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)

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.


Yosemiter and the Russian National Hockey TeamEdit

Hi, you previously warned Yosemiter about edit warring on the Russian National Men's Hockey Team page, and it seems that he's back to making revisions that are degrading the article. For instance, instead of saying that the Russian Men's National Hockey Team "participated in the Olympics" which took place in February of 2018, Yosemiter's claiming that saying that the "Russian Men's National Hockey Team was cleared to participate" is an improvement to the article. Instead of saying that the "IIHF awarded the points to the Russian National Team" (which they did,) Yosemiter's claiming that saying that "the IIHF considered the OAR games for the Russian team in its rankings" is an improvement to the article. His other edit includes claiming that comparing different coaches' performance during different seasons is an improvement over comparing said coaches' performance during the same season. Can you please take a look at it when you have a chance? Here's the edit that started the tangent: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russia_men%27s_national_ice_hockey_team&type=revision&diff=875726394&oldid=874708590

Thank you! 47.144.143.169 (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, but I'm not going to get involved with the content of the article. My only input was that I saw a request for full-protection due to edit warring, and I decided to issue a warning instead, which was heeded. I see that the two of you are discussing your differences at the talk page; that is the right way to handle this. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Can I also request?Edit

If I or the anonymous Editor can't edit, Could you please tell someone that is more knowledgeable about the Page's details. I suggest, Chinese Show Editors. Jiangye (talk) 03:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about the article Ever Night, which I full-protected. Tell whoever you want; it's up to you. More important: start a discussion with the anonymous editor on the talk page. That is the whole point of protecting an article: to get the editors to stop reverting each other and start talking. Start a discussion there, explaining why you are doing what you are doing. See if you can get them to come and explain their position. Try to reach agreement. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
If you need outside help, you might post a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China, asking for someone to take a look at the article and comment. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Original Barnstar
Dear, MelanieN thank you very much for all your editing adjustments and help, if you don't mind could you say me which paragraphs and information from MY previous version should be corrected so well that it passes moderation, once again I want to repeat the fact that my revisions and edits to Mr. Elliott Broidy Wikipedia page are based on accurate, current, and reliable sources from highly trusted American and international media such as The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, BBC, CNBC, Al Jazeera, Los Angeles Times, Bloomberg, Politico, New York Magazine, New York Daily News, Esquire, Buzzfeed, The Huffington Post, The Times of Israel, OCCRP, and many others. Additionally, there are public records available in open source that support the revisions I have made. Material about Elliot Broidy has been written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research. At the same time, respectfully, your edits are aimed at hiding important information about the life and professional benchmarks of Elliott Broidy; your revisions are outdated, incorrect and misleading as to information about the areas of his business and life. No source confirms that he is or was a philanthropist and venture capitalist. Therefore, attributing to him this fake activity is pure PR, and an attempt to hide the truth. I suggest indicate like: scandal-tarred or engulfed in numerous scandals and investigation.Regards Annmorgan24 Annmorgan24 (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I replied at the article talk page. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Why you put Protected on 1995-1996 Government Shutdown articleEdit

What gives you the right to put fully protected on 1995-1996 Government Shutdown article? You are a disgrace to WIKIPEDIA! You denied other folks to edit the article. You remove that padlock right now! >:(

I'm very disappointed at you! This is supposed to be The Free Encyclopedia...NOT UNFREE! Remove the padlock and let them edit right now! Spencer H. Karter (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Spencer. I assume you are talking about United States federal government shutdowns of 1995–1996. I semi-protected the article temporarily because of recent disruptive editing by brand-new users. Since you are not a new user, the protection does not affect you and you should be perfectly able to edit the article. Semi-protection is temporary, and as soon as it expires all users will be able to edit it again. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

GillibrandEdit

I just saw this edit of yours at Donald Trump, and I wondered if you would care to weigh in on a similar issue I am having at Kirsten Gillibrand. I started a discussion on the matter at Talk:Kirsten Gillibrand#Philip Morris extra detail if you are interested. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!Edit

Thank you, CAPTAIN! How time flies when you're having... uhh, fun? -- MelanieN (talk) 23:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

The Fix(er) is inEdit

Hello, MelanieN. I had thought to return to the fixer page and categorize the various types of fixers, when I noticed that the list I had added was shortened by yourself. I'm not sure why you might think that I would add a name on the basis of "Just being a lawyer for thugs or a PI for celebrities"; the most notorious of known Hollywood fixers were deleted. Your point on there being no direct mention of the exact phrase on those individual's pages was well-taken, however, and I might have thought of that sooner. Though you did not encourage adding sources, I have, nonetheless, now remedied the lack thereof on individual pages, and so have restored the names to the list. Thank you for your apparently sharp eye.Lindenfall (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that you had added and restored some entries - all properly sourced at their articles! 0;-D Thanks for adding that list - a good idea and it definitely improves the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC) P.S. Does that make you a fixer (in the British sense)? -- MelanieN (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Ha! You caught me out. I do "fancy myself" as making my exacting Scot mother proud by improving grammar and punctuation, and by recording correct details... she was quite a fixer herself, back in the day. (Were she among us, Mother might say that I "just fancy myself," though, and really catch me out!) Lindenfall (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, and you earn the title. You not only added good content to the article; you gave me an example of a freelance fixer (American sense) which I did not have up to then. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Too kind, thank you! Lindenfall (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Me, again — I had added match fixing thus to help prevent names being added there, instead of on the more exacting match fixing page, and rather than having repetitive lists. I also don't see match fixing linked on the page otherwise, as your reasoning had noted. Bit confusing. Lindenfall (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
"Match fixer" in the article was hiding under a piped link. I have clarified it. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Egad, it's me, again — I feel like I'm the only one bothering you here. (BTW that Melania photo cracks me up every time I do, adding to the allure.) So, I've edited the match fixing section in a way that I think is more suited... I can only hope that you like what I've done with the place! Lindenfall (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, you have definitely improved the article. As for Melania, that's been a running joke ever since someone gave me a templated conflict-of-interest warning for editing the Melania Trump article. They were actually serious, but it seemed like too good a joke to let go. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Great, and "Melania" is now even funnier... best joke (that was not a joke) ever! Lindenfall (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Since you commented on the picture, I decided it would be worthwhile to add the link [2] to it. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
That just cracks me up! So nice to encounter an editor with a sense of humor, Mrs T. Lindenfall (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Hoax, againEdit

Hi. Thanks for deleting Draft:Famiglia Di Alshibli a couple days ago. User:JonesBrown1992 has created it again, and I doubt he will stop. Maybe SALT? Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 15:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

User:RHaworth has block said user and deleted the page. Let's hope that stops the page from being created in the future. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 16:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Looks like RHaworth salted it as well. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Excellent. Thank you both. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 16:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, et alEdit

Cheers, again. I saw your name in edits for Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, and wonder if you could have a look at a set of wholesale deletions I stumbled into yesterday. I'm presently going through one at a time, and making reversals and corrections. (Best I can say, is some few links did need updating.) It started with Fasken, and other editors stepped in. The deleting editor next hit Skadden, and so on. It's pretty tedious, of course, and your name appeared, like a shiny golden gift (if you get my drift, Mrs. T.) and I thought you might have some magic wand (also gold, of course). (Otherwise, I'll just carry on.) Lindenfall (talk) 18:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Interesting you should say that. That’s a brand new user, called Histnewbie, whose first edits here were to puff up the article Fasken; most of that was primary sourced puffery and has been reverted. Then they went through a bunch of other law firms deleting material as improperly sourced.[3] I found someone at Talk:Fasken who is suspicious about COI editing and I think that may be what we are looking at here. I don’t have any magic wands to deal with this, I’m afraid; we will just have to evaluate their edits individually and revert or modify as needed. Actually I am going to follow up on one suspicion, and then see about the other articles. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Let me know if I should do anything now... I'm not meaning to pass the workload of it on to you, but thought your laser wand was needed. Lindenfall (talk) 20:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I've done some research at that article and I think I have evidence of sockpuppetry. I'm planning to file an investigation about that. If they are socks we can delete them all without further ado, so maybe hold off until we get a SPI result. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I kind of thought that, but more senior editors reversed some, yet didn't seem to react that way, so I didn't know how to proceed (until your name appeared, like a golden gift from Mrs. T). Thankful for your expertise. Lindenfall (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Glad to know other editors are working on it; they of course don't know the big picture. Neither did I until I looked at Talk:Fasken. I'm going to file an SPI request and see we can learn. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Having followed the trail to this, does it mean nothing will be done? No block on disruptive edits? Should I just go back to individual edit assessments? What would Melania do? Lindenfall (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
What would Melania do? She would just wait - I bet she spends a lot of her time doing that. (At least we both look pretty while doing it! 0;-D) As you can see from WP:SPI, it is in the queue to be looked at. SPI is pretty backed up, and cases like this - where they can't do a checkuser so they will have to evaluate it behaviorally - can take a long time so people do them last. They'll get around to it eventually. Meanwhile, I'm not seeing disruption. Histnewbie laid low for a few days, and now has tried again to upload the photo. Want to bet it still doesn't pass muster? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC) P.S. I see he is claiming it is in the public domain in Canada. I'll let somebody with more copyright expertise figure out if that is correct or not. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I see. The last comment there read declined, so I couldn't tell if that banner up top meant anything now. That photo just might past muster, but looks to be the very least of the issues created with copious edits. Thanks for clarifying, Mrs. T. Lindenfall (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
@MelanieN: Considering the timing and their edits, it looks to me like OhSweetNuthin may be the new Histnewbie. What would Mrs. T. do? Lindenfall (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Weird the way they are following him around and undoing his tags; not suggestive that they are the same person but we could keep an eye on the situation. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I thought so, by their phrasings, as well. No envy for Admins... you all have your work cut out for you around here, times how many languages? ...bit of a mind-boggle. And, thank you for all that unboggles. Lindenfall (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Looks like a copycat. For once I'm not behind the events unfolding.Histnewbie —Preceding undated comment added 02:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I am not anything but disagreeing with the major contributor and advertising flags that were put on the ones I removed it from. Lindenfall even thanked me for removing the ones on O'Melveny & Myers. To insinuate I would be helping someone who I disagree with is baffling to say the least. I put all my reasonings in the edit summary and was requested by Histnewbie to do that on the talk pages, which I will moving forward.--OhSweetNuthin (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Miz T... I thought this would have ended by now... what do you think? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jones_Day&diff=prev&oldid=885035827 I didn't even mean to notice, but something popped up on my watch list. (Internet's been spotty, at best, lately, but I'll be back soon.) Lindenfall (talk) 00:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft:MitrasenEdit

This page was deleted by you as a "redirect to a deleted page". However, the page this was redirected to, was moved to the draft space by a new editor. It should be undeleted and have its history restored to move back to the mainspace (Mitrasen). -- Flooded w/them 100s 09:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Flooded. Actually the “page this was redirected to” had no significant content or history. It was the result of a confused series of moves by a new user. I have just reviewed the whole history of the pages Mitrasen, Mitrasen Yadav, Mitrasen (disambiguation), and Draft: Mitrasen. I can lay it all out for you complete with time stamps if you want, but here’s the Cliff Notes version: An article about Indian politician Mitrasen Yadav was originally created in 2006 under the name Mitrasen. It was moved to Mitrasen Yadav in 2012, leaving a redirect. Mitrasen Yadav is the only page with any significant content or history, and it was undisturbed by the recent shenanigans. Everything the new user did involved moves of the redirect page Mitrasen. That included creating the pages Mitrasen (disambiguation) and Draft:Mitrasen, both I which I deleted - the DAB page per G14 as an unnecessary DAB, and the draft page per G4 as a redirect to the (now deleted) DAB page. The draft page never had any significant content, just the redirect to the DAB page. As far as I can see, everything is now as it was: Mitrasen as a redirect to Mitrasen Yadav, the page to which it was moved in 2012. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
That's great! Thanks for explaining and sorting things out. -- Flooded w/them 100s 17:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
And I see that isn't the end of it! There was another mess today having to do with Master Mitrasen, aka Master Mitrasen Thapa Magar, which you helped to fix.[4] Apparently someone moved one or both of those articles to Wikipedia space.[5][6] I'm glad other people fixed it and I am not even going to try to sort out what happened. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019Edit

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

  Administrator changes

  EnterpriseyJJMC89
  BorgQueen
  Harro5Jenks24GraftR. Baley

  Interface administrator changes

 Enterprisey

  Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
  • Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
  • A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

  Technical news

  • A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.

  Miscellaneous

  • Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Writer's Barnstar
Hi MelanieN,

Thank you for your addition to the Fasken history in the talk page. I will try to update the history and will let you know. You can review it at that point and let me know if it's okay.

Additionally, feel free to let me know if I am doing anything that would be considered stepping out of bounds. That's not my goal!

Histnewbie (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the barnstar. Since it's so complicated (I would have trouble figuring it out myself), you might propose your version with references at the talk page for review. If we can get some well sourced history into the article, it will add to the firm's claim to notability. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Page blankingEdit

Hi,

I don't know if you still stalk my talk page, but do you think I was right to blank Military establishment of the Roman Empire? It's caused more hoo-ha than I thought it would, and I think Botteville think I'm accusing him of copying. Should I perhaps have consulted an admin first? I can't help but think I've yet again made a right pig's ear of everything. (by the way, you're not one of the 'several editors who would rejoice if I were to leave Wikipedia and never come back' or one of those who 'tries to make me out to be a complete f*ckwit'. You should recognise the incidents I referred to, so I thought I'd clear that up in case that gets misconstrued, which is of course the last thing I want :)). Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 00:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Adam! I’ve been AFC (away from computer) all day and I have no idea what has happened. I tried to figure it out from your talk page. Apparently you tagged Military establishment of the Roman Empire for possible copyright infringement. Judging from your talk page, you notified the person who originally created that article (splitting it off from a pre-existing article rather than writing it) and they were (mildly) unhappy; I can see why they might be, but they didn't make a big deal out of it. If that's all the "hoo-ha" that developed, it seems pretty minimal. I see mention of you leaving Wikipedia but I’m not sure why; you’ve really got to develop a thicker skin and not threaten to quit every time someone disagrees with you.

As for the article, it certainly doesn’t read much like an encyclopedia article, does it? Lead sentences: The Augustan reforms didn't change the military structure that much. Beginning with Gaius Marius (Marian Reforms). He changed the requirements to enlist in the legions. What led you to link this article up with the crystalinks site, anyhow? Did you just come across the article and decide to check it for copyvio, or what?

When I Google individual sentences from this article (my preferred method rather than using a tool) I find many Wikipedia mirrors like revolvy and WN. I also find it at a site called ancient-rome.info, which does not credit WP and has the gall to tag it “Copyright © 2019 Ancient-Rome.info” but is probably another mirror. You identified a problem with crystallinks, which does indeed seem to match the article very closely. Crystalinks calls itself a “metaphysics and science website” (judging from the web page I would call it more of a pseudoscience website). Anyhow it is a sort of blog created by one woman, who IMO is very unlikely to have written this historical thesis herself. What I mean is that she undoubtedly copied it from somewhere. You believe that couldn’t have been Wikipedia because your information is that the material was on Crystalinks as early as 2000, is that right? So if she copied it from somewhere, we don’t know where.

My feeling is that none of these other sites are likely to be the primary source of the information. If our information was copied from somewhere 13 years ago, we won’t be able to identify the source. IMO the most likely suspect would be the external link, “Augustan Legionaries” by Ross Cowan, but that’s a dead link that I can’t find anywhere on Google. User:Justlettersandnumbers offers the most logical analysis here, namely that if there is any copyvio it stems from the original article, Campaign history of the Roman military created in 2003, and infects all of its spinoffs. That article started out as just an outline and was gradually expanded by many people in what seems to have been pure OR - no sources ever cited. It wasn't copy-pasted as a whole, but portions may have been. If Justlettersandnumbers is willing to try to make some sense out of the history, at their convenience, I think that’s the best solution and heartily thank them for being willing to try. I would even question whether the article can be saved; the subject is notable but the article is a total violation of WP:Verifiability.

To answer your original question, I would not have tagged it as a copyvio because we don’t really have any idea what it might have been copying from. And I would not have blanked it; I don’t think WP is in any kind of legal trouble if we leave it open for another week or month. But these are judgment calls and are nothing to talk about leaving WP over. I do suggest you revert your tag and leave it to others to figure out. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, Adam9007, you got a lot of sound advice here! Unlike Melanie (hi!), I do think that that blanking the page was the right call – it can soon be unblanked if there's no problem, and if there is one, then it should be blanked. In case there's ever another time, the only thing I'd have done differently here - given the age, the uncertainty, and that the article creator is a long-established editor – is to leave a brief personal message ("can you help me to understand ...?") rather than the huge "standard" template message. I don't think you made a pig's ear here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I will certainly go along with leaving it blanked if that's JLAN's preference. (Hi back!) JLAN is certainly able to do any investigation needed using the history. In any case, blanking vs. not blanking was not a major issue or horrible error; more a matter of preference and judgment on which reasonable people can differ. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Cheers. I too have been away from my computer all day today :(. I didn't read the article thoroughly, but it didn't seem to be particularly encyclopaedic. On a whim, I decided to check for copyvios, and found that match, which, at the time, appeared to pre-date its presence on Wikipedia. I notice that the content on Crystallinks appeared in December 2005, so if the 'heavy edit' was indeed from a split then it could be a backwards copy and the only issue is attribution (Botteville said he wrote none of the original prose). Adam9007 (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

protection RussiansEdit

please restore protection page. Unregistred user regulary vandalised this page.Hatchiko (talk) 15:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Hatchiko, and thanks for your note. Actually the PC protection which is still in place seems to be working well. I see about one vandalism edit a week since the semi-protection ended. One a week is easily handled by page-watching and reverting, and responsible IPs and new users can still edit (with their edits subject to your approval). And while waiting for approval, the IP addition does not become a viewable part of the article. That's exactly the situation that PC is designed for. If it gets to the point where there are multiple vandalisms a day, let me know and I could add temporary semi-protection again. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Please remove the Fiat Freemont page protectionEdit

Please remove the Fiat Freemont page protection as we want to create a separate page from Dodge Journey and to have some different information, even those vehicles have similarities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rejs12345 (talkcontribs) 21:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Rejs12345. You will have to get consensus at the article's talk page first. The protection is there to prevent edit warring, so we need to see that other users are in agreement before removing the protection. I see that another admin warned you at that page: if you expand it again after the protection expires, without first getting agreement from the other users, you could be blocked for edit warring. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

MentionEdit

Howdy, I've mentioned you over at Tony's talk page which as a courtesy I would like to make sure you understand. In passing you've observed editing in support of an organization, which I've interpreted as a possible concern about COI. I certainly have that concern, and take full responsibility for my own concern, whatever yours may be. Moreover I actually think we have a major DE problem on the horizon and I believe a long-term silverlock would be best for a period of learning, in order to save us time at ANI. Your patience and AGF stance has been exemplary, and I don't want it to be taken advantage of. Cheerio, -Roberthall7 (talk) 06:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Robert. About long-term protection, Tony's answer is also mine: per protection policy, we don't protect pages pre-emptively, as a way of preventing possible future disruption. Protection is used to stop immediate problems, and only for as long as needed to stop those problems. If disruption resumes after the week expires, we may need more permanent ways to deal with the disruptor.
I do think it's highly likely virtually certain that the editor in question is strongly connected to the organization, either as an employee or as a devotee/volunteer. But I also think we have their attention now, and they seem willing to work things out on the talk page and to take suggestions/direction about how to do it. I will tell them explicitly not to edit the article but only the talk page, and leave it to us to make the consensus edits. If they see we are working with them in good faith, I am hopeful that they will not cause any further problems. Tony has been remarkably patient in following this case through please-block and please-unblock; hopefully he won't have to bother with it any more.
Right now at the talk page we have many subjects covered in a single long edit, followed by someone else's response covering many subjects; that's hard to follow. I think we may already have consensus on some of them. Going forward we might want to identify the subjects of controversy and make a separate subheading for each. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
P.S. BTW if you and the other person come to agreement on a particular wording, go ahead and put it into the article immediately. Don't wait for me; my computer access is sporadic, and when I am online I may have higher-priority matters to deal with. Anyhow I think you and I think sufficiently alike on this matter that anything you agree to, I would too. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN, thanks and all understood and agreed. I also have higher-priority matters to deal with so I hope to draw down my Talk page discussion at least while we have the silverlock preserving stability. -Roberthall7 (talk) 07:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstarEdit

 
Suffering Bastard cocktail

You're more than welcome, but I have no fancy pictures to share :( Nicholas Nastrusnic (talk) 21:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Hey, Nicholas, here's where you sometimes can find "fancy pictures": https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page . Type in a search and see what you find. Unfortunately I couldn't find any for your articles about the Diki-Diki or the Doctor cocktails, but here's one you can use for your Suffering Bastard article! -- MelanieN (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh, duh.. I see you already have it there! Well, cheers! -- MelanieN (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, a picture of Hot Buttered Rum in a cocoa mug is just not the same Hot Buttered Rum

Invitation to attend a Southern California Regional mini UnconferenceEdit

Who: All Wikipedians & Wikimedians

What: Southern California Regional mini Unconference.

When: Sunday 3 March 2019, 2:00PM PST / 1400 until 4:10PM PST / 1610

Where: Philippe's at Chinatown, Los Angeles

Sponsor: San Diego Wikimedians User Group ( US-SAN )

Your host: RightCowLeftCoast (talk · contribs)

Please add your username to our attendees list so we know how many will be attending, due to the limited size of the cafe.

(Delivered: 00:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC) You can unsubscribe from future invitations to San Diego Wikimedians User Group events by removing your name from the WikiProject San Diego mass mailing list & the Los Angeles mass mailing list.)

Mongolia's Next Top ModelEdit

Hi, I'm sorry to bother you personally, I don't know if I'm allowed to do this here, so I'm sorry in advance if I'm not. Unfortunately, Mongolia's Next Top Model (season 2)'s page has been edited again despite being semi-protected, this has been going for quite a few days now, so I would like to ask for advice, what should I do in this case? What should I ask mods to do? It frustrates me, personally, because I feel like most of the content added has a negative conotation towards some contestants and accuses the show and I don't feel like Wikipedia is the right place for that. Thanks in advance for your help. Termo-status (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Termo, no problem; you can always ask admins about stuff. I saw your request at Requests for Page Protection, and I asked for someone else to make the decision what to do, since I was the one who imposed the semi-protection that is still in effect. You might want to add a P.S. to your request there, pointing out that there has been disruptive editing again. Someone will surely answer your request soon. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your help, I hope we can get this solved soon =) Termo-status (talk) 04:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi! Unfortunately, it seems like edits continue to happen despite your warning =/ Termo-status (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Blocked for a week. Let me know of any future problems. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Notable?Edit

The article you created, Bill W. Stacy, really? What seems to be missing is a statement such as Stacy is notable for something -- not just being a university president. What, if anything, is he notable for? My news sweeps did not come up with much.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

That's what. Please see WP:NACADEMIC, criterion 6. But if you don't buy that, feel free to test it at AfD. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm rolling my eyeballs...--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Are You?Edit

Are you the real Donald Trump's wife? THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Reality is fake news. O3000 (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Please see the disclaimer on my user page. I get asked this every now and then (one person even gave me a COI notice for editing the Donald Trump page), and it's become kind of a running joke for me. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, sorry about that. Everyone gets excited by this for some reason. As the next step, you should for real claim to be the real first lady (just make sure you don't do COI with politics) XD. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 22:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I guess I could do that if I wanted to. "Oh, yes, I am Melania Trump, I just accidentally misspelled my name when I created this username." After all, you can be anyone you want on the internet. 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 22:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!Edit

 
Hello! MelanieN, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 00:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the invitation. I know it's a great place and some awesome people help out there. I'm glad to see you are one of them. If the real Melania shows up here, I will definitely recommend it to her! 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Plea for help?Edit

Hi,

This, when decoded, appears to be a plea for help of some sort (and contains BLP violations to boot). Looking at it, I'm not sure if it's a silly joke or if it's serious (I suspect the former but need to be sure). Should this be WP:999'd? Also pinging PlyrStar93 for input as he marked it as vandalism. Adam9007 (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I certainly agree with deleting it. I might have tagged it as nonsense rather than vandalism, but it’s pretty much the same thing. No, I don't think it needs to be taken seriously or reported. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
It claims a man that was reported to have died is in fact alive and has been kidnapped and trapped in some place. Sounds like a joke to me. (by the way, G1 doesn't apply to userspace:(). Adam9007 (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@Adam9007: There is no help we can or need to provide. If they genuinely need help, they would have posted in places other than this website (possibly not in public either) and/or contacted authorities, and they don't have to encode their message and insert a bunch of gibberish characters with "top secret". It should be deleted as vandalism as the page when displayed is purely disruptive with all the weird characters and is clearly not related to building an encyclopedia. -★- PlyrStar93 Message me. 23:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
...and I deleted it. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

My stupid humorEdit

  Please stop your obsessive editing on Wikipedia. If your uselessness continues, you will be blocked from editing. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 23:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Mommy.   I'll stop ... one of these days. Sure I will.   -- MelanieN (talk) 00:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

A custom award for you!Edit

  ImmortalWizard Exclusive "Brightest Minds" Award
For your tireless and resilient work in this community. You have shown outstanding skills and dedication. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 23:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
... LOL! I take it, from the illustration, that the above commentary is blarney? Thanks for the laughs. And thanks for creating a clever, original barnstar just for me! -- MelanieN (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to User surevey 1Edit

Hello! There is an ongoing survey going on at User:ImmortalWizard/User survey 1. As a fellow Wikipedian ImmortalWizard would like you to answer some questions. It wouldn't take too long, and your participation will be appreciated. Thanks, THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 16:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Yep, learned a lesson. Newbies always have a hard time. So I would like the experienced ones not to be assume they don't know everything and teach them politely, instead of threatening with "I'll block you indef". THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I guess the lesson is, ask an experienced user BEFORE you do something like this. Instead of expecting them to politely teach you not to do something, after you have already done it. I think anyone would have advised you that this "survey" was a bad idea.
I do think your best approach here would be to focus on editing articles. My suggestion, and the way most of us start out here: Just read. Read articles about anything you are interested in: your home town, your country, your hobbies, your school, people from a geographic area or a profession that interests you. When you find something wrong, correct it. When you find something that needs expanding, expand it. Just be sure you use Reliable Sources and not your own opinion or experience. (I'm afraid I did a lot of that when I was new here, but it was a long time ago and they were not so strict about making everything be sourced. So I could learn how things are done here a little bit at a time.) -- MelanieN (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
BTW getting into arguments with admins, and trading insults with them, is not a good idea. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  • MelanieN, if you'd prefer, the next time I see disruption from IW, I can ping you instead of blocking, if you're going to take a stab at mentoring. Not, like, continuously, but I'm happy to give you a fighting chance to work with them. Just because I am not at all optimistic about them does not mean you can't be. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, why don't you do that, at least for a little while, and depending on the nature of the disruption. I don't guarantee results - it's really up to him - but I think it's worth a try to help him find his niche as a productive editor. I've done this a few times in the past (at times as the person's sole friend and defender), and I can point to a couple of productive editors to show for it. If it turns out he can't take advice, well, we'll have tried - but Wikipedia does have its limits. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Yep, I will proudly take the chance. Really depends next on what I do. I have recently acting both in WP:CRICKET and WP:PW, where the latter is much peaceful with consensus. I am trying to improve some of the biographies I am familiar with, however getting really annoyed when they have little to no proper inline citations (i.e. I don't know where the info is from, especially is an most of the general sources are offline). New editors should be encouraged to get help. Also, did you just assume my gender? THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
{{gender|ImmortalWizard}} = they. You specified it in your preferences. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
And your user page starts off "I am a young man...". Why would you try to play that game with someone who just volunteered to mentor you? Melanie, good luck, you've got your work cut out for you I fear. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Oops. I forgot. Nothing to hide now. I think I should head towards De la Marck, looking at his comments about autism here. May I have your permission please? THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand what you're asking permission for; I pray to God you don't mean starting an WP:RFA. I think you should direct this question to Melanie, I don't have the patience. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Sheesh! I walk away from the computer for an hour and look what happens! Like Floq, I certainly hope you are not thinking about an RfA. At this point you are so far away from RfA that it would be disruptive for you to start one. In fact if you did, I would tell Floq "go ahead and block him, he is clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia." (And BTW, as Floq explained you have clearly identified yourself as male; so has Floq which is why I call him "he". And I am clearly identified as female. If I don't know a person's gender I call them "they". All clear now? 0;-D) I'm glad to see you working in some projects; that's a good start to doing actual encyclopedia work, instead of just hanging out on talk pages. If you find an article where some of the material is not cited, you might want to do a search of Google or Google Books to see if you can find references and add them. (Do you know how to cite references? Actually full citations with the author and the date and the publisher and all that good stuff? If not I'll teach you.) If it is cited but not visible online, that still counts as citation; we just have to assume good faith that the material is quoted correctly. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Wait what? I am never said I am going for RFA. I asked for permission of asking De la Marck about autism. I linked to the RFA page because they wrote a comment about it there. Floq seems to have twisted the situation somehow. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 23:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I see. You were following my advice about trying to connect with other users on the spectrum. From looking at their talk page they may not be the best person to talk to; they don't seem to be interacting with others very well. But maybe you and they could establish a rapport and form a little support group; it's not impossible. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────So, I took a look at your contributions to see what kind of areas you are working in.

  • Good stuff that I encourage you to continue doing: discussing things at WikiProjects where you have an interest. Making small improvements at articles. (Or bigger improvements, as you see the need.) Discussing at AfD, and nominating articles for speedy deletion or AfD (you may not always get those right, but you will learn from practice what is appropriate and what is not).
  • Things you should NOT be doing: Don't judge articles for GA; you don’t have nearly enough experience in article writing and editing to do that. Seriously, don't do any more GA reviews. Don't offer advice and answers at the Teahouse; you are in a position right now to be asking the questions, not answering them, and some of your answers like this one don’t even relate to the question they asked. I advise against discussing changes to Wikipedia policy, such as here; just like with AN and ANI, which you have agreed to stay away from, you don’t really know enough about Wikipedia policies to be talking about changing them.

In other words, do most of your work right now at the article and article-talk level; don't try to thrust yourself into areas that call for more experience than you have. You have to walk before you can run. Fair enough? -- MelanieN (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Melanie, not sure where to put this, I'm likely not welcome on his talk page. I saw yesterday that he has been working with GA stuff - for a while, I think - but don't have an opinion on the quality of his work there. If he's doing good work, or even just not causing problems with the GA process, I have no concerns at all about this; in that case it would be actual productive work. If he is causing problems, then that should stop too. But I'm not competent to decide whether he's doing a good or bad job. So I'm punting, not ignoring. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
    @Floquenbeam: Fair enough. I was pretty much the same on that issue, although some people (I have gotten emails) are pretty concerned about it - particularly when he launched an FA reassessment. I see that some people have talked to him about it on his talk page. He is not listening. There are a lot of eyes on him and what he is doing. Everybody just needs to understand that they do not have to defer to you or me if they think action is needed; they should just do what needs doing. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
    ...and here is how he feels about the situation. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

AfDEdit

Hi, regarding the AFD proposal at Christos Tsoutsouvis, the article is protected "This page is currently protected so that only administrators can edit it." So I clicked at "Submit an edit request".Cinadon36 (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

So wait until the protection expires. Anyhow, there is much more involved in nominating an article for deletion than simply pasting a notice on the article page. Please read the instructions at WP:AFD. You have to 1) create the AfD discussion page, including your rationale for why the page should be deleted, 2) list that page on the AfD listing page for the current date, and THEN 3) post the notice on the article page. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Cinadon36, BTW, do you use Twinkle? If you do there is a button on Twinkle, "XfD", that automates this process for you. You have to be looking at the article page to use it. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Νο, Ι do not, I am not a follower of "Association of Deletionist Wikipedians", that;s why I didnt installed Twinkle. As for the AFD instructions, first step is: "Put the deletion tag on the article. Insert {{subst:afd1}} at the top of the article." So I tried to do, but the article is protected and hence I suggest it in a new page, and my edit was redirected to the article's talk page.ps= I prefer AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTAD Cinadon36 (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake. It has been several years since I nominated pages manually, and it looks like they have made it easier. OK, so do it when the protection expires. And, I give up, you will have to explain AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTAD (I have a feeling it is something pretty amusing). -- MelanieN (talk) 19:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
It's a worldwide movement.([7])  Cinadon36 (talk) 19:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
LOL, thanks! -- MelanieN (talk) 19:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia user vandalizing law firm articlesEdit

Hey,

I'm a little concerned about user Histnewbie continuing to vandalize and watch the articles of many law firms. For the record, I am a college student and have no formal relations to any law firm. The user in question has removed content for a few reasons, including: information being posted from the law firms IP address (not a rule violation, especially since it was properly sourced), citations coming from the law firms website (a lot of the information cited was coming from press releases that contained factual or otherwise informative stuff, and it's not as if the citations made up the entire article).

He has basically made entire articles barebones and is reverting all of their content on a whim -- on his talk page it says he was warned about this previously by you and I don't think it's fair that he's guarding every page vehemently and not allowing anyone to revert his blatant vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimogul666 (talkcontribs) 00:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Panjab UniversityEdit

Hi,

Few years ago, you merged University Business School – Chandigarh with Panjab University. I saw your name on Talk:Panjab University. On the top of the page of Panjab University, there is a statement that the page may require cleanup and there are too many random lists and unsourced claims. How can I make it better? Is it possible for me to start a fresh or new page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bh Ch (talkcontribs) 05:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Bh Ch. Wow, that was four years ago! I think the biggest issue is too many lists. It is very unusual for a university to list all of the majors courses of study under each division of the university! I think I will undertake that bit of cleanup, but please correct me if I do anything wrong. No, I don't think you should start a fresh or new page. This is a longstanding article and its history should be preserved. Clean it up by removing excess detail and adding sources. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

RFC RequestEdit

Dear Fellow Wikipedian


I would like to invite you to my RFC request on  the page One America News Networks. I am reaching out to you to include your expert opinion and your solution to this problem in the RFC request. Please also invite more editors so that we can have a fair discussion that will improve the page.


Kind Regards

Saad Ahmed2983 (talk) 11:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Isn't it WP:CANVASS? I was once accused for doing something similar here. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 15:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

COIEdit

Hello there, I made a report here. Can you have a look and tell me what further actions I should be taking? Thanks. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 12:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Replied there. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

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. [8] [9] (lots of good material there; the original bar had 25 seats!) [10] (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 [11] - I think we almost have enough to expand Sunny's redirect into a page. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

RevertEdit

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): https://www.dropbox.com/s/1vhrkg89cq4ywsb/Screen%20Shot%202019-03-05%20at%209.48.34%20PM.png?dl=0 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:71.6.23.178|71.6.23.178] 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

Hi,

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)

SignatureEdit

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:40.140.51.166. 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 (...so 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:198.46.119.2 (no TALK, and USER red-linked, so: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=198.46.119.2&namespace=&tagfilter=&start=&end=). 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:198.46.119.2 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Requests_for_checkuser 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

https://www.lamag.com/culturefiles/lost-tiki-drinks/
https://www.nola.com/food/2018/07/tiki_titan_jeff_beachbum_berry.html
https://www.thespiritsbusiness.com/2018/06/tales-of-the-cocktail-reveals-2018-spirited-awards-shortlist/4/

https://www.amazon.com/Beachbum-Berrys-Potions-Caribbean-Berry/dp/1603113800/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=jeff+beachbum+berry&qid=1553048956&s=gateway&sr=8-1 New 10th edition (expanded): https://www.amazon.com/Beachbum-Berrys-Sippin-Safari-Anniversary/dp/194119916X/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=jeff+beachbum+berry&qid=1553048991&s=gateway&sr=8-2 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: [12] 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 words.is 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 this.so I think article protection is good choice.(Mr.Mani Raj Paul (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC))

ClarificationEdit

Hi, you denied my request for full protection of a page here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=889486152#The_World_Factbook_list_of_developed_countries saying there is a content dispute. There is not. The list is online right here https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/appendix/appendix-b.html 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 CIA.gov 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 https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/appendix/appendix-b.html 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)

WP:AFDEdit

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)
So...
 

Keep

 

on

 

keepin'

 

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)

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)

VacationEdit

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

Return to the user page of "MelanieN".