User talk:MelanieN/Archive 53

Wachenröder

Restored article that was deleted. JP exclusive games from the 90's are mostly going to get covered in print magazines. I'm counting 8 full previews and reviews in print magazines that I can find now. Plus several online sources. Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Harizotoh9: Thanks for letting me know. I have no problem with this restoration, it looks as if you have plenty of sources. --MelanieN (talk) 19:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

It's not a shock that a JP only title would have a WP page with no sources. The people who make such content aren't really aware of WP policies, or how to format things. And it's not a shock that no one would contest a page for an obscure game. However, pretty much all the officially released game for major consoles are going to have sources all over the world, it's just a matter of finding them. Not every topic is gonna have modern web sources. I ask editors to be a bit more cautious when deleting pages or declaring that they're not notable. Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Robert Stewart (saxophonist)

[1] Things may be starting up again, if you're interested in keeping an eye. I got as far as "theologian" and thought "No." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert, Gråbergs Gråa Sång. I'll keep an eye on things. I believe you were right to revert the edit in its entirety. Clue as to what we are dealing with: that new lead sentence is identical to the lead from the original, now discredited versions of the article. I do remember this situation, and I did my best to befriend the subject (being from my hometown and all), but he was not reachable. My suggestions at this point: This is probably the same person, but I wouldn't bother to pursue an SPI case. Checkusers will not publicly connect an IP address with a registered address. Anyhow, although I am not a checkuser, I can tell that this IP is not technically similar to the IPs that were editing during 2017. If this anonymous editor persists in inserting his own version, the simplest solution would be semi-protection, and I will consider that if the problem continues. --MelanieN (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

BTW thanks for this link on your user page: "And proved the Philistines were almost certainly Canadian." --Youtube Best laugh I've had in days (even though I understood less than half of it). --MelanieN (talk) 18:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, MelanieN, my thoughts were very similar. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

All citations are in articles including "theologian." Robert Stewart is going "public" with this biased organization's purposeful attempt to downplay his contribution to the jazz idiom. Suing isn't worth the time, but he will not rest until justice is served. Thanks for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B05D:1896:1A18:7051:C91F:4009 (talk) 18:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. I’m sorry you are still unhappy about the state of the article. Unfortunately the sources you added are not acceptable, because they are not independent or are not Reliable Sources. (See WP:42. A Reliable Source is published information from a source which has editorial control and a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. An Independent Source is one which is basing its information on its own research, investigation, or knowledge - rather than simply repeating information from the subject themselves.) Anything sourced to www.professorrobertstewart.org is basically sourced to yourself - it amounts to “because I said so” - but as an encyclopedia we require independent sourcing. The same problem with Facebook pages, album liner notes, biographies from book covers or performance programs, or author information at Amazon. Our information has to come from a source like an independent article - not from you, or your biographer or publicist.

As for the lead sentence, it is supposed to list what you are MOST notable for, not everything you have done in a wide-ranging career. We’re not denying that you did these other things as well, and I hope they are included in the article text. But the lede sentence is supposed to name the MAIN thing that makes you famous.

He is most notable for his innovative / unique sound & his two major label records (In The Gutta) with Quincy Jones as executive producer (The Force).

One question: I notice that the some of the material you linked to refers to you as “Dr. Robert Stewart.” Do you have an advanced degree? We would like to include all of the information about your education, if it is reliably sourced somewhere. Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 19:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

He went to Cal Berkeley, but didn't finish. He began touring with bands. He used Dr. because organist Dr. Lonnie Smith told him he should. I'm a huge fan of both men.

There is a theoretical possibility you (User:Professorreason) could be unblocked, but that would IMO involve at the very least Wikipedia:Standard offer and you promising to follow the word and spirit of Wikipedia:Autobiography, and based on your editing I don't think that's likely. Still, stranger things has happened. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not Robert, but I will send him mail about it. He doesn't have time for this nowadays. Says he's teaching religion night & day.

Updates for you, Gråbergs: 1) JamesBWatson has blocked the IP that was editing the article, for block evasion. 2) The IP that is now editing my talk page (and JBW's) is somewhat similar to the IPs that edited the article in 2017. 3) User:EddieHugh has been evaluating the material that the IP wanted to add, rescuing and adding the sources that meet our criteria. Thank you, Eddie. --MelanieN (talk) 20:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. What are you guys opinion on using RS from here:[2]? We don't have to link them in the article, but we could use them, if they're good for anything. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

That's posted on his web page, but it appears to be from an independent source, JazzTimes. I think we could use anything factual from it. And we could probably use a quote from it as a review of his album Beautiful Love. For that matter, there are other reviews posted there that could be useful - including one from the Washington Post of his debut album In the Gutta. ("One of the year's most welcome surprises") --MelanieN (talk) 21:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussions about editing

This is a major edit to add all requested citations and clean up the article. I invoke "IAR" Ignore All Rules & ELOFFICIAL for the aforementioned objectives.

WP:ELREG A site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless the website itself is the topic of the article (see § Official links) or the link is part of an inline reference (see Wikipedia:Citing sources). Bibliographic citations should normally cite the most authoritative source for the publication (e.g., a copy of the newspaper article on the original newspaper's website rather than a copy on someone's blog)

WP:ELOFFICIAL An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following criteria: The linked content is *controlled by the subject* (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article. The linked content primarily covers the area for which the *subject of the article is notable.* Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the *subject says about itself.* These links are normally *exempt* from the links normally to be avoided, but they are not exempt from the restrictions on linking.

WIKIPEDIA HAS NO FIRM RULES WP:5P5 Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not *carved in stone;* their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires *making exceptions.* Be bold but not reckless in updating articles. And do not agonize over making mistakes: every past version of a page is saved, so mistakes can be easily corrected.

In light of the above, my recent edit to Robert Stewart (Saxophonist) was deemed "crappy" by an editor in the comments. All links that I've provided have the verifiable articles, posters, videos, etc., as factual evidence of what I wrote. Robert Stewart is the *official governor* of all sites provided. I added nothing but what was stated within the articles. There are many false / inaccurate claims by whoever wrote what's there now. The citations asked for were all fulfilled.

Stewart is most known for his two albums for Quincy Jones & his personal / unique sound which separates him from his peers. Nearly every articles relays this repeatedly. Not for "blood on the fields." He's not just a local player, but toured the world for decades under his own name. Links were provided.

Thanks for reading. Hope this can be resolved in-house. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B05D:1896:1A18:7051:C91F:4009 (talk) 01:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Regarding External Links: it is our usual practice to include the subject's personal website under External Links. Right now the article does contain a link to TheRobertStewartExperience, but my computer refuses to go there, because it says "Your connection is not private. Attackers might be trying to steal your information from www.therobertstewartexperience.com (for example, passwords, messages, or credit cards)" Can you provide us with a better link, one that will be accepted by the safety systems of computers? Are there additional sites you feel should be listed under External Links?

Regarding links for sourcing: You say "Robert Stewart is the *official governor* of all sites provided. " In fact that is a reason NOT to use those sites as references in the article. Personal sites of the article's subject can be used under External Links, but they cannot be used to verify information in the article. And as I explained above, sources must be independent, and things like posters and videos cannot be used as references.

I will take another look at the article to make sure the world touring is represented. (National touring is mentioned in several places.) I'm assuming Blood on the Fields gets highlighted because it won the Pulitzer Prize, a very unusual honor. --MelanieN (talk) 02:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

About the link-warning thing, I had that once last year Talk:Robert_Stewart_(saxophonist)#Browserwarning, it went away fairly quickly. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

And maybe you could clarify something. The Washington Post described In the Gutta as the debut album. But the article mentions two earlier albums, Judgement and Beautiful Love. Can you explain why the confusion? --MelanieN (talk) 02:33, 15 November 2018

AllaboutJazz.com and all musicians.com are reputable sources for all of his records. Quincy Jones is mentioned in several articles on therobertstewartexperience.com. I had no problem with the link.

Also, you said he is best known for his two albums for Quincy Jones. I don't find any mention of Quincy Jones in the article. Can you provide information here? Maybe we can add it. --MelanieN (talk) 02:33, 15 November 2018

The Facebook link has the liner notes with his name on it as executive producer. He owned the label & signed Robert. Other articles on his site relay this. Look at my version & those links to genuine news articles.

Article image in Google search below. Quincy is discussed:

https://www.google.com/search?tbs=sbi:AMhZZisLXuA_1Jc-J_1V98Icn2kZqfyBctPj7tKWcB20Ry3DDc6AhCpn5rJ8vS7h0HCrHCer5bZtA5rdFBUsA05rVOrJjFV1w-1sjnHiJJFBx5sEKow-MsdtmUNnhgIXcO5FyJqTctuftkoSusNcz6ZvcBt6zWY_1miuG9CF7KqJgVLKJsdPHdc1Dma6LmBJPL09ZMvmbwTwCpuWZXrss7g3CwBY98ErwWCSAamaKQCjS4M_19ny2OJLI8B3Hg_1Afb1slTfNZVClPx3HMJcQxntHCYi65hRArttBwaj4bbWDY-VJY11WLZ1XI2SeDX0bk_1wAn1YQUBvRfNgI-ricryXxUUbhHCG-QgdpLA

(Please don't comment in the middle of my comments, it makes it hard to tell who is talking.) I found a good source for world touring, a Mercury-News article, and added it to the article. The Marsalis tour information also mentions touring in Europe. What is the name of Quincy Jones's label? --MelanieN (talk) 03:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

From some research it looks like it is QWEST Records, which is already in the article. I have added Jones's name to the paragraph. --MelanieN (talk) 03:24, 15 November 2018 OTC)

Thanks so much! :-)

3 more entries, and he can live with it, for it's much better.

Dizzy Gillespie (many articles on his site plus book page on Facebook)

Donald Byrd (many articles on his site plus YouTube video evidence)

Pharoah Sanders' "protege"

He was his student and many articles say this plus allaboutjazz.com full bio on Robert Stewart.

Will tell him the good news. Thank you Melanie. God Bless You.

Glad to help. After all we are homies! I am about to log off for the night so I will look into these other things tomorrow. --MelanieN (talk) 03:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

OK, I added Dizzy Gillespie and Pharoah Sanders as teachers and mentors. All I could find about Donald Byrd is a youtube recording of Fancy Free.[3] Was there a closer connection? -- MelanieN (talk) 21:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC

Hi Melanie, Robert's first major gig was with Donald Byrd in 1988. But, Donald Byrd's name is in the very last paragraph of first article (up close personal):

http://therobertstewartexperience.com/reviews-interview.html

Someone must've removed Dizzy, for his name isn't there now. Robert was last musician to play with Dizzy, and it's in Oakland Tribune second paragraph, same link:

http://therobertstewartexperience.com/reviews-interview.html

Robert is okay with new article with these two highlights of his life added. Thanks again Melanie! This wouldn't have happened without you. Robert sends his love.

The Tribune article is good for Dizzy; I added it. I'm still looking for an independent source (i.e. not Robert himself talking) for Byrd. There is a YouTube recording of a rehearsal, but that's all I could find. He obviously wasn't part of the album Fancy Free; he was just a baby when it was released. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:10, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

8 article down the page working with Donald Byrd is relayed. First paragraph of The Saxophone Journal:

http://therobertstewartexperience.com/reviews-cd.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B02B:4C28:EE0F:6202:5F86:650E (talk) 02:03, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

So it does. However, it is not necessary that the article mentions every name a source mentions he has played with. The source may or may not be a WP:RS, I don't know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:06, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Many names have already been deleted & all albums on Robert's on Armageddon Records. He's okay with this concession. But, Donald Byrd is a major person in his history, and his name should certainly be included. Don't see what the problem is since it's actual fact in more than one article. Hope we can agree on this. Donald Byrd's name is in the very last paragraph of first article (up close personal):

http://therobertstewartexperience.com/reviews-interview.html

Lastly, his book should state published by "Smashwords," ASIN number is B072Q7ZBLL. Thanks. Link is below:

https://www.amazon.com/REAL-MIND-GOD-Comparative-Scriptural-ebook/dp/B072Q7ZBLL/ref=mp_s_a_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1542451377&sr=8-5&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=prof.+Robert+Stewarthttps://www.amazon.com/REAL-MIND-GOD-Comparative-Scriptural-ebook/dp/B072Q7ZBLL/ref=mp_s_a_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1542451377&sr=8-5&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=prof.+Robert+Stewart — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B02B:4C28:EE0F:6202:5F86:650E (talk) 11:03, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

About Donald Byrd: you have shown us multiple places where his name is mentioned, along with half a dozen other people in a list. I can’t find anything indicating that Byrd is “a major person in his history”. I have been searching for several days now, and I can’t find anything to indicate an important relationship. I can’t even find a published mention anywhere of them playing together. Without some evidence that there was a significant connection or relationship between them, we really can't single him out for a mention.

About the book: the product details at Amazon for the paperback say “Publisher: Independently published (June 10, 2017)“. [4] None of the links to the book mention Smashwords. That’s because Smashwords is not a publisher; it is “an e-book-distribution platform founded by Mark Coker for independent authors and publishers”. By any definition, this book is self-published.

I hope you (he) understand that we are not trying to be obstructionist, or to minimize his career in any way. We have included everything that we can find evidence for. As an encyclopedia, we do have to have a source for the things we say, and we have searched diligently to find sources. We have unfortunately come up short on Donald Byrd - unable to prove that he is anything more than a name in a list. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I relayed the above to Robert. The Monterey County Hearald says he "played with Donald Byrd" (and other names). That's a credible news source. So, he only wants what's written there; nothing more. Second article from the top at this link

http://therobertstewartexperience.com/reviews-concert.html

Thanks for all of your help again. He is grateful as well.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B04D:CFF7:A047:4BFF:99A0:8B04 (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Lastly, Robert didn't sit in with Dizzy. Someone keeps altering what you write. He worked with Dizzy. The words are "backed up Dizzy" or performed with. SAT in is inaccurate. If this could be reverted back to

I'm OK with adding Byrd as part of a list. As for Dizzy I have restored the exact wording of the source. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

"Can't argue with that." You're new here, aren't you? ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

LOL! I guess so; I've only been here since 2006. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Can't argue with that!!! Well... what Stewart himself says in that source is "I thought no way, Diz don't let nobody sit in with him. But the older musicians really like to put kids to the test sometimes, so he told me to go ahead and get on the stage." So, Stewart said "sit in with", which The Oakland Tribune writer presumably then re-wrote in the intro as "backed up" (what does that mean?). So yes, technically the article now reports what the source states, but it did before with "sat in with", which is even what Stewart (1996 version) reported (obviously in contrast with Stewart version 2017–18). That I find funny! EddieHugh (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Stewart said that; he also said he "wound up playing with him all night". So I originally had “played with,” which comes from Stewart in the interview. You changed it to “sat in with”, also from the interview (although not directly talking about what happened that night, more about his expectation of what Dizzy would allow). I have now changed it to what the reporter said, because, hey, you can’t argue with that! 0;-D All three versions come from the Tribune source. If we have a disagreement here and need a way to decide what to say, we should probably go with what the reporter said in the Tribune's voice. We don't always accept interviews as sources, because they are not independent. Personally I liked "played with" as a simple expression of what happened, no hair-splitting about exactly what role he played. (After all, if you sit in with someone, you are playing with them, aren't you?) -- MelanieN (talk) 01:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm content with how it is now ("backed up"). "played with" in a musician's biography implies that it was a frequent or regular occurrence, and that all of the named were part of a hired group (unless special circumstances are mentioned). Using "played with" for a one-off and not stating that is therefore exaggerating. Turning up at someone else's gig and asking to join in – Stewart with Gillespie – is more or less the definition of "sit in" in the jazz world. EddieHugh (talk) 14:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Melanie. Robert and I are grateful to you, and the others involved, for the great improvements within the article. Thanks again :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B04D:CFF7:A047:4BFF:99A0:8B04 (talk) 15:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Glad we got it all worked out. Please tell Robert, congratulations on your distinguished musical career, and I wish you success in your "second career" as an author and teacher. MelanieN alt (talk) 13:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

2006 toolbar

Hey, MelanieN! I've actually already completed the script; the thread structure of that VPT thread has gotten rather confusing. You can install it by adding the following line to your common.js page in a new line (creating the page if necessary):

mw.loader.load("/w/index.php?title=User:Writ_Keeper/Scripts/legacyToolbar.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript");

The ref button is a separate script, and can be installed in a similar fashion by adding this line after the other one:

mw.loader.load("/w/index.php?title=User:Writ_Keeper/Scripts/legacyRefToolbar.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript");

(You need the first line for the second line to work.) I'm going to try to get it into the gadgets section soon hopefully, and I'll make a new VPT thread for that when it happens, but this should work in the meantime. :) Let me know if you have any trouble with it. HTH, Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the instructions, Writ Keeper. I copied this into my common.js page, User:MelanieN/common.js, and I logged out of Chrome and back in a couple of times, but it isn't working. Can you take a look at my page and see what I did wrong? I thought it might matter if I set "Enable the editing toolbar - This is sometimes called the '2010 wikitext editor' " in my preferences, so I tried it both ways, enabled and not, and the only difference is that either I see the new toolbar or I don't see any toolbar at all. I use Chrome on a Mac, if that matters. Thanks for any help, and sorry to be to tech-clueless! MelanieN (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Haha, no worries! I should have fixed the problem; it's just that I didn't mean for the <code></code> tags to be included; I can fairly call that unclear instructions on my part. I've removed them, and everything else looks good, so let me know if it works! (Also, probably better to keep the 2010 wikitext editor preference off; I'm not sure whether it'll conflict or not.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Hooray, now it is there! Thank you very much, Writ Keeper. I so much appreciate people like you, that know how to make the magic happen. Wikipedia would be much harder to use without you folks. -- MelanieN, clueless as usual; (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

About the toolbar improvement

Hi, User:Whatamidoing (WMF). Thanks for your comment at the Village Pump (Technical). I’m replying here so as not to clutter up that page with a personal discussion. I don’t know what you are talking about; I have never used a toolbar where the citation tool was “an empty box into which you can type whatever wikitext you want.” I use toolbars where you fill in the blanks - URL, Title, etc. - and it creates the reference. Up to now I have used the toolbar that Writ Keeper recreated. That resulted in edits like this. Recently that toolbar disappeared and was replaced by the one I am calling the new toolbar. That’s what I was using for edits like this. I am now using Writ Keeper’s restoration of my previous toolbar, which again gives me edits like this. Among the reasons I prefer the old version; it allows me to create the reference and then choose where to insert it into the text; with the new version I had to make sure the cursor was in the proper location before creating the reference. Thanks for your links to “local citation gadget” and the beta cluster, but they might as well be in Chinese; I don’t know how to code or to read code, so your beta tests are not reaching ordinary users like me.

Anyhow, I apologize for getting snide. I know you do the best you can and you are dealing with issues that I am not aware of, and my frustration with “improvements” is not limited to Wikipedia. From my earliest days online (using the old Prodigy service before there was an Internet) I learned to respond to the word “upgrade” with “uh-oh”, and nothing in the ensuing years has changed my opinion. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

It's okay. This was a disruptive change for some high-volume editors, and it took a surprisingly long time for this community to decide to adapt the gadget, so of course people are upset. I'm actually surprised at how few people here were talking about this change.

I am not what they call an early adopter in the software industry, either. Even if an "upgrade" actually constitutes an improvement overall, it's not always good for me. The best thing that I can say about my most recent "upgrade" experience on my laptop is that very little visibly changed. I've got a lot of sympathy for an old prof in the late 1980s, who refused to have his Rainbow 100 desktop system changed for years and years. His story was that what he had worked for now, and spending his time learning the new system wasn't worth it. He did eventually have to change (the lifespan of his floppy disks turned out to be shorter than his own), but in some sense, from his perspective and priorities, it was definitely a "change" and not an "upgrade". The computer was "seconds" faster, but he spent "hours" learning the new system.

I don't consider this particular change an "upgrade" in any sense. It's a sensible decision, when you look at the big picture, but it's not an "improvement" to the software.

BTW, it looks like you've got "smart" punctuation in your comment. (There's yet another example of a non-upgrade to computing that has caused quite a lot of problems.) Someone else reported having that problem just the other day. It makes typing wikitext difficult. He posted the solution. If you're not doing it on purpose, ping me, and I'll find the thread again. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. You are very observant, but I don't actually have "smart" punctuation enabled. I tend to type messages like that offline and then copy-paste them in. The curly quotes come from my word processing program. As you can see, when I type directly into Wikipedia it comes out as it should. ("Dumb" punctuation? 0;-D) -- MelanieN (talk) 22:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I've spent too much time tracking down problems with "smart" punctuation on wiki to not notice it.  ;-) In my experience, if you see it in an article, either it is screwing up the formatting, or it's a fairly reliable telltale for a copy-paste copyvio problem.

You aren't the only experienced editor who writes offline and pastes here, even for talk pages. We're about due for yet another round of Why Is Talking To People On Wiki So Hard, so I'll ask: What would work better for you? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 06:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't write offline because of any problem I have with writing at Wikipedia (except maybe the possibility of an edit conflict). It just gives me the chance to compose my thoughts at leisure, maybe go away from it and come back to it. For an extended talk page comment I am more likely to draft it offline; for a short one like this I type it directly. For new or extended article content I compose here on Wikipedia using my sandbox or my practice page, so that the formatting comes out right. It's just a habit or preference of mine; it's not something that I think needs fixing. MelanieN alt (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, COI-musician-whisperer

Based on your previous success, I thought it couldn't hurt to try to get Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Simon_Hussey on your radar. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'll take a look at it in a day or two. I'll be mostly offline for the next two days; we have this holiday here called Thanksgiving. Unfortunately, my I'm-from-Oakland-too-so-we're-homies situation was kind of a one-off, and could not be applied in this case. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Happy turkey-day! And no, I gathered that mr Hussey was located slightly west of you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Trump article

Wouldn't it be best to fully protect the trump article for a while? Seems whoever is behind it has proven that they can get their hands on accounts. I also noticed that PC is on with EC, doesnt EC kind of cancel out PC? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:19, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

We're discussing this at Talk:Donald Trump. I gave it full protection when the attacks were happening, but for only three hours, since we try to avoid fully protecting a highly edited article like that. It is now back to Extended Confirmed protection, but I and others are watching the page closely, and we will slap the lock back on immediately if needed. The reason for the PC (I thought that was kind of strange too but there's a reason) is to provide continuous protection, at least semi-protection, to cover any time lapse between the expiration of the full protection and the re-installation of EC protection. PC is the only kind of protection that can persist; when you put in semi- or full protection it wipes out the previous semi- or full, and when the protection expires it has to be manually restored or replaced. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:29, 24 November 2018 (UTC)