User talk:MelanieN/Archive 50

San Diego stories

I read you have a focus on topics related to San Diego...

I started Fireboats of San Diego and Bill Kettner (fireboat). San Diego is unusual in having multiple agencies operate fireboats.

Say, any chance you might have an opportunity to take photos of the current fireboats? Geo Swan (talk) 05:55, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'm afraid I am not a photographer. One person here at enwiki that I know has taken San Diego photographs is User:Worldbruce. Also I see that User:Ruff tuff cream puff has taken San Diego pictures, including some maritime pictures; for example File:San diego mooring bollards with uss dolphin.jpg . Congrats on the articles; I will take a look at them and see if I can add anything. --MelanieN (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye out for an opportunity, but don't expect quick results from me. RightCowLeftCoast is on the lookout for San Diego organizations with which Wikipedia can partner. If one of the agencies has an open house or can arrange a tour, I'm sure RCLC would be up for coordinating an event. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I live in San Diego and can take pictures. I fish on the bay a lot and am familiar with some of the Port of San Diego locations; I see harbor police boats quite a bit but haven't seen an actual fire boat, would need to find out where to spot one. Something that may be helpful is the Port of San Diego Flickr stream. They have CC-BY images that can be uploaded to Commons (thousands of them) and I've meant to browse through it at some point. You might find what you need there. Will watch the bay in the meantime, thanks Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 10:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you! @Geo Swan: Here's a couple of possible helpers for you. --MelanieN (talk) 20:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Great to see many active in improving content about articles that fall under Wikiproject San Diego. Please feel free to check out WP:MUSD for activities being planned locally. We are still looking for September, October, and November events this year. A photo scavenger hunt on the water sounds interest; would give a different perspective of photographs for Wikimedia Commons.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Worldbruce and Ruff tuff cream puff: Here's some information about the Port's fireboats: "The blue painted vessels are docked at the Harbor Police Headquarters at 1401 Shelter Harbor Drive, San Diego, CA.". [1] From attached pictures at that site it looks as if they are docked at Shelter Island in full public view. --MelanieN (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

RFPP Toronto election

Following up on your comment at RFPP about Toronto mayoral election, 2018 being already PC-protected. Yes, I was aware of that when I made the request, and perhaps I should have specified that I was asking for semiprotection to be applied instead/as well, due to recent increase in unacceptable IP edits bogging down the pending changes queue. Would you reconsider? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: You’re right. Even though PC might be appropriate for an underlying protection, or might have been enough on the 26th when it was imposed, it is inadequate for the huge number of edits currently happening. I’ll leave the PC in place (I see it extends until the election) but add a few days of semi-protection on top of it. Then we’ll see what happens. --MelanieN (talk) 14:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Has it really been five years? Thank you, Gerda, I appreciate your support. --MelanieN (talk) 16:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Congrats again! :) Jim Carter 11:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Name

You wrote "Rvas" on RfA in your comment. Kindly correct it :) Rzvas (talk)

 Done Sorry. --MelanieN (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

My constructive edits termed as vandalism

Hi, I've been editing wikipedia without account for years and try to edit wikipedia constructively. Regarding the page -abad which you locked and termed my edits as vandalism. Did you even check the edit dispute? In the notable only list only big notable settlements should be added instead some small municipality and villages with poor preference has been added as a pov bias so I removed them but my edits were termed as vandalism and removed. I even went to great lengths to explain my changes in edit summary but so called registered users offhand dismissed it. So this is what wikipedia has come to where constructive edits of non registered users are termed useless and only registred privileged few can edit wikipedia "positively"? Shame on wikipedia freedom then. 2405:204:C088:7E7D:5F91:A708:99FA:6EE (talk) 09:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for your note. The problem was that you were removing a large amount of material, which you believed did not belong in the article, and you did it several additional times after other people restored the material. Since you have been editing here for years, you must be aware that the way to resolve that kind of disagreement is to use the article talk page - not to keep repeating your own edit and explain your reason in the edit summary. BTW this was not a matter of anonymous vs. registered editors, it was about the pattern of insisting on your own version rather than discussing. (Vandalism is simply one of the generic reasons for protection; I was not accusing you of deliberately trying to harm the encyclopedia. Your actions were actually more like edit warring but didn't technically meet that definition either. Bottom line was that I needed to stop it.) One other point: it is generally assumed here that when something has been in an article for a long time, it has consensus to be there. If someone believes it should be removed, and someone else thinks it should stay, the default is to keep it, until consensus to remove it is reached at the talk page. That is your responsibility: to make your argument at the talk page and convince enough other people so that removing it becomes consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

"It's True: Trump Is Lying More, and He's Doing It on Purpose"

Fascinating article.

This strategy fits perfectly with Bannon's: "The real opposition is the media. And the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with shit."

This tactic has been described by several RS as Trumpian gaslighting, IOW, just keep repeating it, even the debunked falsehoods. Pretend that truth doesn't exist.

References

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:01, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Woot Woot

Congratulations on making ME III MelanieN! One answer to your question is found in this section Toadstone#Allusions in literature. It is one of those Shakespeare lines that has stuck in my head since first reading it many (many, many) years ago in high school :-) Again congrats and enjoy your week. MarnetteD|Talk 22:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

LOL, I can't get away with anything around here, can I? 0;-D It turns out that my status is now that of a mythical gem that doesn't exist. Maybe I shoulda stayed at level II; at least platinum exists! Thanks for the laugh. --MelanieN (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

You are most welcome M. If you are going to use such delightful edit summaries ya gotta expect some of us to read em :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 22:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll be more careful next time... 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

No no!!! Things like that edit summary make everything else we put up with (wiki-dramhaz, etc) around here tolerable. Please continue on whenever the mood strikes you. Best wishes to you M. MarnetteD|Talk 22:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Spades

As per you comment at DJT: BTW in discussing racial issues, "call a spade a spade" is probably not the best idiom to use, I said the same a year ago in a discussion on a user’s talk page who had just used that idiom. Thought you might like to see the etymology as far as I can figure: [2] O3000 (talk) 00:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Luckily our article, in addition to explaining what the idiom means, adds that it is often avoided for fear of being confused with the racial slur. Explaining that is a real service to people who weren't familiar with the racial slur. I think you may be right about the playing cards. To me "call a spade a spade" is a perfectly useful idiom in contexts like "call this job what it is: janitor, not sanitary engineer" or "don't relabel it as a dried plum; it's a prune." That particular discussion was not the right context. But done in innocence, no harm, no foul. --MelanieN (talk) 04:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Naming convention within articles

Hi,

Is there a guideline on what to refer to (within an article) a person with if that person prefers a nickname or pseudonym? There's Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(people)#Nicknames,_pen_names,_stage_names,_cognomens, which is about article titles, and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Pseudonyms,_stage_names,_nicknames,_hypocorisms,_and_common_names, which appears to be about the lead section. An IP changed the name of a person on The Cutting Room Floor (website) to that person's preferred form, due to a request made on his user page on that site, but it was reverted as improper. Reading MOS:SURNAME, I'm getting the impression that we may actually be able to oblige him but I need to be sure. The reason I ask is that I can see this becoming a long-term edit war if this is not resolved soon. This might also be a special case as the article is not actually about the person. Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 00:13, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, this is not an area of expertise for me. But my first and most Wikipedia-basic question would be, what do reliable sources call him? In particular, what is the source for his full name? The first sentence that uses the full name it is cited to “The Cutting Room Floor: About” but that source does not give a full name, just his handle or “nom de game”. The source for the “according to Workman” sentence and the “In June 2016” sentence uses both the full name and handle at first mention, but then calls him by his handle in subsequent uses. It looks to me as if those are the only two sources for his name. They certainly show a preference toward calling him by the handle. And his request at the website page seems clear enough. There is just the one mention, in one reference, of his actual name, and I can see why he might prefer not to have us use it. My preference would be to call him only by the handle, unless we can find some policy that forbids it. It’s not like he is a public figure whose identity MUST be given. Stalkers, what do you think? --MelanieN (talk) 00:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I wrote the article, and have just had a look at three of the major sources. Edge calls him Workman. Kotaku calls him Xkeeper, and Tedium overwhelmingly refers to him as Xkeeper. That was why I said I think we might be able to oblige him. Adam9007 (talk) 00:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Not sure if it was appropriate (it was in the infobox), but I've just cited the full name. Adam9007 (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, you caught me right at dinner and then I'm going out, so I won't be much help for the next 12 hours or so. But it looks to me like the question is not urgent, but can be worked out. However it would be better to have the discussion on the article's talk page rather than here - so that there will be a record of the discussion/decision attached to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 00:52, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Would a RfC be overkill? It also so happens that I'm an editor there, so would it be inappropriate for me to invite him to the discussion? Adam9007 (talk) 00:56, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think an RfC would be overkill. And there is no need to invite him to the discussion. We already know what he thinks, addressed to us directly. Actually if you want to let him know we are discussing it, that might be a good idea. Let's go to the talk page and see if we can get a consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 03:44, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, you caught me right when I'm about to go to bed :). It'll have to wait until tomorrow I'm afraid :(. By the way, it's been reverted again. Adam9007 (talk) 04:16, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I've posted a note on the article talk page to start the discussion. See you in the morning. --MelanieN (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm on my mobile at the moment, and it'll probably actually be morning (my time) when I get around to replying to the thread :). Adam9007 (talk) 17:32, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Same here, bed time. We can also block all of his anonymous accounts if edit warring wont stop, but then he might create another one and it will go in circles. :(--Biografer (talk) 06:12, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

You're assuming the IPs were him. Maybe so, maybe not, but I'd hate to get into throwing blocks around either way; I think he is operating in what he believes to be good faith. If we do re-add his name and the removals start again, I'd rather protect the page. --MelanieN (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@Biografer: Judging by the edit summaries, it's not him, but of course who knows? Adam9007 (talk) 19:05, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@Adam9007: Even if its not "him" or his editors editing on his behalf or just a random "Joe", the anonym is edit warring and therefore violating the policy on it. The safest way would be to block all IPs that are or trying to impersonate him. He still can recreate it (if he uses multiple computers), but an admin can block those disruptive IPs up to a month (but ideally 72 hours max is enough).--Biografer (talk) 19:34, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

White genocide conspiracy theory

Hi, Melanie. I don't think it's a good idea to fully protect White genocide conspiracy theory because of one editor edit warring against strong consensus. That person can be blocked if they persist. They're at three reverts now, while nobody else has reverted more than once. Bishonen | talk 05:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC).

Well, I can see that you are right and I didn’t properly analyze the situation. I saw edit warring, wanted to stop it, and didn’t notice that it was one person doing all the warring. Looking at that person’s talk page now, I can see that they are a problem at many articles. Thanks for the correction. I will remove the full protection and let nature take its course with regard to that editor. --MelanieN (talk) 05:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Bishonen | talk 07:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC).

I would like to apologize too. I just looked at the page history and saw tons of reverts, and didn't see that it was just one user that was being problematic. I should've reported that user to the Edit warring noticeboard instead of requesting protection. funplussmart (talk) 16:34, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

funplussmart: No apology necessary. You saw a problem and moved to stop it; that's good Wikipedianship (is there such a word?), not bad. I should have analyzed the situation more closely as the admin taking action, but Bishonen straightened me out. We all have each others' backs here. --MelanieN (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay thank you. I'll just make sure I report the problem to a more appropriate place next time. funplussmart (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	For your work on Duncan D. Hunter. Bearian (talk) 13:51, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! That really is a team-built and team-maintained page. --MelanieN (talk) 15:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Trials of Paul Manafort

Hi Melanie, generally I'm against putting negatives, even if sourced, into articles. Don't you think it would make more sense to wait until there's news of something noteworthy happening rather than go through what hasn't (yet) happened?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Bbb23, what material are you referring to? --MelanieN (talk) 19:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

sentencing date.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Is that a negative? I just thought that was one of the things that people would naturally look for after a conviction - it is usually announced right at the trial. I can remove it if you want but I think that will leave people wondering (as I did) "when is the sentencing date?" --MelanieN (talk) 19:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

People wonder about a lot of things. When will the jury come back? What will the verdict be? What will Manafort do next? I don't think it merits inclusion to say it hasn't happened.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'll take it out. --MelanieN (talk) 20:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Melanie.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Open Access Publisher

Dear Melanie, I saw you recently edited the article of the open access publisher. There are a number of editors who add negative content (even from weak sources) while any positive content is removed. How can we get support in the community as it appears to be a "rat's nest"? ErskineCer (talk) 04:26, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 18:43, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Are you able to explain what six bullies could not?

Are you able to explain what six people who tried only to intimidate me could not?

• I said that a statement is libelous if it says that particular professors at respected universities are using the standard jargon of their fields only to create a false impression of legitimacy.
• I said a statement is libelous if it says that those professors do not publish in respected scientific journals when in fact they do.
• I said a statement is libelous if it says those professors do not collaborate with colleagues not belonging to a particular organization when in fact they do.

Frankly I am mystified as to why people say things like that are not libelous and why those who say so use only attempts at intimidation rather than argument. The intimidation and lack of argument are not what I expect of literate people. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else at that discussion. I was dismayed by the personal attacks directed at you, and I was equally dismayed by your suspicion that they must have some kind of agenda for disagreeing with you about the "libel". It was clear that there was consensus that those comments were not libelous (a consensus with which I agree), and it was clear that it would be in everyone's best interest to close the discussion. That's all I have to say. The issue is settled, time to move on. --MelanieN (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not altogether clear that it's settled, since I've reported it to Wikimedia's lawyers. (I don't have a shred of respect left for the Administrators' Noticeboard. It's just a forum for childish tantrums.) Michael Hardy (talk) 02:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The claims made regarding a "false impression of legitimacy" do seem somewhat problematic, but an editor's dislike of the term "evolutionary medicine" doesn't seem to rise to the level of libel. Regarding the other points, it seems clear to me that the comments are only referring to the research on this specific topic, not on their entire oeuvre of work. It isn't implying either of the statements you claim are libelous. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: What is the nature of your experience in scholarly publishing? I've appeared in Advances in Applied Mathematics in a 52-page paper (before the Elsevier boycott) and a number of shorter pieces in other journals, some of them well respected. I very much doubt that it is possible to neatly separate their "research on this particular topic" from their other work, and at any rate, I doubt you can have thought about this very much if you find any plausibility in the statement you just made. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

According to Google Scholar, Aaron Blaisdell has many published papers on rats and pigeons, in well-regarded journals such as Science (magazine). His only work relating to "Ancestral health" appears to be in "Journal of evolution and health", a publication he is affiliated with. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad, Alex Shih, DGG, and Doug Weller: Pinging, for an opinion, some long-experienced admins who were not involved in the discussion referenced here: Does the above comment from Michael Hardy ("I've reported it to Wikimedia's lawyers") constitute a legal threat? --MelanieN (talk) 03:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'd say that since he (allegedly) reported it to the Wikimedia attorneys, it is up to them to evaluate if this is a legal issue. Either way, the action has been taken (or not) and it's no longer a threat. Toddst1 (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I interpret it as a request for their opinion, not a legal threat. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 04:11, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN: It's not a threat; it's a report that this has already happened. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree. It's not a threat. It's also probably not something that they are likely to dea with. 04:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)

WP:NLT - 1st para - "It does not refer to any dispute-resolution process within Wikipedia." Also in the section Defamation - "A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat. " ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Hi User:MelanieN, Thank you for your valuable contribution to Wikipedia. Please let me know the link below whether it is a blogging platform and it could be used for the Wikipedia reference. Vox (website), an American news website run by Vox Media My inquiry is related with Trump-Kim summit Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:32, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the baklava! I'll reply to your question at your talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 14:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind and professional response. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)