User talk:MelanieN

Archives
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

turntable

As regarding this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turntable.fm

here is the context:

https://link.medium.com/Wc8SZSNUPeb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.181.83.75 (talk) 15:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

My press

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

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

Wow, and here it is again [1] in a separate story about the same issue. Think I'm notable yet? 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

Hello, MelanieN. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can 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)

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)

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))

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)

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))

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)

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))

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)

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)

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)

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

Barnstar

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

Ewart Potgieter

Hi. Would you please unsalt Ewart Potgieter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and move Ewart Potgieter (rugby union) to its place? I've closed the RM at Talk:Ewart Potgieter (rugby union), it's about an entirely different person than the original 2015 article. No such user (talk) 11:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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,    –Davey2010Talk 19:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

---

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

– 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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 [[3]] 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)

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)

Hatted discussion question

MelanieN, you hatted this discussion [[4]]. Thank you for that. I raised the issue with Activist here[[5]]. 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)

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

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)

User:W33KeNdr

User:W33KeNdr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Since their single page block: [6], [7], [8]. VQuakr (talk) 01:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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/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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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 [9]; 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

@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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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[10] 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)

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)

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

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)

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

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

(Sigh) [11] Coretheapple (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 sandbox" 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)

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)

Here you go, Draft:Sample page/52419243, accessed by clicking "test what you've learned in a sandbox" on Help:Introduction to editing with Wiki Markup/6. 74.73.230.232 (talk) 04:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. When I go to the tutorial and click on “Test what you’ve learned” it takes me to “Creating User:MelanieN/Sample page”, in other words offering me a custom page that I can use as my test page. I then tried it using my alternate account and again it suggested a custom page under that account’s name. But when you clicked on it, you got taken to “Creating Draft:Sample page/52419243”? I logged out and tried it, and I got directed to the same page as you did. Apparently this is what happens with unregistered or unlogged-in users.

So yes, that page was deleted three times in January and February this year, and I then protected it per a request at RFPP. (I see that the previous deletion rationales were per G2, “Test page”. That puzzles me, because surely the goal of “test what you’ve learned” is to give the person a test page.) It appears that any unregistered user gets directed to that page, which then gets deleted as a test page. I think I’ll ask about this at the Help:Introduction to editing area. There ought to be some way for unregistered users to get a test page! -- MelanieN (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Cool thanks. It seems really weird that a page with such a random number was chosen, maybe it was a misclick or someone made a mistake? Anyway there's also more links for all of the other tutorials see Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/5, Help:Introduction to tables with Wiki Markup/4, Help:Introduction to images with Wiki Markup/4, Help:Introduction_to_editing_with_VisualEditor/6, Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/6, Help:Introduction to images with VisualEditor/6, Help:Introduction to tables with VisualEditor/5, Help:Introduction to navigating Wikipedia/6, Help:Introduction to the Manual of Style/6. All of which have you create pages with equally random numbers. I can go ahead and make them if that will help to see if the numbers are the same for everyone. The other weird thing is that none of them have instructions on how to delete when you are done. I finally learned from the AFC help desk that your supposed to place {{db-g7}} on the page, which is really unintuitive, I mean it worked, see Draft:Referencing sandbox/22014662 and its easy once you know what to do, but good luck figuring that out without asking. So I think the pages you create for testing should explain how to delete once your done. Or perhaps there's a simpler way I'm missing? Anyway glad your looking in to this. 74.73.230.232 (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the good research! I hope you don't mind, I copied most of what you said over to my comment at Help talk:Introduction. For that matter you are welcome to join in that discussion. (At least I hope it becomes a discussion - that is not a very active board.) -- MelanieN (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Well I would if I'm not busy later, but that page is locked so I can't edit it and the edit request button doesn't work like it normally does but instead redirects you to Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_edits_to_a_protected_page without the normal idiot proof preload. I guess I could hit the button on a page where it works normally and then copy-paste the code to that page and tweak till it works, but honestly the entire edit request system is pretty clunky so I'll probably only do that if anyone has a question for me and I'm actually around, since I have to go out for a while in another half-hour or so. 74.73.230.232 (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't notice that the talk page is semiprotected. Well, I already pasted there the bulk of what you said here. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Meanwhile I unsalted the page with an explanation, so at least we have accomplished that much. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

You accomplished a bit more than that actually. It looks like they restructured to direct everyone to Wikipedia:Sandbox instead if I'm reading the conversation right. Following the breadcrumbs linked from that conversation leads to Help_talk:Introduction_to_Wikipedia#Random_subpages_for_IPs_aren't_random. From which I gather, and I am no web expert so take this for what its worth, that the numbers do change it's just only when the server cache is cleared which seems to happen every few days. For example at one point the page was Draft:Sample page/86125252, and it looks like in that case the number lasted 6 days, but again I am not knowledgeable enough to know whether or not the length of time between server cache clearings is typical. As a side note before I disappear for a while, and this may be just me, but usually editing pages with "Wikipedia" in front of them makes me a bit more nervous because they seem somehow official like the help desk, so I would've preferred Draft:Sandbox since that feels more like a, for lack of a better phrase, drafting area, where mistakes are not a big deal, but again maybe I'm just weird. Anyway thanks for all your help sometimes this place can be very confusing. 74.73.230.232 (talk) 17:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks & follow up

Hi MelanieN,

Just a quick note of thanks again for your input yesterday, not only with the issue at Jamie Raskin, but with your comments at the ANI re: wally. You were exceedingly fair and level headed in both places. If I recall, many years ago I said you were "Solomonic!" :) Nice to see that hasn't changed. Having said that, I also took your zen approach and stepped back for a day. I even went back to the ANI to review it, and everyone's responses. I think my final comments there were also fair and reasonable. If you haven't had a chance to review them, I'd appreciate your input. It will certainly help to resolve things moving forward.

But also, the whole issue of the wrong section heading still persists. I'd just like to point out that your suggestion of "Early life and education"... The next paragraph should be titled "Early career" is one that I immediately agreed with. The only other "non-wally" input was from Patrick, who said that while he was used to "Early life," he had no strong opinion and ""Early life and career" or similar is also fine."

So doesn't that represent consensus? Because wally's consensus-of-one edit still prevails? Don't know if you have kids, but it kind of reminds me of when the parents let the stubborn kid have his way, against their better judgment, just to keep the peace. But we can't/don't operate like that here. So my preference would be for you to implement the consensus, since you proposed it. If you're comfortable with that. But if you'd prefer, I will. As always, I'll respect your judgment. Please just let me know. And again, as always, many thanks! Cheers! X4n6 (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it consensus yet. I'd like to hear from a few more people. Now that we three have stopped shouting at each other, some other people might be willing to chime in. One other thing: the section "Early life", which also contained one sentence about his early career, was the previous content. Someone recently added more about his early career, which to me justifies a separate section, but in this kind of situation it needs consensus to overturn the previous content. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I thought our 3 votes were sufficient for consensus. I've seen folks insist 2 was consensus when I accidently backed into someone's fiefdom. So what number were you thinking? Also, I could just RfC the thing too, right? By the way, I did the most recent rewrite on both paragraphs. They were kind of a hot mess. Wally added Raskin's teaching; and someone else just recently added Plaskett being his student. All good, but it needs to be contextualized, so it doesn't read as though in 25 years, she was his only notable student. Just a bit of recentism there. But anyway, how's this: if I substantially add to that section, especially since there is so much more available now, can we move on from a heading that refers to a professor's 25 year career as his early life? Goodness, in all my time on this project, I just don't recall any instance where a heading this innocuous also became this sacrosanct. That just seems so counterintuitive to the project to me. X4n6 (talk) 02:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

What three? I see Wally and Patrick in favor of a single section, and you and me in favor of two sections. I do think if you are able to expand the early career material into several paragraphs - not with padding, but with actual information - that would greatly strengthen the case for a separate section. As well as being a valuable improvement to the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Patrick said: "Early life and career" or similar is also fine." Isn't that also what we we're saying? But I'll put expansion on my "to do" list. There's so much more available. Not just to "fix" the heading either. But his decades as a law professor have garnered lots of interest recently and deserve their own section. So of course, they'll be a valuable improvement. I'll give you a heads' up when they're up. X4n6 (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Earlier he said "I agree Wallyfromdilbert has it right...and there's no need for further subsectioning". -- MelanieN (talk) 01:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

True. But as you said, that was earlier. It was actually the day before. His view changed the next day in his last response. Looks like he was persuaded by the subsequent arguments. X4n6 (talk) 02:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, we need to wait for a clearer consensus. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

That's fine. As I mentioned, I'll let you know when I've updated the page and get your input then. Thanks again. X4n6 (talk) 13:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding "The Final Countdown (song)"

Could you please lock the article before another user undos the removal of the mention of the Blender list? --2601:199:4181:E00:38BE:60A5:11AE:9B76 (talk) 15:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article for 2 weeks. There is a discussion at the talk page about whether to include this material. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Re:ECP

Regarding your decline the disruption is continuing. It includes blatant misrepresentation of source, use of Twitter for source and so on. Why there should be no ECP for this controversial article? Wareon (talk) 04:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

And this account with just 11 edits is now edit warring to restore his WP:OR. I don't think it will benefit the page to keep editing enabled for non-ECP users. Wareon (talk) 05:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I see. Although that one user was blocked, there appear to be sockpuppets coming out of the woodwork. I have changed the semi-protection to extended confirmed, which lasts until December. You might consider filing an SPI or contacting the administrator who blocked the one user, but that's whack-a-mole; the article does need ECP as you recognized. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Blocking editing because designated terrorist group is called "Revolutionary group"?

BOOM, pkk is terrorist by EU: https://archive.vn/20120722224908/http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:028:0057:01:EN:HTML BOOM, by your own government: https://www.state.gov/foreign-terrorist-organizations/

pkk is as "revolutionary" as isis. and "reverters" of the edits are kurdish living in europe. 88.230.174.129 (talk) 08:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism on Bernie Sanders

Please invoking indefinite pending-changes protection and temporary semi-protection on Bernie Sanders article as vandals persistently add wrong and unsourced content about him after ECP expires. This article has been requested by Tartan357 in RFPP. 180.243.208.77 (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I think indefinite semi-protection, which was in place until it was replaced by temporary ECP during the 2020 primaries, would be more appropriate given the high level of disruption. As you've mentioned, I've already made a request at RFPP. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 00:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

The page has now been indefinitely semi-protected. Requests are handled pretty expediently at RFPP, so you don't need to reach out to individual admins once a request has been made. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 00:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

A sock?

Hi Melanie. Who would have thought that this subject would come up again? Favonian (talk) 17:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind, point is now moot. Favonian (talk) 17:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Gosh, it must have been, what, a whole week? :-( Last month’s promoter of this theme was sock-blocked. [12] This is undoubtedly the same person, but of course they wouldn’t say so at SPI because it’s an IP. I was just pondering who to alert about this (I can’t do range blocks), but GS was on it. That gives us a week’s reprieve at least. Thanks for the alert. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Small favor

Hi Melanie, I mistakenly included a link to Antigonish instead of Antigonish (poem) in the tag for my edit in the relative clause article (i.e. "20:54, 25 February 2021‎ Kent Dominic talk contribs‎ 84,611 bytes −6‎ Undid revision 1008908055 by Wiki4950 (talk) To repeat: Gender neutrality has no bearing on this example, as a quotation from "Antigonish," by Hughes Mearns.") Can you change that tag from Antigonish to Antigonish (poem)? Sorry for the inconvenience, but thanks for the help. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 21:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Kent, and thanks for the note. I see you are talking about a link in an edit summary. I am not able to change edit summaries. What you can do is post a "null edit" (making some inconsequential editing change to the article, such as adding a space) and use the edit summary to say something like "Null edit to correct previous edit summary; the reference was to Antigonish (poem), not Antigonish". -- MelanieN (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I was hoping you had a magic wand. Cheers. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 21:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

They haven't added that one to the admin toolbox. Sorry. 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

About Flamengo

Hello, thanks for protection. I exposed my argument and the source in the talk page. After the end of protection, I intend to put the source in the article. In ptwiki we take the position that Flamengo has 7 titles in the Campeonato Brasileiro (Brazilian Championship). What Flamengo won in 1987 would be the Copa União (Union Cup), which is also a national title. The argument is based on the STF decision. Full content of the decision can be seen here. It's in Portuguese; unfortunately there is no English version. Best regards. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, A.WagnerC, and thanks for the note. But explaining this to me doesn't do you any good. You need to explain this to the other users, on the article talk page. Start a new section at the bottom of the page, don't add your comments to a four-year-old thread. And ping or invite the other users to come to the talk page and reply. That's what full protection is supposed to achieve: to give the different users a chance to establish why their position is correct. Lay out your evidence, even it if is in Portuguese. You can probably translate the key parts for them. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC) P.S. to remind me what this is about: Clube de Regatas do Flamengo. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion about the 1987 champion is very delicate. Even with the decision of last resort in the Brazilian Court, Flamengo himself still considers himself the champion. The fans know of this decision, but they do not recognize. I was thinking about to put a note explaining imbroglio, the same used in the ptwiki article. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be a good idea. And put it in a new section, at the bottom of the page, where people can see it. With a good clear section title explaining what it is about. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Can you block this user?

This user[13] is sending me "thank you" notices on every individual edit I've done. It's creepy, disruptive and annoying. Can you or another admin that sees this block this user? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done ~Awilley (talk) 05:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Awilley. Sorry, Snoogans, I was offline most of yesterday. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:23, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

P.S. They probably could have been blocked just for their username. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Re. Sense

Some preface before I ask two more favors... My sole reason for editing here relates to roughly 2,000 individual words or phrases that are too technical or expansive for me to independently define in my own yet-unpublished textbook comprising roughly 500,000 words. I've personally defined each and every one of the remaining 498,000 words in the form of pop-up text that is internally linked to the glossary within the e-textbook. A number of the 2,000 words or phrases indicated above, however, are externally linked to sources that include Wikipedia. When I find an article here that (1) suits my general purpose but (2) has an introductory paragraph whose definition dissatisfies me, I provide an edit so that my readers who follow the link won't be similarly dissatisfied, confused, or dubious of my steering them here.

In one such case, my textbook defines "eye" as "1. a sensory organ that (blah, blah, blah) ..." but didn't care to define "sensory organ" and instead opted to link the term to Wikipedia. Yet, "sensory organ" has no separate article here. The Wiktionary search engine for "sensory organ" redirects to Sensory nervous system. Until last week, my readers who followed the "sensory organ" link would have been greeted by the introductory verbiage shown here. In relevant part: "Sensation is the physical process during which sensory systems respond to stimuli and provide data for perception. A sense is any of the systems involved in sensation. During sensation, sense organs engage in stimulus collection and transduction."

For my specific purposes, there's no mention of "sensory organ" in that introductory paragraph. As a matter of general interest, however, it seemed untenable to me that an article on "sense" would open with a statement about "sensation."

Long story short, I heeded the article's whatever-it's-called notice that "This article's lead section may be too long for the length of the article. Please help by moving some material from it into the body of the article." In so doing, I re-worded the opening paragraph for accuracy and relevance, and I moved a huge chunk from the lead section into a separate sensory organ section. Now, readers who follow my link will wind up exactly where I intended.

As for the favors, could you look at the sense article and comment on the process for removing its "This article's lead section may be too long..." text box? Secondly, do you have a way to change the search engine so that "sensory organ" links either to a disambiguation page or to the newly-created section of the sense article? Cheers. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 02:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Nice work! I reviewed your new section; it is clear and accomplishes exactly what you want to accomplish. (Although I did remove or modify some of the wikilinks; it was suffering from an excess of blue-ness.) I have modified Sense organ, Sense organs, Sensory organ, and Sensory organs so that they now redirect to your new section. And I agree that your changes have fixed the "lead too long" issue, so I removed the tag and explained why at the talk page. Thanks for the note. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist. Your "over-linking" edits are a vast improvement. I had a mind to do some of it myself, but , lazy me... I wanted to give you a chance to improve your "most active editor" ranking. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 16:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

LOL! Well, this has added 12 edits to my score, and every little bit helps... -- MelanieN (talk) 16:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

On that score (*lame pun intended*), if you want to pad your edit count, have a look at the article on sport. After reworking some the lead definition's woeful definition, which now accords with my own standards for semantic accuracy and concision, I noticed how the entire article is rife with punctuation errors, pleonasms, circumlocution, etc. Hint: Making the needed edits one-by-one rather than en masse will move your ranking up to 700 or so in short order! --Kent Dominic·(talk) 18:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Pleonasms Ooh, you made me look one up! Score a point for yourself! No, I'm not going to tackle Sport. Got enough to do in the areas I actually know at least a little bit about. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

I know it isn't much, but wanted to send you a personalized "thanks" for the protection on the Seth Jahn article. Hovering around it was draining. Thank you so much. Pirmas697 (talk) 23:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Protection for Useful Idiot

Hi Melanie, there's been a spate of vandalism from different IPs in Slovakia today at Useful idiot. I don't know enough about Slovakian politics to know what's going on, but my guess is that someone called the PM a useful idiot, because suddenly all sorts of IPs are coming to the page to add his name and/or photograph to it. Temporary page protection would be helpful. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

It looks like what started all this was the Slovakian PM's decision to import the Russian Sputnik V vaccine. One of the IPs pointed this out on an editor's talk page: [14]. In any case, the vandalism continues, and there are too many IPs involved to play whack-a-mole, so page protection would help. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

In that case, it would not be vandalism strictly speaking. A possibly undue content POV. SPECIFICO talk 23:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Thucydides. A classic case of what protection is for. Semi-protected for four days. Let me know if the attacks resume when the protection expires. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC) BTW, I am happy to respond to requests at my talk page, but sometimes it is more effective or more reliable to make a protection request at WP:RFPP than to ask an individual admin. Case in point: I have been offline virtually all day today, and just happened to log on for a few minutes to see this request. How I deal with it if I want to make a request of a particular admin: I first check their contributions to see if they are online.-- MelanieN (talk) 03:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC) -- MelanieN (talk) 03:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for handling this. I'm glad you logged in at the right time to see it. I'll take your advice and go to RFPP next time something like this comes up. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Legislative Council of Hong Kong

So what now? I introduced sources but he still keeps claiming the thing that is on5 different languages simply doesn't exist. And no one from AIV is doing anything-AINH (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

AINH, there's nothing much I can do. Your dispute hasn't quite reached the point of needing full protection; you two are just reverting each other and getting nowhere. What you need to do is to post a message on the article's talk page, explaining your position and showing your evidence. Arguing in edit summaries does nothing to solve the problem. But once you explain your position on the talk page, other people can evaluate it - and maybe help to settle your dispute. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

San Diego Zoo Global

Hello I'm Chip3004 When you get a chance This Article San Diego Zoo Global needs to be moved from San Diego Zoo Global to San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance, See below and here is a statement from Paul A. Baribault President/CEO of San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance from The email I recieved from work.

The past year has brought incredible challenges for all of us. With you by our side, we were able to meet extraordinary, unprecedented needs during a global pandemic while caring for the countless animals and plants that rely on us each and every day. We are forever grateful for you and your continued support. What we have all faced reminds us of our strengths and proves that we are all connected to—and dependent on—each other. It has never been more clear that we must work together to safeguard the future of our planet and the wildlife depending on us. That responsibility requires us to focus our vision and advance our efforts in new and important ways. We are thrilled to announce that San Diego Zoo Global is evolving as an organization into San Diego Zoo WildLife Alliance

Chip3004 (talk) 04:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Chip3004. I somehow missed this change. I will make the move and do any other changes needed in the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

References

edit

I think it would be a good idea to strike this. I'm not sure I see it as a clear threat, and I know you didn't mean it that way, but I can see how to a non-admin it would feel like that coming from an admin. —valereee (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. But I responded explaining that it was a real question. I recall the TB, and I have not been following her career here to see if it was overturned. She could have just said "it was overturned" if in fact it was. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'd suggest the place to ask a sincere question is at her user talk rather than in the middle of a content dispute at one of WP's most politically-charged articles, but I've said my piece. —valereee (talk) 19:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The topic ban was lifted as a result of this discussion, which is worth re-reading in its entirety. MastCell ^Talk 20:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

One wonders (actually I don't really) why anyone who has shown (as you have) a distaste for the subject to the Trump BLP is not topic banned for deliberately working to misuse the website to slant the article to fit their biases. I don't edit articles on liberal politicians cause I know I am biased...and I would more than likely support negative views over positive ones as you routinely do at the Trump article (though I was impartial enough to support the Hillary Clinton article at FAC). You're not as bad as some and have shown some impartiality but I could easily provide diffs that show you harbor some deep seated animosity towards the subject. Misusing an article talkpage to threaten, insinuate or whatever an editor you are in disagreement with is, however, a departure for you. As I recollect, the heading of that section was merely an inquiry to remove some or all of what Atsme posted...not sure (actually I am sure) why it turned into a "get-Atsme" fund raiser. Oh well, least we know the Trump BLP wont fall victim to fancruft.--MONGO (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@MONGO, I think you need to provide some diffs for this: deliberately working to misuse the website to slant the article to fit their biases. That's a pretty serious accusation with no diffs. —valereee (talk) 21:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, valereee, but let it go. People can say what they want; I'd much rather not turn it into a "prove it!" thread. Those are generally a waste of bandwidth IMO. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

RFPP backlog - thank you!!!

Thanks for your (ongoing!) effort on the RFPP backlog. It's greatly appreciated! Ravensfire (talk) 02:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

My pleasure. Will keep it up as long as I can but it's getting late. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Can this IP be blocked?

Hello, can IP 148.252.250.132 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) please be blocked as soon as possible? --Ashleyyoursmile! 14:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

They have been blocked, sorry to bother you. --Ashleyyoursmile! 14:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

No problem. Glad it's been taken care of. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Mark F. Pomerantz

On 17 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mark F. Pomerantz, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that attorney Mark F. Pomerantz, who supervised the prosecution of mob boss John A. Gotti, is now assisting a criminal investigation into Donald Trump's finances? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mark F. Pomerantz. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Mark F. Pomerantz), 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Our Lady of Medjugorje

Dear Melanie N, I need help on this page. Back in October I and another editor requested help because we need a more expert editor to help with a conflict. @Slp1: kindly came by and has been working with us. She asked us not to edit on the page, we had many discussions and in time she cleaned up the page in a sandbox and brought the draft back for us to see. Her intent was tweak this draft and place on the main page to replace what is there and to work with us to fix the page. The other editor has not come back since about 2/13. I responded to her request the best I knew how and she has never responded and that has been since February 14. I have reached out with no response and even sent an email to her. I notice that she is editing elsewhere now. I truly don't know what to do about it. Can you help me out? I am committed to finishing this page. I am not going anywhere. It also includes other pages that are related.Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, User:Red Rose 13, and thanks for the note. I'm afraid I am not going to be much use to you, since I know nothing about the subject. I do see that User:Slp1 made a draft in her sandbox; she seems to have taken the original article as a starting point and expanded and improved on it. I’m guessing her intent was to paste the sandbox version into the current article, replacing the content that is already there but not actually deleting the article. Pasting the new content into the existing article space would be acceptable per Wikipedia guidelines, since it would retain the history of the original article. She is currently active at Wikipedia; it is possible she did not get your email or ping, and simply got busy with other things. I would suggest you post on her user talk page and ask her where the situation stands: is the sandbox article ready to go? If so, would she be willing to paste it into the article or would she want someone else to do it? If it is not ready, what does she recommend to get it finished? She has done a lot of good work on this draft and I assume she will want it to “go public” sometime soon. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:40, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your help.Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Treasure Planet

You placed the Treasure Planet article under the Pending Changes protection on April 8, 2020, (with no specific expiration date, as far as I can tell). Could you please unprotect the article now? The article has been under continuous protection of one form or another since April 26, 2009 [15]. That has got to be some kind of a record. WP:PCPP policy says that "indefinite PC protection should be used only in cases of severe long-term disruption." That's not really the case here. I don't think the article currently qualifies for Pending Changes protection. There have been no BLP or copyright violations recently. Looking at the page history for February and March, I don't see any vandalism edit attempts either. There have been some edits that were not accepted but none of them appear to have been actual vandalism. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Nsk92, and thanks for the note. The article was placed under indefinite semi-protection in 2009 due to sockpuppetry. In 2010 they tried PC protection for a while but switched back to semi, so apparently the article was still under attack. In 2020 I responded to an RFPP request to lower the level of protection, and I dropped it to PC. In the year since then, about half of the IP edits have been reverted and half accepted - the type of situation that PC is intended for. However, the reverted edits have been only a few a month - a rate of problem edits that can usually be handled through normal page watching. So I will remove the PC protection. It can be reinstated in the future if it becomes necessary. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, very good, thank you. Nsk92 (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Question about adding a new article

Hello, MelanieN! This is a peculiar question but you are the most frequent editor with the most knowledge that I have spoken to recently and wished to hear your insight on this particular issue. Following the tragic shooting in Boulder, Colorado, I have been seeing renewed interest in the phenomenon of mass shootings being a relatively frequent occurrence in my home state. While other states don't appear to have list pages for mass shootings, I have conceived an idea for an article regarding mass gun violence in the state of Colorado. It would take some time to complete, but I wanted to know who to reach out to so that I could determine if this is a project worth pursuing. Thank you and sorry for the rather morbid topic. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

comment by (talk page watcher): Pbritti, we have List of shootings in Colorado, is that what you're thinking of creating or is your idea for something different? Schazjmd (talk) 14:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the thought, Pbritti, and thanks for pointing out the "list" article, Schazjmd. I see that there are "List of shootings in..." articles for several other states as well, including Virginia, Texas, California, and New York; it appears Colorado is not the only member of this unfortunate club. Pbritti, I guess the question here is whether there is enough Reliable Source coverage to suggest that this is a notable phenomenon for Colorado in particular. In a quick search I do find a couple of recent articles prompted by the latest incident: [16] [17] But IMO you would need more than just another recap to justify an actual article like "Gun violence in Colorado". I'm assuming you would want to analyze it as a phenomenon, rather than merely repeat the reporting on individual shootings. Are there scholarly studies or analyses, to suggest this is something that affects Colorado in particular and why? If so you could have the basis for a really meaningful article. Maybe the thing to do for now is to add more items to the "list of" article, which seems to be missing some of the ones mentioned in those recent reports. And if you want to explore the idea, you could create a userspace draft such as User:Pbritti/Colorado shootings where you could collect sources, make notes, and draft away to your heart's content without anyone interfering. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you to both Nsk92 and MelanieN. I’ll explore the draft page idea and collect sources there. I’ve been perusing news and academic sources and have some monographs from the ‘90s that actually suggest an earlier relationship between Colorado and shootings. It’ll probably stay in draft form until more reliable academic sources discuss the post-Columbine shootings collectively. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2021).

Administrator changes

Alexandria • Happyme22 • RexxS

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
• Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.

Technical news

• When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
• Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)

Arbitration

• A community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure is open until April 25.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Donkey Hodie (TV series)

It's worth noting that Ripple346 has been indeffed. While cleaning up after their disruption, I noticed a section on their user page which was quite inappropriate and had it removed through request to rfpp, that combined with subsequent incivility on their talk page led to the block being converted to indefinite. As you may have surmised I'm not a fan of 10mmsocket's behavior either. But since Ripple346 is unlikely to be unblocked for some time, possibly six-months or longer. And since the conflict between those editors was the source of the disruption, I see no reason why the page would need to be fully-protected. Admittedly there isn't too much to be lost by it remaining protected for 48 hours either but the default state of the encyclopedia should be unprotected. I hope you'll take this under advisement. 2A03:F80:32:194:71:227:81:1 (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)