User talk:MelanieN

My press

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

Oh, and again here (at the bottom). Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

ANI Notification (historic)

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)[reply]

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

AN Notification (historic)

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)[reply]

Recent RfCs on US city names

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.

November-December 2019: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#US-centric USPLACE continues to cause confusion

Lessons from the pandemic

Stolen from a friend's facebook page:

If nothing else, the coronavirus teaches us that ... ummm ... hang on ... shoot, I really thought I had one there for a minute!

IMO that kind of sums up the situation perfectly. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EPA? Might want to check your notes. starship .paint (talk) 07:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
EPA? I don't get it. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot? Oops. starship .paint (talk) 01:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Upgrade Protection for Ariana Grande

Hi, please make the Ariana Grande page fully protected permanently due to excessive vandalism from multiple users. One account has already been blocked from editing but they are multiple others that keep vandalizing. Please make sure the page protection is raised Randomperson7893457 (talk) 11:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, User:Randomperson7893457. You have already made this same request at WP:RFPP, where it was declined. What I see: there is a content dispute at that page, with edit warring, and two of the disputants have been blocked for edit warring. What I don’t see, up to now: discussion at the article's talk page. An administrator has started a discussion thread at the talk page, and that is where you need to discuss what should and should not be in the article. Please share your opinion there; that is the system for determining consensus. And do NOT accuse the people who disagree with you of vandalism. Having a different opinion about what should be in the article is not vandalism. As for full protection, that is sometimes used for a day or two if the edit warring cannot be stopped, but never permanently. Think about it: permanent full protection would mean that nobody but administrators could ever edit that article again. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please block

Please block PixelNow (talk · contribs), this guy made more edits today to various city articles despite all the warnings he's received for the past few months. Obviously lacks clue and the competence to edit here. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 22:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks for the heads-up. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please put on your administrator's hat

Please consider the following:

An editor creates a new article. Perhaps it is titled "Science policy of the Donald Trump administration". (This new article title seems to comply with WP:NPOVTITLE.)
As a caution, you (as an administrator) tag the article talk page with {{American politics AE}}. (The tag is appropriate because most WP editors realize that Trump-related articles are subject to disruptive editing. You are setting the stage to hammer editors who ....)
Still, another editor comes along and moves/changes the article title to "Trump administration political interference with science agencies".

What would you do? – S. Rich (talk) 06:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No comment. This question is hypothetical and bears no relation to reality. As for the article where you and I disagree: You have created your proposal for a Requested Move; that's perfectly appropriate, let's see where it goes. I obviously won't be taking any administrative actions with regard to that proposal or that article, per WP:INVOLVED. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW you should remove the question mark from your suggested rename posted in the move request. I don't think you are actually proposing to call the article Science policy of the Donald Trump administration? but that's what it says. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The question mark is there per WP:RM#CM because I'm suggesting more than one name. But I see I've misread the guidance. I'll cleanup the request. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 17:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

S. Rich OK, good. Don't forget that you are allowed to express an opinion yourself - especially now that you are not recommending a particular title in the RM heading. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Protection for 2020 Atlantic hurricane season

Hi there MelanieN, and I appreciate the protection you give to pages. However, I disagree with the protection of 2020 Atlantic hurricane season. The actual page that parties have been edit-warring about was Hurricane Delta, though both parties have backed off since this morning. The revert that Drdpw made was reverting vandalism. Please consider lowering the level of protection of extended-confirmed or semi protection. Thanks! ~ Destroyeraa🌀 23:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, User:Destroyeraa, and thanks for your note. Yes, they were arguing about Hurricane Delta, but they were doing it on the hurricane season page. They did mostly move their argument to the talk page when they began to approach 3RR. And yes, I know that edit by Drdpw was reverting an edit by a now-blocked user. The problem there is the arguing over which image to use. (Maybe they could just agree to use both?) I do hate to full-protect an article that needs such constant updating. But it's only for 24 hours, maybe they can reach agreement in that time. Other than the edit warring I wasn't inclined to protect the article at all; I saw IPs doing constructive editing just as much or more than problem editing. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. In storm infoboxes, there can only be one paragraph, and since this storm is very erratic and had multiple images of peak intensity, there was (understandably) arguing over which image to use. I will contact you or another admin when there is clear consensus for one image. Thanks. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 23:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with full protection. I say we partially block the editors from the article for 24 hours instead. 67.85.37.186 (talk) 00:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty standard to protect pages that are the subject of an edit war. The protection level must be set according to the editing privileges of those involved, which in this case includes extended confirmed editors. In regard to the active season, it's not an urgent matter, as there are no storms currently active and probably won't be for at least several days. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It does. Damage estimates could come in for Gamma and Delta, etc. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 12:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, the block period ends in less than 12 hours. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 13:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still partial blocks would be more appropriate. 67.85.37.186 (talk) 13:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Part of my philosophy (see User:MelanieN/Page protection) is that in cases of edit warring it is often better to full-protect the page rather than to block the warriors. The edit warriors are often long term editors, proceeding in what they believe to be good faith, who just need a reminder about WP:EW. Or there might be more people on one side than the other, which could result in my blocking only one side of the dispute. As an administrator I am not supposed to take sides in the dispute, which I might inadvertently do, by blocking some people and not others, or by imposing a level of protection which screens out newer editors while leaving the field clear for longer term editors. Hence, short term full protection. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not a full block. This is a short term block from that article. Partial blocks. List of partial blocks. I think partial blocks are best because then other people can edit and the users blocked can still edit other articles. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know what partial blocks are. My philosophy, and my reasoning above, still stand. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the problem is this. By fully protecting an article, you lock it from all of us. By partial blocking the users in dispute, you lock it from them, but other users can still edit. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 19:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's time to stop arguing about partial and full blocks or protection. It's futile, since the protection expires in five hours. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 21:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. And the remaining time would be much better spent discussing the content at the article talk page. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

Melanie why protect accounts that are clearly representing misrepresentations and fraud?

If you care about facts and promoting them then do your research before you act all high and mighty and change peoples edits! Black lives matter and your part of the problem! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B06A:B96F:2C9D:8EE1:C66E:5581 (talk) 21:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. If I knew what you are talking about, I could reply. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of Marques Brownlee

Hello, I noticed that you have indefinitely semi-protected Marques Brownlee a few months ago on the 29 May 2020 and I am proposing the page protection should instead be moved down to pending changes protection or maybe back down to unprotected after an expiry date considering the lack of edits on the page the current protection could reduce possible constructive edits from ip's in the future. Thanks, Terasail ^[Talk] 01:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, User:Terasail, and thanks for the suggestion. As of last May this article had been under near-constant vandalism and possible sock puppetry, and had been short-term protected many, many times. But you are correct that the volume of editing has greatly decreased in the last 6 months, so I am willing to give pending change protection a try. -- MelanieN (talk) 08:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask

Will you be a comforting shoulder to cry on?] Anyway, Gem is taking a break - but the dramatic switch in topcs weirded me out and so I went mining his contributions to see if this is a regular pattern or some spontaneous conversion. Unsurprisingly its fundamentally obvious the user struggles to express himself in English, and in fact just wholesale misunderstands words or applies them to the wrong situation. I am not sure what to recommend for him to get help or at least limit his more disruptive behaviour when he is apparently incapable or unwilling to read the required sources. Koncorde (talk) 16:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be much help, I'm afraid. I happened across that discussion and felt inspired to respond to just one of the many allegations that were being made; I don't intend to follow up. If Gem has left the area that will be a great relief to everybody IMO; they appear to be one of those people who you can't call a troll because they stick to the subject, but who can discuss and argue endlessly until they frustrate or exhaust everybody else. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping there was some kind of mentor system for non-native speakers. I think he's unfortunately going to go on everyones ignore list then. Ta. Koncorde (talk) 17:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michio Suzuki

You protected Michio Suzuki (inventor) a few months back; the same IP is back it seems. If I am in the wrong place apologies. Best, Mr.choppers | :✎ 17:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.choppers: Right you are. Same IP range, same unexplained edit. I gave it two months this time. Thanks for the alert. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't know if it's because of the ip, but there are now articles online listing both birthdates... Sometimes it is hard to avoid the WP effect on other sources - or perhaps it is some anomaly with the Japanese calendars? Mr.choppers | ✎ 19:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, here is the City of Hamamatsu listing it as the 18th. That should settle things. Mr.choppers | ✎ 19:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you put this evidence on the article talk page so you can point to it in the future. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editors

Hello MelanieN, if you remember I had requested for protection of 2020–21 I-League because of persistent unsourced cotent addition by some newly registered users, which you had given final warnings to. But guess what they continued their same editing behaviour of adding the unsourced contents, and not only in this article, but multiple articles. I think actions can be taken now, because either they are incompetent to understand guidelines or simply ignoring. It's frustrating now to correct, undo or even check everytime they add something. (Akbar Gazi and Messi Khar are those users) Drat8sub (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the alert. I gave them both partial blocks from that article only. I didn't see current disruptive editing at other articles. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I hope now they may care to take guidelines seriously. Regarding other articles, one of the editor Akbar Gazi is doing that at Mohammedan SC (Kolkata) and BLP vio at Mohammed Fatau. Drat8sub (talk) 20:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that - but I also saw that their edits at those articles are not getting reverted, so I took that as evidence that their editing there is constructive or at least not problematic. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Anyway, I think the partial block will surely work. Drat8sub (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If they don't get the message, it can be extended to a full block. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you again, but I don't get this, if they were blocked from editing the article, how come they edited it today. Messi Khar edited the article today, that too unsourced. I'm confused about it but one thing is clear, the user is incompetent to edit wikipedia. Drat8sub (talk) 21:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC) I think they don't know that they have a talk page and they don't know how to see notification or they are totally ignoring, in both way problematic. Drat8sub (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Huh! Well, I’m baffled. I know I did it, but it does not show up in my logs or theirs.

Update: I just tried again, and again it did not register in the logs. It must be some kind of glitch with Twinkle. I will try it manually.

Update: OK, that worked; now Messi Khar appears to be partial-blocked. I may let Akbar slide since he has been doing constructive editing elsewhere. But let me know if he hits 2020–21 I-League again. Thanks for letting me know about this. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phew!! ok fine. I will let you know if they pursue anything like that. Drat8sub (talk) 08:53, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, sorry MelanieN, Akbar now removed contents from the article without explanation (players who are not announced by club that their contracts are terminated). He did that before while adding names. Drat8sub (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. He is now blocked from that article as well. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).

Administrator changes

John M Wolfson

Bduke • Nilfanion • Philosopher • Rspeer • Yunshui

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

TonyBallioni

CheckUser changes

EdJohnston • Oshwah • Yamla

Yunshui

Oversight changes

Anarchyte

Yunshui

Guideline and policy news

Community sanctions now authorize administrators to place under indefinite semiprotection any article on a beauty pageant, or biography of a person known as a beauty pageant contestant, which has been edited by a sockpuppet account or logged-out sockpuppet, to be logged at WP:GS/PAGEANT.

Technical news

Sysops will once again be able to view the deleted history of JS/CSS pages; this was restricted to interface administrators when that group was introduced.
Twinkle's block module now includes the ability to note the specific case when applying a discretionary sanctions block and/or template.
Sysops will be able to use Special:CreateLocalAccount to create a local account for a global user that is prevented from auto-creation locally (such as by a filter or range block). Administrators that are not sure if such a creation is appropriate should contact a checkuser.

Arbitration

The 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections process has begun. Eligible editors will be able to nominate themselves as candidates from November 8 through November 17. The voting period will run from November 23 through December 6.
The Anti-harassment RfC has concluded with a summary of the feedback provided.

Miscellaneous

A reminder that standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. (American Politics 2 Arbitration case).

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weather

You warned an editor, a long time one about editing in an incorrect and negative manner. I and another editor seem to have run up against a few editors who feel they are a. competent. b. emboldened. c. free to close a topic on a talk page which is meant to further discussion not shut it down. d. be disruptive and "throw weight" e. collude with each other in a nonsensical form. and f. once in a while do something which is constructive. Could you do something about it? I see that articles about weather have had this problem before, thank you. Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 00:12, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotecting Confetti (Little Mix album)

Hi MelanieN. Would you be able to unprotect Confetti (Little Mix album)? I have asked for an admin to move the draft to mainspace, but this has not been done. The draft article (Draft:Confetti (Little Mix album)) is ready to be accepted and moved over to the mainspace as the album has been released, and there are numerous album reviews and enough sources to pass WP:NALBUMS. Thanks. Ss112 16:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ss2012. If you feel the draft is ready now, you should resubmit it, using the "Finished drafting? Submit for review!" button. If a reviewer accepts it this time, they will move your draft to that title (or get help if they aren't able to do it themselves). What you should NOT do is try to paste it into the existing redirect, as another user did several times before I protected it. Some cautions: do NOT resubmit it until you have taken the advice of previous reviewers: "Sourcing for the tour needs to come from external news sources. This is still missing album reviews / previews." "Do not resubmit until after it has detailed album reviews and charting." "If this draft is resubmitted again prior to release, negative action may be taken." Your draft says "The album was released on 6 November 2020" which is tomorrow so it is inaccurate to say "was" released. Bottom line: I advise that you not resubmit it for review until after it has actually been released and gotten a few reviews.-- MelanieN (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Actually I see that User:Doggy54321 has already resubmitted it, yesterday. With any luck, a little time will pass before the reviewer gets to it; hopefully by that time you will have been able to add a few reviews. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Melanie. It’s Doggy54321. The album has been released in multiple territories, hence the reviews and the "Composition" section, as well as the past tense pronouns. The album has also met all the criteria that is stated in the declining boxes at the top of the article. I also submitted the draft about half an hour ago

. If you could actually delete the article, that would be better as my friend User:DarkGlow has offered to accept the draft (being NPOV, of course) because they think it is notable and deserves to be in the mainspace, which I agree with. They aren’t a page mover, though, so they can’t move the page. If you could delete the page instead, that would be great. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 18:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Doggy. I am not going to interfere in the review process. That's not my department. 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As someone in the "review department", it would not be interfering, it would be helping me to review the draft much more efficiently. – DarkGlow (✉) 19:19, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieN, nobody is asking you to "interfere in the review process". Just to unprotect (or delete, as Doggy54321 suggested) the target article Confetti (Little Mix album) so the draft can be approved by another user, then moved by them, not you. That's not you interfering with the review of the draft whatsoever. Also, in your initial response to your message, perhaps it wasn't your intention, but you got several things wrong. My username is Ss112, not Ss2012. I've been a registered editor on Wikipedia since 2006—I know you wouldn't know that, but I do know how to submit a draft if that's what I were to wanting to do. I wasn't asking for advice on how to submit the draft. The draft is not mine; I did not write it nor contribute substantially to it. A look at the edit history would show you this. Sorry if this sounds rude and standoffish, but I don't need to be treated like a newbie on how to submit a draft. I asked if you could unprotect the article in question, which you seem to not remember that you protected so that only admins can edit it. That's all we're asking here. Also, maybe it isn't November 6 where you live, but it already is in some countries in the world, like in Australia and New Zealand. Wikipedia isn't (at least entirely) written from a US time zone point of view. Once an album is released in some parts of the world where it is already such a date, articles can be updated to say they have been released. Finally, the album does have reviews. They're in the album ratings template just below the infobox, which you can see by visiting Draft:Confetti (Little Mix album). Just clarifying. Thanks. Ss112 19:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having had this brought to my attention by DarkGlow, I agree that unprotecting the page will allow the AfC process to continue and have gone ahead and done so. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:19, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: Thank you! There's still the issue of moving the draft over, as I do not have page mover rights (I did apply recently but was denied). – DarkGlow (✉) 21:23, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill and DarkGlow: Regular page movers aren't able to move the page at the moment either, as the page still has admin access required to move it. Can this protection be removed? Ss112 21:34, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ss112, it should have been unprotected as of my prior message, but at any rate I've gone ahead and move it to mainspace per your request. It still needs the standard post-AfC cleanup. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:38, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you all have worked this out. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Activist and personal attacks

MelanieN, would you please review Activist's recent behaviors. I recently removed an edit here [[3]] as UNDUE. Activist reverted the edit with an edit comment "Undid Springee's latest whitewashing"[[4]]. They followed this with similar comments on the article talk page "This is well sourced, notable material that Springee has removed. He does this regularly, whitewashing articles about right-wing political figures, so this is no surprise."[[5]]. The editor has been previously warned about such behavior [[6]], and your own warning here [[7]] (I think the section header is broken). I think the accusations of bad faith have gone too far. Would you please offer a suggest for handling this? Springee (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think Activist is right (though they might have worded that better), and your removal appears to me to be part of a pattern that looks like whitewashing. Maybe that's not your motivation, but that appears to be the effect of many of your edits. Without looking at your edits, we can guess the likely bias. If it weren't properly sourced, you'd have at least one policy leg to stand on, but here you don't. It just smacks of misusing UNDUE weight as an excuse, and I see UNDUE being misused so much by so many that I almost wish we deprecated it, and I only rarely refer to it, and only for obvious cases. That's my impression. I have no intention of making a case out of this, but you should know that impressions are out there, and I doubt that Activist is the only one with eyes. I certainly have my own biases, but I'm very careful with properly-sourced content. It appears that the deleted content has been restored and backed up with more RS. -- Valjean (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no. We can debate if this material is DUE. I don't think it is and I think it smacks of RECENT to run around and add such content when the total picture of what did or did not happen is not clear. I removed the content as UNDUE and RECENT. Is this really going to be what we will want in the article 10 years from now? Regardless, that doesn't matter. Others disagreed and restored it with additional sourcing which does at least help address UNDUE (if not RECENT). All that is fine and part of the editorial process. Accusing editors of "whitewashing" after prior warnings is not supposed to be part of the process. Activist is welcome to dispute my reasons on the talk page but this is far from the first time they have been warned about this sort of personal attack. That is the part that needs to stop. Springee (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sorry. Yes. You've been deleting material that refers to Schlapp's behavior 20 years ago, or maybe you're Methusala, and so it's recent to you. I just restored a removed Wikilink to the Brooks Brothers Riot. Activist (talk) 16:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please be clear when making accusations against me. It reads like you are accusing me of removing a link to the Brooks Brothers Riot. That appears to be recently added material [[8]] suspiciously added by a new editor with one edit. They didn't include a link when first added so why would you suggest someone removed it? The name calling just illustrates my concern. We don't have to agree but CIVIL is policy. Incidentally, why would you thank me for the Schlapp edit if you wanted to revert it?[[9]] Springee (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're inferring I'm involved in sockpuppetry, Springee? I'm afraid not. Melanie can probably check the IP for the User who left that edit. I'd assumed it was a shard of prior edits that you'd removed before, and the Brooks Brothers Riot didn't have a Wikilink. You'll notice that the edit was not well written, used the British spelling for the word "organize" (organise), and MelanieN can probably check the IP address for that editor, which would give her a location for it. By the way, CFredkin was finally blocked for sockpuppetry, and not the obvious COI and paid editing he was doing. Activist (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What? Where did I accuse you of being a sock? Since you are accusing me of removing the BB Riot link can you show where it was first added? I have no idea who CFredkin is. I don't see any CFredkin edits on the Schlapp page going back to mid 2015[[10]]. Honestly many of your accusations are hard to follow. For example here you say I've been "Wikistalking [you] for years"[[11]]. Did we have any interactions prior to March of this year? Springee (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing like expressing concern about questionable behavior only to be met with more of the same right here on an admin's TP, and without any diffs to support their aspersions against Springee. It goes beyond the pale. I can understand why Americans are a little edgy but it doesn't excuse PAs and incivility on WP. Springee, you did the right thing so let MelanieN handle it now. Atsme 💬 📧 18:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Activist, you were warned against casting aspersions against other people as long ago as 2017, when you accused User:Niteshift36 of COI.[12] I see you are still at it. You know that accusing other editors of wrongdoing is not allowed here, except in a formal setting such as AN or ANI, with evidence. If you feel that User:Springee is not editing in a neutral manner, or is wikistalking you, you could report them to ANI; maybe User:Valjean would support you. But I don’t recommend it unless you have a lot stronger evidence; your accusations would probably boomerang. What you must NOT do is keep accusing them of such things in edit summaries, or on article talk pages (where the rule is: discuss the content, not other editors). BTW Springee did not accuse you of sockpuppetry, and no, I can’t check IP addresses - I am not a checkuser. Activist, I will put a formal warning on your page about casting aspersions, and that will be the end of my involvement, unless people bring me evidence that you are still accusing Springee or other people inappropriately. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I could fill a page with his repeated allegations of COI, without evidence, that he has continually refused to take to ANI. Maybe it'll actually sink in this time. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had warned him about this myself, two years ago. I just gave him a final warning. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieN, Activist is continuing with inappropriate personal attacks/inappropriate comments [[13]] [[14]] (You are aware of this recent one [[15]]) [[16]] [[17]] [[18]]. Activist is not a new editor and should no longer be under the illusion that such comments are acceptable on an article talk page. Looking at their talk page it's clear this inability to accept criticism of their edits extends back to long before I cross their path. Springee (talk) 06:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent error with new subsection heading

Re this, I don't think the !votes that followed the "Comment" referred to the comment, but rather to your original proposal. The only thing that clearly applies to the comment is the "Yes" from user JohndanR. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right, Mandruss. I have fixed it. Thanks for the nudge. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fix. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

There was a recent discussion on Talk:Hurricane Eta page whether or not something should be included on the Hurricane Eta page and when I voiced my opinion on the matter, I was personally attacked. This is the third or fourth time I've been personally attacked in the past two weeks, with the others being on the Talk:Hurricane Zeta and my own talk page. I let them go at first since they were new editors and other editors helped me, but this last one was by an administrator, who also claimed that I "didn't know how to debate," which I find HIGHLY offensive. Can this please be looked into?

Thanks in advance! ChessEric (talk · contribs) 04:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of what I wrote there could be construed as a personal attack. Maybe I was being harsh with the debate references, but it seems that if anything, ChessEric is the one who is being unreasonable here. I'm not even an administrator. If there is a civility problem here, if anything, it'd be the WP:SHOUT'ing of ChessEric in that discussion, a comment in which they did not even try to rebut my latest arguments. It is also rude for User:ChessEric to come here without the courtesy of pinging me. For my part, I'm disengaging from discussions with them on the talk page; I will for now only be replying to others.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, User:ChessEric. I took a look at the most recent posts on the Hurricane Eta article. I see you and User:Jasper Deng disagreeing. I see him calling you “wrong, just wrong” and “dead wrong”, and accusing you of “not even bothering to do research about KAC”. You immediately accused him of “criticizing or attacking” you. He got a little nasty or sarcastic with “I'm sorry that it's unreasonable to expect you to satisfy the burden of proof for your claims.” You replied “that was just disrespectul”, adding that you “will not stand for personal attacks” and would report it. So I guess your note here is your report of “personal attacks”. IMO that’s an exaggeration. Jasper got a little heated but basically kept the discussion about content - as it is supposed to be. I am hereby reminding Jasper to discuss content, not other editors; you can disagree and cite your evidence without unnecessary language like “dead wrong”. You are planning to disengage with ChessEric and that may be a good idea, at least in the short term. I am hereby suggesting to you, ChessEric, that you be less thin-skinned; don’t be so eager to escalate from “that was disrespectful” to a federal case. Don't be so quick to take offense. Stay focused on the content issues and on supporting your opinions with evidence.

I see there has been a lot of strong disagreement at recent hurricane articles and user talk pages, involving more than just the two of you - people hurling accusations at each other and deleting each other’s posts. I encourage everyone to become a little less combative, less focused on how other people are behaving. Focus on the content and the evidence, and you’ll be fine. Remember why we are all here: to build an encyclopedia. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries

I've already been given a 48 hours vacation from the Trump article. I've no intentions of further trying to restore the longstanding practice, until a consensus for it emerges, if it does. PS: Myself & Mandruss haven't been seeing eye-to-eye lately (don't know what's changed), but anyways... GoodDay (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Transition_Integrity_Project

Can I ask why you prefer straight quotes to typographical or ″smart quotes″? You have repeatedly replaced them on https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Transition_Integrity_Project

Mbierman (talk) 00:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. As I pointed out on the article talk page (maybe you didn't get the ping), Wikipedia's Manual of Style says to use straight quotes and not curly quotes; see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation characters. They need to be changed back to straight quotes; do you want to self-revert or shall I fix them? -- MelanieN (talk) 00:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since you haven't responded I have gone ahead and restored the straight quotation marks. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I didn't get your ping, sorry about that.

Discussion about First Lady and Second Gentleman-designate titles in infoboxes of Jill Biden and Doug Emhoff

Please join a discussion here regarding whether the terms "First Lady of the United States Designate" and "Second Gentleman of the United States Designate" should be in the infoboxes of Jill Biden and Doug Emhoff, spouses of the president-elect and vice president-elect, respectively. We need to come to a consensus. Thank you for your participation. cookie monster (2020) 755 21:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing edit requests

Edit requests are not discussions, by definition, especially when there is no commenting after the "answer". A separate closure is usually redundant, and doing one gives others the impression that it's necessary. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to make it easier for them to be sent to archive. And to indicate, on that overstuffed talk page, that "this is one you can ignore". Will they be archived promptly anyhow? -- MelanieN (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per #13, edit requests may be manually archived 24 hours after the "answer" (no closure required). It also says, "provided there has been no follow-on discussion after the 'answer'", which was an attempt to allow constructive discussion of the "answer". That's been problematic, in my opinion, because a lot of the follow-on discussion is inappropriate or inconsequential and shouldn't affect early archival. In any case, we generally don't need a close for an edit request. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:46, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I won't do any more. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Legislative Council of Hong Kong

The vandal by IP starts all the way from 13 Nov, is that still "not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection"? -AINH (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And btw he just reverted again-AINH (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note, AINH. I see one reverted IP edit on the 22nd, and one from today that has not been reverted. Before that there was one on the 17th that wasn’t reverted until the 21st, and before that several on the 13th, 14th and 15th. I might have protected for a few days at that time, but in order to apply protection we have to see significant RECENT vandalism. (For my own philosophy on when and how to protect pages, see User:MelanieN/Page protection.) If it continues at the rate of several a day, or multiple over a few recent days, you could ask again at RFPP. BTW you should put a note on the article talk page, explaining why you are reverting - why you believe your version is correct and the IP changes are wrong. It will strengthen your evidence that the other edits are disruptive, if you have attempted to discuss at the talk page. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

U:ChongTsz had already given multiple sources, the IP just won't listen-AINH (talk) 21:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AINH, don't tell me. That does you no good. Say it on the article talk page. And INCLUDE the sources. Believe me, this is necessary. It will establish who is editing in good faith and who is not. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your changes on Sidney Powell

Your changes to the lede made it cumbersome, wordy, and mealy-mouthed. There is no reason to go into detail about Trump's dissatisfaction with Powell's coverage on Fox News, and also no reason to write a sentence about how two publications have called her theories conspiracy theories. We can call these theories conspiracy theories in wikipedia's voice, because a consensus of RS (as well as a consensus of editors on the talk page) say they are.

More generally, please refer to the debate in the talk page for Powell, before making such substantive edits to the lede. We have achieved consensus on the talk page, that the final paragraph of the lede will describe Powell's promotion of conspiracy theories. The only debate is whether we will call her a "conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence of the lede. (For example, the admin Gorillawarfare disagrees with calling Powell a conspiracy theorist, but agrees that we should have the last paragraph be structured around her promotion of conspiracy theories, especially about the 2020 election.) Thanks. CozyandDozy (talk) 21:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure what you are talking about. Aside from a few minor tweaks, all I did was move a few sentences - WITHOUT CHANGING THEM - into what I believed to be more logical positions.[19] I see that since then they have been rearranged again, to put all the conspiracy theories into one paragraph. But none of the detail was my doing. In particular, the "coverage on Fox News" material had been in the lead for at least 24 hours when I moved that material, and you can see from the diff above that it was already there when I moved the sentence. That's all for my talk page. I will join the discussion at the article talk page. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean I get to vote twice?? -- MelanieN (talk) 03:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect not. @Xaosflux: Something for you. --qedk (t 愛 c) 15:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN and QEDK: short answer: no. Long answer, no - however, you appear to have multiple accounts which meet the suffrage requirements for voting (MelanieN, MelanieN alt); you received this message twice as it was sent to each page, one of which is a redirect to this page - while having to be sent in a different batch job due to the size of the message list. While you may use one (and only one) of your accounts for voting, I strongly recommend you use this account if you want to vote. If you have any follow up questions, please ping me or hit us up at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020/Coordination. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 16:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia's most eligible...voter." GeneralNotability (talk) 20:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure she was joking 👀 but jokes aside, thanks for the explanation, makes sense. --qedk (t 愛 c) 20:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that it says that in the first sentence of the invitation. I had pretty much forgotten about that alternate account, which I use only when traveling - and who is traveling nowadays? Anyhow, yes, I was joking, but you never know these days. Maybe the vote would not be certified until this issue was resolved. Did she vote twice? Throw out all the ballots! I wonder how many notices User:Bishonen gets? I think it should be Bishzilla that votes. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bishzilla among others, Melanie. The issue is quite profoundly discussed on my own page and Floquenbeam's. Bishonen | tålk 21:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Definitely worth a read. The mere idea of Bishzilla and Floquenstein's Monster having offspring is enough to make me hide under the bed. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should have a stiff drink before reading this, Melanie. It's way old, but still.. pretty scary. Bishonen | tålk 22:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Request protection for Jens Erik Gould page again

Melanie, could you protect Jens Erik Gould's page again? The current person has reverted the article for Jens Erik Gould multiple times within 24 hours, despite requests to discuss the changes on the Talk page. Also, changes demonstrably are opinion of the editor's, and have messed up other citations in the process. I will request at the usual page if you prefer, instead of here. WmLawson (talk) 01:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, WmLawson. I have semi-protected it for two months this time. Probably some sockpuppetry going on along with the BLP violations. -- MelanieN (talk) 05:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie, can you actually read the article and all the sources provided? Anyone with common sense can see that the user above has an agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Letsgivethiscontext (talk • contribs) 06:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Letsgivethiscontext, the place to discuss the content is the article talk page. Be sure to supply sources that support your position, and to focus on what the article should say rather than attacking the motives of other editors.. -- MelanieN (talk) 06:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested change to 2020 United States presidential election

You changed "yes" to "no" without addressing the suggested change I wanted to do in the first paragraph in the article on 2020 United States presidential election. I did not suggest any change to the part of the sentence which already states the information you found wasn't noteworthy. I wanted to add information about how Trump did in the election. Please read again. Skoyt (talk) 16:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I answered at the article talk page. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Song that Doesn’t End

You need to fix the page for Lambchops song that doesn’t end. You have the lyrics wrong. Do a simple YouTube search and listen to the song. Kplummer08 (talk) 09:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This comment should be made at the article's talk page, not here. Be sure to offer a link to a source for your opinion; I see there are several online. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:MTATransitFan

user:olsen24 is sockpuppeting as user:MTATransitFan and is persistently vandalizing MTA Regional Bus Operations bus fleet. SportsFan007 (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hold up, what? I'm not sockpuppeting! I was the one trying to ban Olsen's sock. I'm also not vandalising, just fixing either wrong names or wrong info (there have been quite a few new buses delivered recently.) Best, MTATransitFan^Chat! 23:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:SportsFan007, in the first place, User:MTATransitFan is very unlikely to be a sockpuppet. They have been here since June and have more than 1000 edits. But if you seriously think they are, and have evidence, you should report them at WP:SPI, not accuse them on a talk page. In the second place, do not describe their edits as vandalism, because they are not. They are a content dispute, a point on which the two of you disagree. The two of you need to work it out on the article’s talk page, and provide evidence for your version in the form of references. You must not edit war by reverting each other at the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas V. Mastriano article

Your semi-protection of the Douglas V. Mastriano article (the third such protection) has expired, and within the same day two new WP:SPAs have started editing the article in ways that concern me. I believe you are quite familiar with the situation, and I note the prior discussions at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive266#Douglas V. Mastriano, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive302#Disruption at Douglas V. Mastriano and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Majorbuxton/Archive. Also a ping to Hyderabad22 and Eggishorn. — BarrelProof (talk) 23:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for two months. If you think the two new accounts are socks I'll leave it up to you whether to report them at SPI. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC) P.S. Thanks for the links to the previous discussions and actions, very helpful! -- MelanieN (talk) 00:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. Yes, I suspect sockpuppetry, but I'm not very familiar with the reporting process and haven't yet done a careful review of the similarity of those edits to others. I do see some similarity between one of the new edits an an older one, but I won't get more specific about it to avoid a potential privacy issue. I haven't yet restored some of what was deleted, as I'm not yet sure whether restoring it would be appropriate. — BarrelProof (talk) 01:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly, Hyderabad22 was pretty comfortable with filing SPI reports. But these two accounts are so new - just a few edits apiece, and now prevented by semi-protection from doing even that - that it might not be worth pursuing; there might not be enough evidence to make the case. At this point the article will not be subject to questionable edits, at least not by new or unregistered users, and that meets the main goal. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with BarrelProof based upon the nature of the edits and my familiarity with the previous kinds of edits the sockpuppets had done. I think a checkuser request would be appropriate. Insisting on reinserting the medals section has been a particular point all sockpuppets were concerned with if I recall correctly. Would you like some help building a case here BarrelProof? Hyderabad22 (talk) 07:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hyderabad22, thanks for your note. If you two want to build an SPI case, I'd ask you to do it somewhere else rather than on my talk page. You could use one of your own talk pages, or create a "User:Yourname/subpage" for it. You could even work it out by email if you'd rather do it off-wiki. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieN, BarrelProof I just went ahead and reopened a SPI for the two accounts. Based on the use of the exact same citation in the exact same incorrect way in the reinserted medals section I think this a pretty open and shut case. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Majorbuxton Hyderabad22 (talk) 07:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hyderabad22, I see that you didn't request checkuser. I think you should. The evidence via diffs in this case strong but limited; also, a checkuser search can help to reveal sleeper accounts. Actually, I think I will go there and suggest it, but you should be the one to change "checkuser=no" to "yes" in your filing request. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC) Never mind. Now that I look at the archive, I see that checkuser was declined in the past because the original account is so old. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question, though: I see you listed PolandSpring as a suspected sock but did not provide any evidence. You did provide evidence linking Xenophon to DrWillow who was blocked in the previous case, suggesting a link there, but I don't see much/anything against PolandSpring. I suggest you take another look at this report. Meanwhile I'm going to ping User:Wugapodes since they have evaluated this situation once before; they were the one who blocked DrWillow and the others in the earlier case based on behavioral evidence. Wug, any thoughts this time? -- MelanieN (talk) 16:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, I'll respond at the current SPI — Wug·a·po·des 23:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion request

Hi Melanie. You're an admin, right? Would you mind deleting File:President Trump Presents the Medal of Freedom to Lou Holtz.jpg? It is a copy of an image which is already in Commons. Thanks. Mgasparin (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mgasparin. Sorry, but you should ask someone who regularly deals with files. I don't. (Maybe one of my stalkers will do it?) -- MelanieN (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. It seems someone else already got to it. Mgasparin (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Draft Review Request

Dear Melanie,

Could you please review the Draft AKL and provide your valuable inputs on resubmission of the Draft please. Few editors helped me to add additional details and references to the page. I'm learning and I shall keep working to get the page better. Please advise, Thank you so much.Adapongaiya (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Adapongaiya, and thanks for the note. I am not a new page reviewer, so when you are ready to submit it as an article you should use the regular "Finished drafting? Submit for review!" button. I see that you have added some filmography and references since April so that is good. I just have a couple of comments, things that need to be fixed before you submit the article for review:

The issue of his name needs to be explained. You title the article with all three names, but in the lead sentence and the infobox you call him Ashwin Kumar L. That is a version of his name I did not see in the references I checked. In the two Times of India references, this one refers to him in the headline as Ashwin Kumar and then by all three names in the article text. This one refers to him simply as Ashwin. So does this. So does this. In an internet search I could not find a consistent use. He seem to use "Ashwin Kumar L" primarily in Twitter and Facebook. Even there, he cites movies that refer to him as Ashwin Kumar.
What is his relationship, if any, with the actor Ashwin Kumar? Are they the same, or are they two different people? We have a full article here for Ashwin Kumar, but his filmography seems to be quite different from AKL's so I am guessing they are different people. Are they related? That needs to be cleared up. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot Melanie for the follow up. It means a lot to me.

Since we have many 'Ashwin Kumar' in the industry, I have used his full name - Ashwin Kumar Lakshmikanthan (To be unique, where Lakshmikanthan is his surname).Yes, you are absolutely correct, as you have identified many of the articles covering his body of work refer to him as Ashwin Kumar or Ashwin or Ashwin Kumar L. He seems to be using "@Ashwinkumar_ak" for his IG and "Ashwin Kumar L" for FB and Twitter. As you had advised me earlier, I would like to be very careful this time and get it right. Probably I can add a picture to ensure correct identity ? If you have any other suggestions, please let me know.

Also, he has no relationship with the actor Ashwin Kumar. They are not related. They are two different people. (Adapongaiya (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Adapongaiya, I think you should use the full three parts of his name in the first sentence and in the infobox. That's what the article is titled, and most sources don't use the "L" format. You could add (sometimes known as Ashwin Kumar L) to the first sentence if you want. As for a picture, I doubt if you could find a picture that we can use. You can't just take a picture from the internet, because they are all copyrighted and we are not allowed to use copyrighted material. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:06, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Melanie. As suggested, I have updated the first sentence and the infobox to use the full three parts of his name and I am not uploading a picture. Could you please check now. Thanks again (Adapongaiya (talk) 02:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]

That was all I had to advise. If you think it is ready you can submit it for review. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie - Sorry to ask you this, I'm nervous. Is the draft ok or needs some more working, your thoughts please.(Adapongaiya (talk) 04:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]

That's all I can help with. If you feel like you need more advice before submitting, I would suggest you ask someone who knows Hindi or Tamil, since I assume that is what many of the references are in. @QEDK, Tito Dutta, and SpacemanSpiff: this is a new user who needs help with a draft; do you have any suggestions? Maybe help with references, maybe suggestions about how to handle the fact discussed above that there is another actor with a very similar name? -- MelanieN (talk) 04:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the references pass WP:GNG. Going to the SNG WP:ACTOR, there's one major role in a six month long soap opera (rest are uncredited roles/cameos in films). The two references (Tamil) in Dinamalar are about him but not in-depth, more like page fillers. At this point, I don't think he passes the SNG either. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 05:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not meet GNG and can be barely construed to pass SNG (I can't read the Tamil sources), in any case, I doubt this will survive AfD if given the chance. --qedk (t 愛 c) 11:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Melanie and Spaceman, I shall keep working. Good day! (Adapongaiya (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)).[reply]

Barnstar

	The Working Woman's Barnstar
	Congratulations on your good work! 172.58.92.59 (talk) 00:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! -- MelanieN (talk) 01:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Murray (California)

Hi Melanie - it's been a while. Hope all's well. Would you mind re-protecting the Lake Murray page? Not 2 days after the protection lapsed, we get this edit. Odd folks out there! Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 01:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dohn Joe, nice to see you! I gave it indefinite PC this time. This is a longstanding problem, and clearly they were just waiting to resume their game - after a full year of PC protection they knew the very date when they could resume! Thanks for the suggestion. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Melanie - have a good holiday season. And if you go to Lake Murray, beware the mermaids! :) Dohn joe (talk) 16:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dohn joe: Have you considered the possibility that it might be a mermaid making the changes? After all, On the Internet, nobody knows you're a mermaid. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thom Huge protection

Hello, I wonder why the page Thom Huge must be fully protected rather than semi-protected (since the AfDs were undone by IPs in both instances). Or would WP:ECP work better, since that wasn't an option back in 2015? -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 16:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Brainulator, thanks for the note. Wow, that one really goes back into the archives! Yes, I can reduce it to ECP. Were you planning to expand this redirect into an article or something? I'm sure you're aware that this subject failed AfD three times, but the last was five years ago and you might have new information. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- MelanieN (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the AfDs, and I have no new information. I just thought that the protection was, in light of later technological developments, a bit overboard. (I just was browsing Garfield stuff.) I was more interested in general gnomery with adding categories and tags to redirects. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 18:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you. Wikipedia would be in serious trouble without its gnomes. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

kokborok alphabet

kokborok alphabet is a tripuri peoples language script. tripuri people a new invent script by MR.Dhirendra Debbarma, 2018 but this script wrote by new testament bible kokborok languag. Past tripura history background check out manikya king of tripura at 14 centuary reply me. Donald128 (talk) 10:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Donald128. I deleted your article on this subject, because there is no evidence that this alphabet is actually in use. You previously added something about this script to the article Kokborok. But it was removed, because you could not supply any references. This alphabet was invented two years ago, in 2018. Clearly it has not become an accepted script at this time. You can make a suggestion at Talk:Kokborok, saying you think this script should be mentioned in the article. But do not add it to the article again yourself, and do not create the separate article again. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ewart Potgieter

Done -- MelanieN (talk) 17:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

	Merry Christmas MelanieN
	Hi MelanieN, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very happy and healthy New Year, Thank you for all your contributions to Wikipedia, –Davey2010^Talk 19:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday greetings

Hello MelanieN,

We know that we have a "you've got mail" template for an email. Maybe we should have templates for faxes, teletype messages and Western Union telegrams. Carrier pigeon messages? Anyway, I got a piece of snail mail from you the other day, and just wanted to send my greetings as well

Thank you very much, and greetings to your whole family. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Ho Ho

Donner60 (talk) is wishing a foaming mug of Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec20}} to your friends' talk pages.

Merry Christmas

File:Christmas tree in field.jpg	Merry Christmas MelanieN
	Hi MelanieN, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very happy and prosperous New Year, Thanks for all your contributions to Wikipedia this past year, like this tree, you are a light shining in the darkness. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for The Littlest Angel

On 25 December 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Littlest Angel, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the classic children's Christmas story The Littlest Angel was written in just three days? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Littlest Angel. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, The Littlest Angel), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the protection on Destiny Etiko

Hello MelanieN. In regard to the protection for Destiny Etiko I think you may have been misled. Only one IP once attempted to make a change to DOB w/o explanation. I reverted that edit and then examined the sources to try to resolve the correct DOB. The article cited multiple conflicting sources for DOB, some of which are not reliable (one is a wiki mirror site and thus WP:CIRCULAR). I changed the DOB based on the other available sources. The change made was in good faith and with an explanation. The editor requesting the protection disputed those edits, which is fine. I immediately started a discussion on the talk page which has now resolved the competing views and decided on the most reliable source, the matter is settled, and the consensus is now reflected in the article. No one has attempted to change DOB since consensus was reached and the talk page discussion provides a good history of the debate, which, hopefully, will head off any future attempts to change DOB. In my opinion, there was and is no need for protection on this article (this might be a case of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR). This was a good faith content dispute that has been resolved. – 108.56.139.120 (talk) 06:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see that agreement has been reached and the article has been edited to reflect that agreement. I don't see any other recent issues with the article so I have removed the protection. Thanks for calling this to my attention. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Empire AS ^Talk! — is wishing you a Happy New Year! It's the last day of 2024 and tomorrow will be 2025. Hope the coming year brings pleasures for you. Have a prosperous, enjoyable and a productive 2025. This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Empire AS ^Talk! 13:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bloomberg protection

Hi MelanieN, hope all is well. Looks like I undid your semi-protection over at Michael Bloomberg. I reinstated your previous protection, I apologize for that. Thanks and Happy New Years! -- LuK3 (Talk) 21:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, that one falls under the heading of "Great minds think alike"! We must have protected within seconds of each other. No problem at all. And I have revdel'ed the vandalism edits. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

MelanieN,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

WMBQ-CD full protection for one year

Hi, I was taking a look at the article about WMBQ-CD, and I respect the decision to protect the page for one year. However, I think protection for one year may have been too long, because so far there have been no attempts by the warring parties for some time to discuss the article on the talk page. Please consider unprotecting the article as I believe it has become stale. Is there any other solution? P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 21:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, P,TO 19104, and thanks for your note. Regarding so far there have been no attempts by the warring parties for some time to discuss the article on the talk page, that is exactly why it is protected. I had no intention of leaving it full-protected for a year, just for long enough to get people to discuss on the talk page and reach agreement. I thought that would prompt the two combatants to talk it out, but they haven't. User:Sammi Brie tried to get them to discuss in mid-December; the two combatants were pinged and I put personal notices on their user talk pages; no result. Let's try this: I will unprotect it as an experiment and watchlist the page. If the warring resumes, I will choose between re-protecting it, or issuing partial-blocks from the page. @Tvstationfan101 and BlueboyLINY: I am going to unprotect the page. The article should stay in its current format - which was the longstanding version until Tvstationfan started changing it back in July - unless and until the two of you agree on a change. Tvstationfan, this means you: if you change it without an agreement first, I will give you a partial-block from editing that page. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt response and consideration. I will do my best to ensure that the warring parties do not repeat their same mistakes. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @P,TO 19104 and MelanieN: I've made some of the changes I suggested and also cleaned up other issues (mostly poor English in a couple sections) that were not addressed by either of the other editors, as well as some obvious inconsistencies. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas McElwee

Hi Melanie. Could I ask why you applied pending changes instead of the requested semi-protection to Thomas McElwee? Pending changes does not stop the disruptive editing, does not save the time of editors reverting the disruption, and does not encourage the IP editors to engage in discussion on the talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 02:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, DuncanHill. I agree that PC can be a pain. You don't ever want to use it on heavily edited articles. But in that article the problem edits are spread out over time - persistent, but not frequent enough to justify semi-protection. That's the kind of situation PC protection was made for. Because it is less restrictive than semi-protection, you can apply it for months instead of days. If there is a sudden burst of vandalism, it is possible to add short-term semi-protection on top of the PC, and the PC will survive after the semi-protection expires. You can see my philosophy - how I decide what kind of protection to apply and when - at User:MelanieN/Page protection. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any benefit to PC on this article though. It doesn't stop vandalism, it doesn't save any work for those who patrol pages subject to this sort of disruption, it doesn't push IP users to the talk page. There's no point trying to message mobile IP users as they never receive the messages. I haven't managed to find a single constructive IP edit to the article after one or two in 2007. Most of the article history is IPs or disposable accounts violating WP:DERRY and then being reverted, and as we have seen it happened again within a few hours of PC being applied. It needs a longish term of semi protection.

Well, you are welcome to list it again at RFPP and see if some other administrator finds that it does qualify for long term semi-protection. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC) P.S. You are right that PC does not do anything to lessen the load for regular editors. The one thing it does is, it prevents the IP edit from being visible in the encyclopedia article until it is approved. When PC protection was devised a few years ago, it was designed to be a way of sort-of protecting articles that don't get problem edits often enough to qualify for semi-protection. Protection is supposed to be assigned based on RECENT problems. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).

Administrator changes

Hammersoft

Andres • Brion VIBBER • Rkitko • Thatcher

CheckUser changes

Barkeep49 • BDD • CaptainEek • Primefac

Oversight changes

Barkeep49 • BDD • CaptainEek

Joe Roe

Guideline and policy news

Speedy deletion criterion T3 (duplication and hardcoded instances) has been repealed following a request for comment.

Technical news

You can now put pages on your watchlist for a limited period of time.

Arbitration

By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
Following the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, BDD, Bradv, CaptainEek, L235, Maxim, Primefac.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NYC TV Stations

Since I follow a couple users talk pages (we have interacted in the past), I have noticed a pattern between Tvstationfan101, Mvcg66b3r, and ‎BlueboyLINY. Neither of these edits can get along with each other. Currently the latter two are engaged in a slow-moving edit war on WRNN-TV. I think a content block and a interaction block is needed, at least temporarily, maybe 3 months. Then, after 3, let them edit and if they can get along, cool. If they can't, make it 6 or just permanent. Cause clearly they are not editing constructively now and short of complete site-wide blocks, which I don't think are necessary (yet), I think this is the best way to go. I leave this in your hands, I am just a pair of outside eyes, you are the admin. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:41 on January 7, 2021 (UTC) • #WearAMask • #BlackLivesMatter

I hate to say this, but it looks like the community is, as always, completely disinterested in doing anything constructive and has completely abandoned the discussion. Looks like they are leaving it in your hands. I know, you are just so thrilled. </sarcasm> I am sorry, I was only trying to help. Looks like I didn't do anything at all. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:09 on January 16, 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Neutralhomer. Don't apologize. Thanks for trying; you gave it your best shot. Unfortunately I am not going to take it on either. I only got involved because of a protection request; I don't intend to make it a career. I have done the best I could with those three - posted on their talk pages multiple times - but they just won't use the talk page to discuss. And riding herd on their edit warring, or on dozens of articles on subjects I am not interested in, is not a job that I or anyone else seems to want to take on. You'll notice that even the people who chimed in about their past bad experiences seem to have simply given up. Sorry, I'm afraid I don't have a solution to offer. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK, I only saw it playing out in seperate talk pages of admins I follow and decided to investigate. This was about all the time I was willing to invest, which was actually more than I intended to be honest. Wikipedia isn't my "full time job", I'm a school custodian, so COVID is my full time job at the moment. Keeping students, teachers, and staff safe is my full time job.

I let the ANI thread run until I'm done with my weekly shows (which I DVR through the week and watch on Saturdays) and I'll self close it. Let 'em battle. They ain't bother me. I don't even do TV station articles anymore, I only do radio. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:08 on January 17, 2021 (UTC)

Well, bless you for trying. And bless you for taking care of the kids and teachers. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate that, but I'm just doing my job. Just like any other day...just with a lot more disinfectant. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:31 on January 17, 2021 (UTC)

Draft AKL

Dear Melanie,

Happy new year. As you had suggested last time, I'm still holding onto the Draft AKL and working on it. Looks like so many unknown users have tried to recreate the page from the deleted version and submitted the page prompting for speedy deletions. I'm afraid with the history of speedy deletions, will this affect the current draft that I'm holding onto. Could you please review and clarify. Thank you Melanie Adapongaiya (talk) 18:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Adapongaiya. I have added a note to the talk page of the draft explaining the situation. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MelanieN for your timely help. Much appreciated. Hopefully my working draft is safe now. -- Adapongaiya (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicts

Dear Melanie. You and I have experienced an unfortunate amount of friction in the past seven years or so. It originally stemmed from my edits on the Carl DeMaio and Scott Peters articles and those made by CFredkin, back in October 2014. CFredkin was clearly a paid editor, the first I became aware of, and his job was to tout Republican candidates on his or his employer's client list, and to trash their opponents. He also had another two client interests: The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Because of those two, I don't think he was working directly for the Republican party. I can show you how he exposed the basis for his activity if you'd like, but I'd rather not do it publicly. I wasn't trying to dox him, just labored to get him off my back, and had no interest in finding out who he actually was. He was very effective at what he did. He may have had some salient part in getting Joni Ernst elected to the Senate six years ago, over Bruce Braley, and I'd also be happy to explain why I think that was the case. When it appeared that Trump was going to win the presidential nomination in 2016, his focus shifted almost entirely to pumping up Trump's candidacy, aiming at the general election. He was making a dizzying amount of pro-Trump and anti-Hillary edits, until he somehow got busted for sockpuppetry in September 2016. Now it was clear that if he depended on his efforts to put food on the table, pay the rent or mortgage, and/or the car payments, he wasn't going to go "quietly into the night." (I don't know what his new identity was, though I suspected he was now writing as another patently obvious paid editor, though I've doubted that conclusion in recent months.) I found myself in disturbingly regular conflict with him when I ventured into editing AP2 articles. He had zero interest in other topics of interest to me, one's where I'd created and edited substantially, i.e. long-distance runners, especially female ones, (I wished I could have traveled to watch some of the Cross-Country championships at Balboa Park), anthropology, contemporary literature, etc., etc.) Actually, he had zero interest in any other topic, it seemed. He was also a skilled tactician at what he did, mastering Wikipedia rules and conventions, ready to throw Wiki-"alphabet soup" at any who stood in his way. He was very dishonest. Subsequently to his sockpuppetry ban, I tangled with a similar editor who complained about me to you. I don't think that was a coincidence. I am still at occasional loggerheads with him. So, here are my thoughts. I have a great deal of respect for your editing. You have considerable knowledge, ability, and an obvious deep commitment to improving Wikipedia as much as you're able. But my question is, do you think you can be neutral where I'm involved? That's the sort of question that is not meant to impugn others, but rather put daily to jurors and sometimes judges, and might be a cause for recusal or dismissal. I want to stress that I have absolutely no problem with you personally. I had hoped to raise this issue with you privately, but that avenue would be entirely your prerogative. I also should say, that I'd prefer to work things out with other editors in a mutually respectful fashion. I did so with another editor, who was religiously and ideologically motivated and came to an eventual rapprochement. I had appealed to his religiosity (particularly evident when he fought to keep pictures of naturists off Wikipedia) and he concluded that I was right and he intended to labor to change. That story had an unhappy ending because shortly afterward he received a term ban for "combative editing" and decided to quit editing entirely. I was very disappointed that he chose to do so because I thought he could be a real asset to the encyclopedia and we clearly could work cooperatively. Lastly, I haven't mentioned the editor with whom I've had problems but I don't think he's a paid editor for strong reasons that make me doubt it. Again, I would rather not have been limited to discussing these issues publicly. I am very open to doing so privately. Please be assured I bear you no animosity. I'd hoped to have this discussion at the Wikimedia conference I expect you attended. (I appreciated its atmosphere, site, organization, and food.) Thanks for your time. Activist (talk) 14:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If you have a problem with the way in which I communicate, please feel free to be critical. I have very thick skin. Activist (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will reply here as MelanieN's talk page is on my watch list and I suspect this discussion is related to me. I'm happy to discuss these things with Activist in a respectful way. I would hope we could discuss a few things civilly. Not everyone will agree on what is DUE in an article nor how text should be written. That said, if another editor opposes an edit then the correct course of action is to go to the talk page and discuss it, find common ground. Simply restoring the new material is not only combative, it also is against WP:NOCON. If only two editors are involved then the disagreement represents no consensus. Finally, edit summaries such as this one [[20]] are never OK. The same is true of talk page sections that focus on the editor, not the content dispute Talk:Don_Young#Stalking_behavior. Contrary to what you may feel, I am very happy to discuss these things and work them out. Springee (talk) 15:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Activist, as I believe I have said before: if you feel you have evidence of misbehavior or sockpuppetry on the part of another editor, you should pursue it through the normal Wikipedia channels. Those would be WP:SPI for sockpuppetry, or WP:ANI for accusations of stalking or other misbehavior, or WP:COI for conflict of interest. Of course you would have to provide evidence in the form of diffs; without evidence you should not make the complaint as it could backfire on you.

I don’t know why you have chosen me as the admin to complain to about other users, but I have neither the tools (I’m not a checkuser) nor the inclination to pursue this kind of case. If you believe some other editor is stalking or harassing you, you could ask at ANI for an interaction ban. If you believe they have an undisclosed COI you should either provide the evidence at COI if you have it, or stop hinting and accusing them if you don’t. From your extended comments above about CFredkin you seem to be hinting that this “other editor” may be a sock of CFredkin, but you admit you can’t prove it; in that case you should not be saying or hinting it. See WP:ASPERSIONS. Finally, if it’s none of the above but simply that you have disagreements with the other editor, I am not going to referee them. Such things should be worked out through polite direct discussion (I see that Springee has suggested that above), or by ignoring or avoiding the the other person. Not on the talk pages of third parties. Sorry. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hatted discussion question

MelanieN, you hatted this discussion [[21]]. Thank you for that. I raised the issue with Activist here[[22]]. Did you mean to name me when you collapsed the article talk page discussion? ("Springee, this is totally inappropriate. ") Am I misreading a statement of agreement with my concerns? Thanks Springee (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - mental lapse! I have corrected it. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sidney Powell

I saw your crucial input on the Sidney Powell article and talk page. My news organization is looking to speak with a few Wikipedians anonymously about their thoughts and interpretations on this person for a story that covers current events like this alongside the birthday of Wikipedia and how wikipedians shape the discussion and shed light on the facts. Do you have a few minutes to spare over email to talk about your perspectives? Thanks very much. I look forward to hearing back from you. Kombucha Morning (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:W33KeNdr

Since their single page block: [23], [24], [25]. VQuakr (talk) 01:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re: WRNN-TV

Could you please lock this article before User:BlueboyLINY reverts it again? He's a picky editor. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

I have opened an ANI discussion regarding BlueboyLINY and Mvcg66b3r. Since I mentioned you within the discussion, this message is to notify you of the discussion itself. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:51 on January 14, 2021 (UTC)

A heads-up

I pinged you, but I didn't spell your name right, so you might not get advised.

You were concerned because you thought I was suggesting hundreds of insurrectionists merited standalone articles. You voiced some outrage and some doubts about my conduct in predicting hundred of articles.

I wrote I don't think any predictions of the number mattered, as each individual has to be evaluated on a case by case basis.

But you misintrepeted what I wrote. It was the attacks on September 11, 2001 where I predicted there might be hundreds of standalone BLP. I've started something like a dozen articles on individuals with an association with the WTC attack, and worked on a dozen others. I started the ones on Frank de Martini and Pablo Ortiz just a few years ago, more than fifteen years after the attack. So, I wasn't pulling that prediction out of thin air.

WRT the 2021-01-06 event, I predicted dozens of standalone articles that could measure up to GNG. It is just a guess. I don't think it is unreasonable, but the actual number of your guess or my guess doesn't really matter, as each article will have to be evaluated on a case by case basis.

Cheers Geo Swan (talk) 19:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did misread your comments and thought you were predicting those large numbers for participants in the Capitol riots. I now see that you were (somewhat confusingly) bringing 9/11 into the discussion and I missed that. My apologies. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How about addressing the issue of non-supported claims in Talk page of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killings_of_Aaron_Danielson_and_Michael_Reinoehl

False or Misleading causality in parade. The article claims: "On August 29, 2020, hundreds of Trump supporters took part in the "Trump 2020 Cruise Rally", a caravan of more than 100 cars and trucks displaying pro-Trump flags and signs which drove through downtown Portland. In some cases, the participants fired paintball guns and pepper spray at protesters, who responded by throwing various objects at the caravan.[5]" Thus, this expresses a statement as to the order of the events, and strong implications as to the causality: The parade participants are implied to have acted first, and only then did protesters 'respond'. However, the cite 5 does not appear to support this in any way. https://www.kptv.com/news/hundreds-show-up-for-trump-2020-cruise-rally-in-clackamas-county/article_e5112422-ea6e-11ea-a394-6f4d7667cd50.html So, it appears that this wording was written so as to be biased. Allassa37 (talk) 04:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Allassa37: Which part needs to be removed? Wareon (talk) 04:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC) Anything not supported by "Reliable Sources". I have found the diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Killings_of_Aaron_Danielson_and_Michael_Reinoehl&diff=prev&oldid=977436267 This editor, "MelanieN", should document where this material came from. Allassa37 (talk) 05:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC) Allassa37 (talk) 03:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that MelanieN hasn't responded to this problem. Any reasons for that? Allassa37 (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, Allassa37; finally finding some time to look into this. This goes back to September 8 when the article was a few days old and “under construction”. You are right, the source I used is only about the start of the rally, and says nothing about the violence later or how it started. I may have read something elsewhere but not in that source. Just now I found another source about the confrontations, and it does not suggest which group started them. So I added the source and reworded. Thanks for the alert. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Familiarity breeds contempt

Long time no talk. Firstly, congratulations on your new management; secondly, doesn't this energetic editor look familiar? Fixation on Trump as a demagogue, an avalanche of sources and overdone attempt at a jokey user name. Favonian (talk) 16:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replying via email. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Hi there MelanieN. A small favour, if possible, now you see the page of Zoran Tegeltija, Chairman of the Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Bosnian Prime Minister), does not have an image of him and I can't see to find one that respects copyright rules. My mentality is that a Prime Minister of a country should have a decent image of them on their page. Could you somehow, if you want to of course, try to find a decent, non-copyright image of Tegeltija and send me a link so I could put it up? I would greatly appreciate it.

Also, Dušan Bajević a Bosnian football manager and player has an old image of him put up, precisely 1974. I also looked for a much newer image of him to put up, particularly this one. Could you somehow see if its copyrighted? Even if not that one, another newer image of him can do. I know I'm asking for a bit much, but I really looked for images of them and couldn't find any that are ok too use. Sadly, their images on Flickr are all not fair to use. So if you could just look in to it a bit I would honestly really appreciate it. But again though, your call. :) Kirbapara (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kirbapara, and thanks for the note. I am no expert on images, but I can tell you (you probably already know) that Wikipedia is very strict that images must be free to use. I can't see the copyright status of the gstatic image but I think you can assume is it copyrighted. In fact you can pretty much assume that anything you see on the internet is copyrighted, whether it says so or not. So there is really no point in doing an internet search because you won't be able to use what you find. The easiest place to find images you can actually use here is Wikimedia Commons, found at https://commons.wikimedia.org/. Almost anything you find there can be freely used here. You can search there in exactly the same way you search here. Here are three images from Commons for Dušan Bajević [26]; probably not what you are looking for. I found nothing at Commons about Zoran Tegeltija. Also you can use pictures that you take yourself - not pictures of a picture, but pictures of the subject. And most (but not all) images issued by the U.S. government are free to use. I wonder if the same is true of images from the government pages of Bosnia and Herzegovina? Sorry I couldn't be more help, but sometimes we just aren't able to have pictures of everybody. Any stalkers have anything to add? -- MelanieN (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kenya

Hi! First of all, thank you for protecting the page 2021 Indian Premier League. Secondly, do you really live in Kenya? :) Thanks, ☎️ Churot ^DancePop 04:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How funny! Some IP added that to a four-year-old talk page archive, and I didn't notice. No, I don't live in Kenya. And I am not Melania Trump as someone once claimed. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know :), just noticed it yesterday. I thought rather than reverting it myself, I should inform you instead as it is your talk page. Thanks, ☎️ Churot ^DancePop 06:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Churot: how in the world did you happen to notice it? -- MelanieN (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN: Not too difficult, given that you have used this link in the picture caption on the top of your talk page. 😁 ☎️ Churot ^DancePop 16:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OIC! Thanks for the tip. That explains it. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sholam Weiss

I totally get your not wanting to do a semi at this time. I may have panicked a little and my request was premature. If you can keep an eye on the article now and then it would be a very good thing. Thanks, Coretheapple (talk) 17:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've added it to my talk page; you can ping me or post here if it gets worse. It is currently borderline - one or two problem posts a day, and too much active posting to qualify for Pending Changes. Let me know if it gets worse. BTW I am particularly sympathetic to cases where the vandalism violates BLP, as some recent edits there do. You can see my protection philosophy here. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Apparently the article was subjected to lengthy COI editing over a period of years, and there are still remnants of that. Coretheapple (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The situation has definitely worsened, and I think a semi for a long period would be a good idea. Perhaps permanently. Note the talk page, indicating that this article has been subject to problematic COI editing for fourteen years! Some of the IPs have been personally attacking me in edit summaries[27] and on my talk page. A current list of problematic IPs and the latest SPA is at the COI noticeboard. Please note this this comment concerning the lengthy history of COI editing and a possible approach (of which I am unfamiliar). Coretheapple (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update, Coretheapple. You are right, the article has gone totally out of control in the past day or two. I have semi-protected it for two months and revdel'ed the accusation that was made against you. I saw that someone at the noticeboard suggested EC protection; I don't see the need for that right now, it looks like IPs are the problem - but let me know if we start to get disruptive edits from autoconfirmed users. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! Coretheapple (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to mention that two related articles also have been subjected to COI edidting: National Heritage Life Insurance Company and, even worse, Scores (strip club). I've been obliged to rewrite both. Scores was owned by one of the co-conspirators and it was, arguably, the worst article I've ever seen on Wikipedia. That's saying a lot! I don't know about Scores but I anticipate further COI activity in the National Heritage article. Hopefully I'm wrong. Thanks again. Coretheapple (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice work! Let me know if they become targets. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you, and I will. Coretheapple (talk) 23:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Sigh) [28] Coretheapple (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your wording suggestions at Talk:Donald Trump, and for being a clear voice of sanity. I don't venture over there much, but it was like stepping into a bizarre alternate reality where people authoritatively present crazy things that they clearly made up on the spot as if they were longstanding site practices. "It's not stable if I reverted it"? "The BLP can only contain statements in wikivoice; anything requiring attribution has to go in a subarticle"?

No response required, just amazed and a little jealous at your equanimity in the face of this stuff. MastCell ^Talk 18:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thanks. It is pretty amazing what kind of "logical" and "policy" arguments people can come up with. Maybe I should start a collection. Nah. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieN's suggestion was exactly the kind of update that this article needs. Replacing series of incidents and examples with summary descriptions. Pinging @Onetwothreeip:, who I hope will consider this entire episode carefully before any further removals. SPECIFICO talk 21:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I too applaud such efforts to reduce the size of the article and see this as a positive outcome not only of my attempts to reduce its size, but the talent and common sense of editors to come to a consensus that keeps size in mind. And yes, MastCell, it should be self-evident that content being reverted isn't stable content. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have a remarkable new definition of "stable". (Maybe I should start that collection of amazing arguments people come up with, after all.) Wikipedia's definition is: something that has been in an article unchanged for at least months, sometimes years, is considered stable content. Wikipedia treats such content a little differently from something that was added yesterday, in terms of whether changes to it require consensus if challenged. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Introduction to editing with Wiki Markup/6

I was going back through the tutorial again to refresh my memory. I got to that page and clicked the "test what you've learned in a sand box button" to continue with the lesson and got a message that says:

"The page title you have tried to create has been protected from creation. The reason given is: Repeatedly recreated. You may also wish to check the deletion log. If you feel this page should be created, please...first ask the protecting administrator to review proposed new content for the page, being sure to have adequate independent, reliable sources to meet any notability requirements as set forth in the general notability guideline or other appropriate specific guideline."

It really doesn't make sense as part of the tutorial so maybe it's broken. Anyway I clicked the "protecting administrator" link and it took me here so I thought you might either be able to explain whether its a bug of some kind that your trying to fix, or I'm doing something wrong, or at least point me in the right direction if someone linked your username by accident instead of the correct one, thanks. 74.73.230.232 (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't recall protecting anything in that area, but I might have forgotten. Can you provide me with a link to the page you clicked - either the one saying "protected", or the previous one with the "test what you've learned" button - so maybe I can figure out why that happened? Thanks. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go, Draft:Sample page/52419243, accessed by clicking "test what you've learned in a sandbox" on the help page linked above. 74.73.230.232 (talk) 04:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While we're on this topic

I also went thru the referencing tutorial which ends with creating Draft:Referencing sandbox/22014662. AFAICT your supposed to delete those once your done testing with them so others can test on a blank slate, but I can't find a deletion button or any obvious way to delete it, so if you could help me out by deleting it or walk me through how to do that myself I'd appreciate it, thanks. Might be one of those things that requires "autoconfirmed" tho. 74.73.230.232 (talk) 04:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]