User talk:MelanieN/Archive 25

User: Stnicklaus3

FYI, It appears that most, if not all, of his/her edits have been vandalism.CFredkin (talk) 00:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I added a second warning to their page. My hunch is that they are smart enough to string out their vandalism so that they never do a batch of it at once and get caught. But I'll watch them. --MelanieN (talk) 01:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Posted to discussion board but not sure it materialized. Someone edited other than myself. How do you monitor to have it exclusively to myself. Appreciate it and need no more threatening notices. Stnicklaus3 (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Advice pages

FYI. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• @Kudpung: I don't have a problem with that question. It's good faith and better than some of the other questions there. --MelanieN (talk) 01:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I see it as clear provocation, having nothing to do with the RfA, and possibly even racist. These are the kind of users who possibly do not understand our Anglo-american culture and the special global nature of the English Wikipedia. The sooner we can introduce a 90/500 rule for RfA, the better. Anyway, that's my opinion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

• I'm just shocked. The real reason for the question, if anyone cares. Qweedsa (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with that question, and it could have a perfectly innocuous answer. Perhaps JJE got scared of de-wiki by the SuperProtect scandal, perhaps he prefers to improve his English by working on this Wikipedia, perhaps he likes to work on the Wikipedia that has the most traffic ... throwing around accusations of racism is really not on. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• I haven't even read the situation, but I'm 100% in favor of an at-least 90/500 rule for RfA !votes. Softlavender (talk) 09:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Trump Campaign & the Star of David

Regarding the recent Trump Tweet Star of David kerfuffle, I see that the Wikipedia article on Badges notes (albeit without citation) that Sheriff's badges may have five, six, or seven points. If have no idea if any research has been done on this, but if there's not a blog, there should be. kencf0618 (talk) 03:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Trump campaign edit

I agree, I did not hear Lewandowski say it was supposed to depict the shape of a sheriff's badge- however, you also removed what I added which was correct. In the source I cited, the video shows Lewandowski saying nobody would be talking about it if the money was absent from the background. Ghoul flesh talk 16:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ghoul flesh: I see. We normally cite the transcript or report about a speech, not the actual video (which is a Primary Source). How about this: let's wait and see if that part of his comment gets significantly reported by independent sources. If it becomes noteworthy per coverage by independent sources, we should include it. If not, it is not an important or notable part of his comments, and we should not include it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good. Ghoul flesh talk 19:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ghoul flesh: I actually doubt if it will get picked up, because it was kind of a weird thing to say. The dollar bills were actually the LEAST controversial thing about the image - compared to the star and the legend "Most corrupt candidate ever". --MelanieN (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

That's exactly why I included it, it seemed like a really odd comment. But you're right, if it gains more notability it should be re-added. Ghoul flesh talk 19:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion for freewire

hello, what should I do moving forward on the no consensus vote on my speedy deletion nomination for freewire? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheUSConservative (talk • contribs) 06:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, USConservative, and thanks for your note! I took a look at the article and made some changes. I made it clear the company appears to be out of business. If you want you could renominate it with a stronger argument for deletion; your original argument (lack of recent sources) was not very convincing. You should point out that the company was never notable; that it appears to be out of business; and that there currently is another company, FreeWire Technologies, which could cause confusion. --MelanieN (talk) 15:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Noticeboard post

Greetings, I noticed that you called me out on the Edit Warring Noticeboard for not discussing my edits in Talk before making them. I don't believe Rockypedia discussed his edits before making them either. In fact, I don't believe anyone there, except for you and even you don't do it all the time, has done that. I agree that that would be preferable, but in my experience that rarely happens anywhere on the project. Given that, I'm curious why you chose to call me out on it.CFredkin (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

To point out that the edit he reverted had not been discussed - in other words was potentially controversial which would give him every right to revert it. And also because you were calling HIM out on the Discretionary Sanctions without following them yourself. --MelanieN (talk) 01:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

After reviewing the sequence of edits again, I think I see your point. Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 03:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

To any stalkers who happen to see this

I'm going to be gone for the next 10 days, but I have an ongoing situation at the article Huy Duc. Could I ask some of you to keep an eye on it? The article, created in April 2015, was calm until about a week ago, when the original author (who actually wrote only about one-fifth of the current article) suddenly started trying to delete it. They say they regret writing it, and their argument for deletion seems to be that the guy is pro-communist; they also claimed "factual errors" but did not point any out. They do not understand the systems here but they have tried everything. So far they have tagged it with PROD three times and db-author four times. After the second db-author I sent it to AfD, where it was kept - but they have tried twice more since then. I have posted notes on their talk page but they don't respond. I have warned them they are getting disruptive. I'd appreciate some eyes on the situation while I'm gone. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 03:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC) P.S. I have really tried to be gentle with this person, because I believe they are in good faith and just don't understand how Wikipedia works. Also their English seems to be very limited. --MelanieN (talk) 03:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Asking for your help on Ben Wedeman

The subject is a journalist who often works in the Middle East, a married heterosexual, and his page has been repeatedly vandalized, such as here and here and here. Problem is, incorrect information about Wedeman's sexual orientation can cause him real trouble in the Middle East. I am not an administrator but I'm wondering if you might intervene with some kind of page protection?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Definitely needed. I gave it a week. Thanks for letting me know. --MelanieN (talk) 13:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

John Ducas

Have you seen the edits that were made to the John Ducas article before they were swiftly removed? Is it not noteworthy to add? TacomaBound6 (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I saw them. I would probably have removed them too. They struck me as original research and synthesis. And in a way they are irrelevant; the article doesn't claim that the corporation made any money. But if you want to argue for the inclusion of this information, do it on the article's talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Sock

MelanieN=melania kNavss trump Stop protecting Trump's page from White supremacist/Fascist/Anti-Semitic/Racist/fraud/ponzi-scheme references. It's a conflict of interest issue. Thanks.63.143.196.114 (talk) 16:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC) Pretty sure you can take this to mean you're doing an excellent job in a difficult situation. --NeilN talk to me 16:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC) Yeah, the socks are overflowing the drawer today - and spilling all over the floor. --MelanieN (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Racism?

Greetings, I'd be interested to get your input regarding the reference to this term in the lede at Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not able to follow or participate significantly in discussions right now. Sorry. MelanieN alt (talk) 23:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Seems ...

...like you are on vacation, maybe you can give a quick look on this little stub I've created after a long time. Jim Carter 21:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Looks interesting. My internet access is very limited right now. I will look at it next week. MelanieN alt (talk) 23:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Notifications

Edits using my user were not done by me. Instead of threatening notifications, please advise how I can monitor editing to only be done by myself. Stnicklaus3 (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

You are saying that your account has been compromised - that is, someone else was able to edit under your user name. That is a serious admission and you need to make sure that never happens again. It is up to you to make sure that no one else uses your account; that security happens at your end. You have two choices. One is to fix whatever caused someone else to have access to your account. If someone knows your password, change it. If someone else uses your computer while you are still logged in, restrict access to your computer. If you can't do one of these things, you should report that the account has been compromised and ask to have it blocked. Then create a new user name for yourself, one that you DO have adequate security for. If your account is used again for vandalism, and you again claim that it was not done by you, this account will be blocked permanently as a compromised account. MelanieN alt (talk) 23:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Congrats

Hello M. I hope that you are well. Many many congrats on this!!!! Where does the time go? Best wishes on the next ten :-) MarnetteD|Talk 19:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! You beat me to the 10-year mark by more than a year, so YOU tell ME where the time goes! --MelanieN (talk) 20:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

That would call for original research. C'mon, Melanie! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Couldn't we use this as a source? --MelanieN (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Where does it say that's the "official" site? Please prove the source is reliable. Please show the the source is a recognized expert in this area by providing their full CV and five independent sources attesting to that fact. Is the source [insert unpreferred ethnicity]? If so, they're obviously bias[sic] and can't be used. In fact, trying to use them as a source shows you are incapable of being neutral. Please recuse yourself from this entire area. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, NOW I understand where the time goes. Thanks for the illustration. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 21:23, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

This banter is excellent M and N. I always miss the fun stuff. I hope that you both have an excellent week. MarnetteD|Talk 22:20, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you, Melanie, for the lovely barnstar! Thanks in turn to you for your always-equanimous work - both editorial and administrative. Neutrality^talk 02:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Trump's tax returns

Melanie, I really like the controversy paragraph you added, but I honestly think that this issue is not equivalent to the other listed controversies. I presented my argument on the talk page for the article and hope you and others consider it. I believe that half of the other controversies listed are created to keep people from talking about Trump's problem with his tax returns. I am not sure if I am using these pages correctly, but I see a lot of positive comments for you as an editor. Pmacdee (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Toradora!

Can we just get indef-semi protection on this article? It has been routinely vandalized by IPs for four months now. I know it isn't the best decision but I get the feeling the article is linked to some kind of a 4-chan type of forum somewhere. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm afraid my analysis is that it's not to that point. I usually look first at the protection log: has the article needed increasingly long periods of protection? How soon after the protection expires does it get reinstated (suggesting that vandalism resumed as soon as the protection expired)? What the history shows here is intense bursts of vandalism, treated with a very short period of protection (my two days was actually on the long side), and then many weeks of calm. I know this pattern can be frustrating for the page watchers, and I encourage you to request protection immediately when it starts up again - because of the rapid-fire nature of the vandalism when it occurs, and also to establish a track record to see if indef is ultimately needed. Personally, if it isn't a BLP problem (that's another situation), I impose indefinite protection only if the article has needed months-long periods of protection, with very short intervals before another months-long period is needed. --MelanieN (talk) 00:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	I just wanted to say that I really admire the work you've done on Donald Trump related articles. Not a fun or easy body of articles to edit, I'm sure, but I think you've done a great job! Safehaven86 (talk) 18:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Safehaven86! I don't usually work much on political articles, but I found that to be an area that really needs help to stay verified and neutral. I'm not the only one trying to keep it that way, but I appreciate your comments. --MelanieN (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Apology

I wanted to apologise for exaggerating the explanation for mistake made by the Trump speechwriter: She was not placing full blame on Ms. Trump. I have corrected both the one mistake you found here and another one that you might have missed. Again, on my honour, it was an honest, good faith edit mistake. Is my revision more accurate? Thx.96.59.186.103 (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

No need to apologize; simple difference of opinion or emphasis. Yours was based on what the AP article said so nothing wrong there. But I still think the AP article goes too far in saying the speechwriter placed any blame on Melania; at most it was a misunderstanding between them. If Melania says to a speechwriter, "these are some thoughts I like", she ought to be able to rely on the speechwriter to ask if they are direct quotes, and to make sure they don't get used verbatim. The speechwriter is a professional; Melania isn't; she shouldn't be expected to know these nuances, and I don't think the speechwriter meant to imply that she should have. IMO the speechwriter took all the blame on herself, but that's not how the AP reporter read it. BTW you added that material in a separate place in the article from the speechwriter's apology and statement; don't you think it would go better there? --MelanieN (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

It is possible that I placed this update/clarification in the wrong place, and, if so, you're welcome to move it around as needed. However, I think that I was balanced in my description of "shared blame." Nonetheless, if you think it would be possible to put in language about a misunderstanding (which is the obvious situation), that would be good. Neither the writer (McIver) nor the speaker (Ms. Trump) did anything malicious. But, at the end of the day, there was, clearly, carelessness and human error on both parties, so that should be chronicled. ((Oops - ADDENDUM: - I made a mistake - see below: Both articles needed that one edit about the speech mistake, but only the writer's article needed more detail: So, after reviewing your comment, I still think my edits were good, but I'm open to thoughts if you disagree; see below.))96.59.186.103 (talk) 22:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I added the speech quote in both McIver's article and the speech article (it belonged in both places), but the fact that McIver is (or was?) a Democrat only belongs in McIver's article, as we don't need all that detail in the speech article. All is well, and the edits pass my last review, and, I hope, you concur, but if not, please speak up. :) Thx,96.59.186.103 (talk) 23:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

UPDATE: I need your help here

Dear MalanieN, I need your help, here, since my final edits (which we both seem to think are balanced and OK) are not able to be added to this "semi" protected page. Thank you for your assistance.96.59.186.103 (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

2nd UPDATE: a Holy War edit war has begun: Need help

Viz: this 'diff' - The edit was is just with one other editor, and so it is in the early stages: He or she offered no explanation, so maybe we can talk this out: I need your help, if you would not mind. Thx,96.59.186.103 (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that you have taken the war to the talk page, as you should. Discuss it and let consensus rule. I added my own comments there. You seem to think that I am in agreement with you that the "it's her fault" statement should be in all three articles. I actually don't agree. I was just not going to delete it again after you toned it down. But if it were up to me, I would not include that AP reporter's interpretation of what McIver said anywhere. I would just go with what McIver herself said. --MelanieN (talk) 01:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I am what you might call an "inclusionist," and wish to include all relevant sides and facts, but, yes, it is not the most important thing. Balance and Moderation in all things - INCLUDING balance & moderation.~ (That's a joke, because if sometimes we're "moderate" in using moderation, then sometimes we do go to extremes - both humourous and also, occasionally necessary, but I diverge. Again, thx for your help, even if you had a slightly different view on things. Your contributions seemed positive.96.59.186.103 (talk) 05:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks very much for the help. When two people say it, it goes better --- & perhaps i was too abrupt. DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@DGG: Glad you didn't mind my chiming in. The user seems to have taken both of our comments with good will. I have a particular dislike of insta-tagging - tagging something for deletion just minutes after it was created - so that was why I commented. I later was pointed to Template:uw-hasty which I may use in the future. --MelanieN (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

UWCL

So Linfield are the first team qualified for 2017–18 UEFA Women's Champions League. I'd like to see it restored, but i guess putting it in user space until there are more teams, or the final stadium announced would be ok too. Could you do that? thanks. --Koppapa (talk) 11:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

You got it. It's at User:Koppapa/2017–18 UEFA Women's Champions League. If you want, you could let me know when you are ready to move it to mainspace, so that I can add a note on the talk page certifying that it is significantly different from the deleted article and not subject to WP:G4 speedy deletion. --MelanieN (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Melania Trump speech plagiarism controversy

Hello. I don't know who you are, but do you typically rewrite articles to say the exact opposite of what the source says? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Restoring content

Melanie, Would the same rationale for this be applicable here?CFredkin (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and I have reverted it, citing Discretionary Sanctions. --MelanieN (talk) 20:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 53

Hi, you previously contributed to a deletion discussion for London bus route 391, another similar deletion discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 53 which you may wish to give your input on.

Note: I've placed (or am in the process of placing) this notification on the talk page of anyone who took part in the original deletion discussion, as the most recent similar discussion, regardless of deletion preference, which is allowable under WP:CANVASS. The only exception being if that person has already contributed, or has indicated on their profile that they are inactive.

Thanks for your time. Jeni ^(talk) 10:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposed sentence deletion in Donald Trump article under "Protests"

Melanie, as no one (including yourself—thanks for the comment and support) seems to oppose deleting the sentence in question, can you as an administrator (I assume you have that ability) please delete it from the article ASAP? Thanks much again. It is most appreciated.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 12:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, HistoryBuff14. Actually I don't function as an administrator at that article - I am WP:INVOLVED and should be regarded as just another editor. However, it doesn't take an administrator to implement consensus at the article; anyone could do it including you. I have deleted the sentence since there was consensus to do so. --MelanieN (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank's so much again, Melanie! Best, always.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Ethan G. Lewis

I think this ought to be taken to AfD. Thoughts? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I see that I A7'ed two other articles by this editor; she created a lot of articles about academics in the Dartmouth economics department. (She described several of them as "rising"; to me, "rising" is a synonym for "not there yet".) All of her edits were June 4-5, and she hasn't been heard from since. Nine of her articles are still live. With that said, this article is probably a keeper. He is only an associate professor, but he is pretty widely cited at Google Scholar. I would probably !vote "keep" at AfD. --MelanieN (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Cat

I removed some poorly and unsourced material, and an editor seems to think I need a source for removing stuff. I've tried to explain, but he's really getting under my skin and maybe someone else needs to explain to him before he gets blocked. Discussion on the article (which he says is unneeded) and his talk page. One of those rare times someone just pisses me off because they think they understand something they don't. If you could look, that would be swell. You have a calm and objective way at looking at things. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Dennis Sorry for the delay in replying, I've been crazy-busy offline. I agree they are being a pill, but it looks to me as if you have resolved the situation - by 1) removing their unreliably sourced additions, and 2) not adding anything of your own that they can revert. Sometimes that's all you can do. Both of you were throwing around threats on his talk page but IMO it's not worth escalating and doesn't need third-party intervention. --MelanieN (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I was having a bad day and didn't need someone intentionally being obstinate or obtuse, but I probably should have handled it better. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:18, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Am I missing something?

Hi,

Was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BakuBoy & Austin Blake appropriately closed? I can't find where the nomination was withdrawn, and I get the feeling the creator of the article shouldn't be making the call anyway. Or am I being stupid and missing something obvious? Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 21:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in. :) @Adam9007: I agree with you: there's no evidence the nom was withdrawn, and the close by the page creator is highly suspect. I've undone the close. —C.Fred (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Thanks. I thought it looked iffy, but had to make sure I wasn't going mad. It wouldn't have been the first time if that had been the case. Adam9007 (talk) 21:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, C.Fred. I've been busy in Real Life and slow to respond to comments, so I appreciate your handling this. And thanks for catching it, Adam. --MelanieN (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. Would it have been appropriate to revert it myself? Adam9007 (talk) 01:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

You could have, since it was clearly invalid, but it's still probably best to get an admin to do it. --MelanieN (talk) 02:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Graham Hancock Page Inaccuracies

Hello,

I believe you are the administrator for the Graham Hancock Wikipedia page?

The page is locked to edit and I have a few changes I would like to be made as I feel some parts of the article misrepresent the work conducted by Mr Hancock et al.

I reference you to the first paragraph 'Hancock specialises in unscientific theories[1] involving ancient civilisations, stone monuments or megaliths, altered states of consciousness, ancient myths and astronomical and astrological data from the past.'

I agree with all but one word here "unscientific", now having read many many of Mr Hancock's publications, the grouping this word implys is that the entire plethora of his work is unscientifically based. Which is simply not true. The citied sentence claiming the other is referenced out of context here as it refers to only parts of Mr Hancock's work.

I believe a suitable replacement should simply be...

Hancock specialises in ancient civilisations, stone monuments or megaliths, altered states of consciousness, ancient myths and astronomical and astrological data from the past.

Nothing more than this is required; the reader of his individual works will see the citied references to academic reports, books and research papers Graham uses to back up claims in his factual publications.

As the initial paragraph on this page is, I'm sure, just as much as an overview as an introduction, I am not required to repeat these here they are readily available in all his books and also I believe on his website (quite a colossal amount of academic reference materials might I add!)

Secondly, the sentence 'An example of pseudoarchaeology, his work has neither been peer reviewed nor published in academic journals' should be replaced or completely removed. It is inaccurate and dare I say completely and utterly wrong.

First off to be as bold as to characterise Mr Hancock et al work as pseudoarchaeology is to admit to having his work peer reviewed!!

So my question here is how else could this title be attributed were it not for his work coming under peer review!?

Additionally to support this statement when proceeding to the pseudoarcheaology page we find absolute proof of peer review, not only a nice top of the page shot of Graham Hancock but we also have the following description of pseudoarcheaology:

'Academic archaeologists have heavily criticised pseudoarchaeology, with one of the most vocal critics, John R. Cole, characterising it as relying on "sensationalism, misuse of logic and evidence, misunderstanding of scientific method, and internal contradictions in their arguments.'

This is as you can see is a total misrepresentation and clearly biased opinion of the entire works of Mr Hancock et al.

Third and finally, 'Canadian author Heather Pringle has placed Graham Hancock within a particular pseudo-intellectual tradition going back at least to Heinrich Himmler's infamous research institute, the Ahnenerbe. She specifically links Hancock's book Fingerprints of the Gods to the work of Nazi archaeologist Edmund Kiss, a man described by mainstream scientists of the time as a "complete idiot"

Found quite rightly under the criticism heading, this paragraph is horrific aim at prejudice, unrelated and it's use within this page that also!

Drawing connections to the works of the Nazi's and comparing them to the works of Graham Hancock et al is unethical, dumbfounded and down right shameful!!

It is disrespectful not only to, as mentioned Graham Hancock et al, but also the Jewish community; are you really to tell me they have suffered the same plight through pseudoarcheaology as they did the holocaust??

Admittedly criticism is needed to ensure accuracy and balance in any review of a person or topic, however when we examine Heather Pringle's page we see no counter arguments or critiques of any kind. In actual fact we see very little written about her at all.

The picture painted described by the writers of the Graham Hancock page is one of an unreliable, unscientific idiot.

The gross misrepresentation in this article discredits not only the work of Graham Hancock and his colleagues but also the academics that have been citied and additionally the institutions that qualified them in their field.

I implore you to review and alter the page to offer a more accurate, ethical and unbiased opinion of Mr Hancock and his work.

Deuterium01 (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Deuterium01. Yes, I am the administrator who applied protection to that page. But I have nothing to do with the content. If you want to propose changes to the article, you should do it at the article's talk page: Talk:Graham Hancock. Other editors will reply, and if they agree with your edits they will add them to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 18:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you melanieN I have reposted there!

Priebus/Kelly

Hi MelanieN - apologies if this is the incorrect process, but I haven't made this request before now. Do you think it's appropriate to add some protection to Reince Priebus and John F. Kelly to avoid another vandalism/editing frenzy like we had at Sean Spicer? Please feel free to let me know if there is a more appropriate venue that I should present this. Thank you! Hidden Tempo (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the alerts, Hidden Tempo. Actually someone had already semi-protected the Priebus article since there had already been a spate of vandalism; I didn't notice and added protection which extends it a little longer.. But yes, that article needed protection, not on the off chance that it MIGHT get vandalized (we don't pre-empt protectively) but because of the fact that it WAS getting vandalized. Nobody had gotten to Kelly yet but it also needed protection so I added some. I'll watchlist the articles to see what happens when the protection expires. --MelanieN (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. Given the notably short lifespan of this administration's appointments this probably won't be the last one of these mid-day shakeups lol. I'll try to find someone else to bug though. Hidden Tempo (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to comment here, if you like. If I'm not around, there are a lot of highly effective stalkers who pick up the slack. However, if you want to learn the "process" for requesting page protection, it's at WP:RFPP. --MelanieN (talk) 00:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Sean Spicer

I might. Then again, I might not. :-) Nightscream (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Revdel please

Some personal information was apparently exposed in a prank here:[1]. I rolled it back but it probably needs a revdel, ô noble admin! — JFG ^talk 20:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt intervention! — JFG ^talk 20:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Good catch, thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I have watchlisted the page. One more edit like that and he is outtahere. --MelanieN (talk) 20:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

SEG & Kreuger Contest Deletion

hello, deepest apologies if this is not posted to the correct place or anything like that. one of my first times reaching out on a talk page.

I noticed you were associated to the deletion of the xcor contest page recently. I would like to ask if this can be allowed to remain, and I would be happy to make some updates chronicling the apparent collapse of this endeavour. As it is one of the first contests to award a trip to space in history, I do find it significant. Even in its failure there is history here, and they may yet complete the flight on another vehicle. I will be happy to try and reach out to those involved and make good updates, mostly would like to see it restored, though I do understand your concerns - I was unable to read your full notes on the deletion.

please advise.

many thanks,

dx

Thanks for your note, ‪Dennizenx‬. I'll reply on your ‪talk page‬. --MelanieN (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

thank you, I have replied to you there as well. bests. dx