism/disruptive edits, there will be multiple protection periods in the future. StaticVapor message me! 18:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, StaticVapor, and thanks for the note. What I'm seeing is not a whole lot of editing activity at that article, and the problem edits are rather spread out. Also, there does appear to be some constructive editing by IPs. So I hesitated to impose semi-protection. However, this could be a good case for WP:Pending changes protection. Do you think that will allow you to deal with the unsourced and problematic errors adequately? I see that you already have the "pending change reviewer" right. An advantage of PC protection is it can be for a longer period of time (since it does not totally block out IP/new users but just requires that their edits be screened before they go live). -- MelanieN (talk) 20:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
I would think with pending changes it might end up getting out of hand. I see myself requesting semi protection for these articles again in no time, based on how this usually goes with scheduled PPV articles. I would be open to it for the time being, if you think semi protection would be too much. A problem with PC is I have seen factual errors and unsourced changes get accepted before. StaticVapor message me! 23:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
It's true that PC means that the "regulars" have to keep monitoring the page. But it does give you some control and it can be imposed for months at a time. I'm going to put PC on the articles and see how it goes. If you find it more trouble than it is worth I can take it off. PC can only work if editing is fairly slow; it is a pain in the keester if there is a lot of problem editing. But when that happens we can add a few days' semi-protection without removing the PC, and the PC will persist when the semi ends. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Done. The PC will last until the events are over. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for giving this issue some attention, I really do appreciate it. StaticVapor message me! 04:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Unlock the hulk page those edits were not vandalism but correcting an errorEdit

This subject is closed. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The incorrect information was being placed please unlock it Hhggtg3279 (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Yo, Hhggtg3279 (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Please unlock the hulk page it was not vandalism Hhggtg3279 (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC) Hhggtg3279 (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

That shows norton provided vocals as hulk Hhggtg3279 (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@Hhggtg3279: IMDB is not a WP:Reliable Source. Adam9007 (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

First, Hhggtg3279: DON'T make your comments in a string of single sentences, as you did here and as you are doing at the article talk page. That makes it hard for anyone to reply to you. Say what you have to say, in a single edit as I am doing here, and wait for people to respond.

Second, I see that you are offering a couple of sources at the talk page, but they are not Reliable Sources. One is IMBD, which is not reliable because anyone can edit it, and the other is a fansite. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Third, if you continue to edit war your own version into the article you are likely to be blocked. Edit warring is against the rules here even if you think you are right. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok here's a website it says norton voices banner and thus is not a fan site Hhggtg3279 (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Here another one that states norton is is Banner / hulk Hhggtg3279 (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Heck it even says on Edward Nortons filmography that he didn't portray Bruce Banner but also the hulk

The point I was trying to make was that on the hulk film page it should be Bruce Banner / Hulk Hhggtg3279 (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I was edit-conflicted when I tried to reply. That's what I meant when I said don't keep making multiple short edits. It makes it hard for people to reply to you.
What I was going to say: Make your arguments at the talk page, not here. But I doubt if behindthevoiceactors qualifies as a Reliable Source - which we define as a publication with editorial control and a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Nerdist is not a Reliable Source. What we need is PUBLISHED sources that have a good reputation for being accurate and authoritative. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok how's this it clearly states in it norton portrays Bruce Banner and the hulk in the 2008 film, this is an old article from 2008 by the Seattle times concerning the release of the 2008 reboot. Hhggtg3279 (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Let me say it one more time: my talk page is the wrong place for you to be making your arguments. Show your sources at the article talk page and get consensus there for what you want to say. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Here's another one Hhggtg3279 (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Game of lawEdit

Dear First in Lady name, (I would tack this on to the same, old topic, but I gather that is not your preference.) 1. Would you mind checking that I did this right, please? (There are so many various procedure pages to be found about most things that I seldom feel confident that I'm doing many things correctly.) 2. I found this quite odd, and I mention it because I come across it not infrequently, by editors new and old. Beyond as I have, I have no idea what to do about it when patterns are seen, (which I am as yet unaware of in this case). I'd appreciate your advice, if you have any and can spare the time... Thank you, Madam T.Lindenfall (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Replying elsewhere. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Is this a legal threat?Edit

This, considering his strange edits at Dean Lonergan. Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 00:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

(stalker) Probably. However, per WP:DOLT, they have a point. I've removed what I consider BLP-violating material, but haven't touched the NLT issue. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:19, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Something's just occurred to me; I can't remember if I've asked this before, but does threatening to go to the Old Bill (or saying they're involved) constitute a legal threat? Or is that reserved for things like suing? If it wasn't for his use of the word 'legal' I might not have considered it a legal threat. Adam9007 (talk) 01:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for handling this, Adam and Floquenbeam - also Liz. I think your interpretation of "bluster" (aka "bluff") is correct; imagine the police taking an interest in somebody removing content from Wikipedia! But it did alarm Jack, as well it might. I agree with you, Floq, that some of the content you removed might have been acceptable but the sources are shaky. If Liam re-adds it, we'll deal with him on his page or the talk page. If Jack re-adds it, which I doubt, we can talk to him about sourcing. IMO the remaining question now is, what if our blustering friend doesn’t remove the apparent LT on his talk page? If reverts it, fine. If he doubles down, banhammer. If he just quietly goes away - ignore it??? -- MelanieN (talk) 02:19, 6 June 2019 (UTC) (BTW I am always learning at WP. "Old Bill" was a new one to me, I had to look it up. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC))

Sometimes folks who overplay their hand at trying to intimidate other editors back down when confronted. This editor might just disappear but if they don't, they've been warned. I take a literal view towards legal threats--I want to see the words "I, or my lawyer, is/will be suing Wikipedia", not just "legal action will be taken if you don't listen to me blah blah blah"--but I know many admins will block with even a hint of legalese. It's a judgment call. Liz Read! Talk! 03:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it's a judgement call. Personally, I think ignoring things and see if they fade away is an underutilized skill here. That's what I'd recommend. But as Liz says, some admins would block at this point. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


Hi, the current version of this page contains unsourced and incorrect information added by a sockpuppet [14]. Don't know why this guy is doing this. Page was protected for adding unsourced/poorly sourced contents, but unfortunately the sock re-added the content just before the protection and still remains there (also added two non-RS sources). It needs to be undone. 2405:204:D006:D0B7:D8F0:BB2D:ACDE:7557 (talk) 08:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for the note. I have reverted the edits by the blocked sock. -- MelanieN (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Optional_RfA_candidate_poll#Shut this down?Edit

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Optional_RfA_candidate_poll#Shut this down?. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).

  Administrator changes

  AndonicConsumed CrustaceanEnigmamanEuryalusEWS23HereToHelpNv8200paPeripitusStringTheory11Vejvančický

  CheckUser changes


  Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
  • An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
  • An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

  Technical news

  • The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
  • Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Misuse of talk page?Edit


Lately I've noticed several queer posts at Wikipedia talk:Create a new language in Wikipedia that don't seem to have anything to do with the redirect (not to mention some of them seem to be BLP violations to boot). I have no idea how they got there, but should the posts be removed? Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 03:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Weird. Why do people do this, at that article of all places? Anyhow GAB has now indefinitely semi-protected the talk page. I see that kind of post was routinely removed throughout 2018; the last half dozen have been left alone but I think you would be justified in removing them all. After all you have GAB's word for it that they are vandalism. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Why do people do this, at that article of all places? That's what I was wondering. Anyhow GAB has now indefinitely semi-protected the talk page I'm not seeing anything in the log, nor am I seeing a notice when I click 'Edit'  . Adam9007 (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
My mistake, GAB protected the redirect page, not the talk page. And that was back in September. Must've not had my coffee! I'll protect the talk page and clean it up. And maybe trout myself for not paying better attention to what I was saying. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Press mentionEdit

You were mentioned in the press here. CookieMonster755 17:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

That's a very good article, and your work at Donald Trump is exemplary, MelanieN. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Got it in the "press section" of my talk page already. I agree, that was a very well researched and written article - an unusually realistic portrait of how things actually work here. We had quite a discussion of that article at the Trump talk page, here. Thanks for the notice, CookieMonster - and thanks for the kind words, Cullen. The incident they recount with the compromised accounts - that was a pretty wild ride for a week or two there. Not gonna say how we finally solved it. Trolls have ears. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to that talk page discussion of the Slate article, MelanieN. Also well worth reading. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Capitalization of "first lady"Edit

Per MOS:JOBTITLES, "first lady" should be lowercase in most instances. (If WP doesn't capitalize "president," we shouldn't capitalize "First Lady.")

Eyer (talk) 03:26, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Please go to Talk:First Lady of the United States (note the capitalization in the title), where I have launched a discussion. I ask you not to do any more of this controversial retitling until consensus is reached at that page. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Done. Eyer (talk) 03:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Mudasser Zaheer a page that might of been recreated that you have saltedEdit

Okay so I found a page title Mudasser Asif Zaheer. I'm not sure if this is the same article as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mudasser Zaheer or not as the AFD didn't really tell me much if anything about this guy. Since you salted the original article I figured you might be able to tell. Thanks. Wgolf (talk) 00:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Wgolf. Yep, it's identical to the previous ones. I deleted it per G4 and salted it. Thanks for catching this. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Admin helpEdit

Hi. I've actually never come across something like this. Back in 2015, an editor created the page Henry L. Brandon. However, they apparently worked on it on their user page, User:Brandonwikipage. A (now former) Admin, redirected the user page to the article, with the expressed rationale of maintaining attribution history. However, my feeling is that if this were a simple redirect, it would be eligible for speedy deletion under the cross namespace option (although that deals with redirects out of mainspace, and this is a redirect into mainspace). I was simply going to undo the redirect, to re-establish the user page. Thoughts? Onel5969 TT me 20:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

That's a new one on me too. ("Brandon"wikipage? Way too late to ask them about any COI!) Apparently a histmerge was done so there is no need to maintain attribution. I agree, undo the redirect and then blank the page. I see the user is still currently active. Do you want to post a note on their talk page explaining what you did and why? Although that might not be necessary since you just pinged them. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your insight, as usual MelanieN. Have taken the steps you suggest above, and left a message on the editor's talkpage. Pretty bizarre, especially since it's lasted over 3 years.Onel5969 TT me 21:30, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
A history merge wasn't done before. I just did one now. — JJMC89(T·C) 23:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, JJMC89 - so I'm guessing I don't have to do anything further? Onel5969 TT me 00:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, JJMC89! I confess I didn’t check, I just believed the edit summary (redirect due to merged history). What is the saying about what happens when you ASS...U...ME? 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 00:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
No problem. You don't have to do anything further, Onel5969. — JJMC89(T·C) 00:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "MelanieN".