User talk:MelanieN

My press

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

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)

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."

What you missed

This, timing unfortunate. It's unlikely your support would have changed the outcome, on the other hand it's impossible to be completely independent from prior !voting. I am no longer active at that article and consider myself in an ill-defined semi-retirement/indefinite wikibreak for the foreseeable future. I hope your vacation was enjoyable. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for trying. I would have voted for the moratorium, but since it has been proposed so recently I can see it's a dead issue for now. Don't go into retirement. There is lots of good stuff to do here, that has nothing to do with politics. --MelanieN (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I have added a new Option C to the most recent survey at the Trump talk page. I think everyone will find it appealing, so please comment about it and we can be done with this. Thanks. Hello Mandruss! Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Reel Injun In Educational Institutions

Hi,

Just noticed it duplicates Reel Injun. Adam9007 (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that too, but you got there ahead of me. That was the right tag. I already thanked you for it! --MelanieN (talk) 20:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Re: Earth forest

Thanks for improving Earth forest. When I had searched for the term all I got were flat-earth conspiracy pages, which, combined with the text, led me to tag it with speedy deletion. Apparently my Google skills failed me today! --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Wow, some people have all the fun at Google! 0;-D All I found was Chinese tourism websites. Flat earth stuff sounds a lot more interesting. Granted, the article was pretty poor - basically Original Research by someone who didn't know how to write an article. But I think it's now a keeper. --MelanieN (talk) 23:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration

Thanks for the ping. I like your lede rewrite. I actually think *most* of the article has been cleaned up. There are still some issues in the appointments and domestic policies section, but I'll try to clean some of that up now or later today. Hope your vacation was relaxing! TonyBallioni (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Yikes, look at all that revdel'ed stuff! I assume the problem was copyvio. Thanks for taking care of that, and for a lot of great work on the article. --MelanieN (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

About six sentences, oddly not in the sections that I thought were copyvios. I've done the cleanup that I can for today. I'm still not a huge fan of the appointments or America first sections, but I'm not quite sure how to tackle it. If you or someone else wants to tackle it, I think the article would be in okay shape. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not done with the lede - I want a little more about his appointments there - and I'll take a look at those other sections after that. --MelanieN (talk) 20:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Since you've helped with this article, you might want to add your thoughts on the class as a whole at the ANI thread WP:ANI#Re:_POV_Forks. Just thought I would alert you if you weren't aware. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Freehold Fencing Academy

The page is deleted by you and I wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement. Would you please help me about this. Barzi (talk) 14:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, Barzi, I have restored the page and put it into your private userspace. You can find it at User:Barzi/Freehold Fencing Academy. That will give you access to the information. However, it is nowhere near ready for the encyclopedia. Please read WP:NORG to see what is required for an article to be included here. Right now this has almost no independent references- just references to the Academy itself - and in a quick search I could not find any outside references for it. Without significant coverage from independent reliable sources it can't be here. You can keep it for your own reference, but don't try to add it to the encyclopedia unless you first ask me or some other admin, to see if it qualifies. --MelanieN (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration

On 19 April 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Donald Trump says he hopes to achieve a foreign policy whereby "old enemies become friends"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

Mifter (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Jennepicfoundation

Since you opened the last discussion there about Jenn and have been so involved, I thought I'd bring this to your attention: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Jennepicfoundation:_move_from_topic_ban_to_full_ban. Toddst1 (talk) 00:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

And there you go :)

User talk:SearchBeastEdmonton. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 05:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Good example. But I notice the talk page wasn't deleted, just the user page. --MelanieN (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Forgot about this. [2]. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 14:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

OIC - so she deleted it, then recreated it with the notice. Well, as you have pointed out and I have agreed, many admins do find this to be a valid situation for deleting user talk pages. --MelanieN (talk) 14:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Congrats!

I never thought I would return this gesture. Wear the shirt with pride! For the next day or so at least... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

LOLOL! Imagine that coming back to haunt me! Thank you, I'm very impressed that you remembered. (Personally I was in too much of a fog to remember who said what when I got my mop.) But wait: If I get desysopped again tomorrow, do I have to give it back??? --MelanieN (talk) 00:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: Hah! This] will teach you to make things visible again! --MelanieN (talk) 00:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Who's going to ask for a crappy T-shirt back? Not me. Besides, I think they were ordered with the assumption that the 2007 level of successful RFAs would continue so there's crates and crates of them in the admin clubhouse. Just push past the pallets of bottled tap water and shelves of Kraft Dinner and no-frills ramen packets. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I see the admin lounge is just as crappy as the t-shirt. Pull up a folding chair and I'll get you a styrofoam cup of instant coffee. So why do you think the adminstats bot is alternating - working one day and not the next? I mean, Cyberbot isn't crappy! --MelanieN (talk) 14:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

You can put your two cents in here and maybe make a sacrifice to the bot-op. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not techie enough to make a coherent comment at the discussion. I can just have fun with it until it gets fixed. As for sacrificing to the bot-op, I nommed at the bot-op's RfA, you'd think that would give me a little juice! Or is it like the old saying, "What Have You Done for Me Lately?" --MelanieN (talk) 14:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Women's Knockout Cup

Hi, how do I get the history and the past winners back on this page. It is always going to be a copy of past winners to another page having the same information? NZ Footballs Conscience (talk) 01:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Bottom line, you can't. We do not allow copying of material from other sites. You could write a history in your own words, based on (but not copying or close-paraphrasing) the history page at the other site. You will not be allowed to copy the table. You could possibly present the past winners information in prose. Sorry, but Wikipedia is very strict about copyright. --MelanieN (talk) 01:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me so quickly, I will re-write the history. For the table, will it be ok if I put it back in just with the teams who where the winners v runner ups and scores as that will be the same but won't be directly copying the website including the MVP, MVP club and ground it was played at? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NZ Footballs Conscience (talk • contribs) 01:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I think if you are basically creating your OWN table (not copying the other table, just using and citing information from it) that would probably be OK. But it's possible some other administrator might have a problem with it so I can't guarantee it. --MelanieN (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your help, I appreciate you taking the time to explain NZ Footballs Conscience (talk) 01:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Anonymous Student 1 in the EJ class

I posted anonymously to the arbitration talk page, well, for obvious reasons. I understand this means you can't trust completely that I'm an actual student in Prof Gelobter's class, but if you can track the IP address I'm definitely here on campus! Anyway I just wanted to say thank you for your comments about understanding the predicament we were in. I don't mean to throw him under the bus, but I just feel like I should speak honestly about my own discomfort with the assignment. I probably should have spoken to him directly about it? Not sure if that would have made a difference if he put up such resistance to repeated warnings from the pros here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.87.236 (talk) 03:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) 128, as an FYI, nothing in our policy prevents you from registering under a pseudonym and having a clean start, if you want to edit Wikipedia as a regular contributor away from the areas the class involved. It would probably be wise to notify the arbitration committee about your old account and your new account should you register, but many of the editors involved in this situation have high respect for the students (including myself). MelanieN is an admin and a longstanding user who could provide more insight on this, but we are typically very welcoming of newcomers who want to learn and contribute freely under policies. Wikipedia is a great place with an amazing mission, and it would be a benefit to the Encyclopedia to have bright young people contributing (so long as you make sure to follow all the policies that the class got in trouble for not following...) Anyway, my 2¢. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

(Oops, I got edit-conflicted by TonyBallioni - who had the same advice I did!)

Thanks for your comment, and thanks for coming here to talk. I had no doubt that you were what you said you were, and that your reporting was accurate. I added my "P.S." only because of prompting from another editor. But I appreciated your input and I admire your integrity. I think you were wise not to speak to the professor about your discomfort. From what I have seen of him here, he would have reacted very negatively. The result of the discussion was that no action was taken against him (and none was ever contemplated against the students), but there will be an extensive discussion, over the summer, with and about him and this experience. I notice that several people who are both Wikipedians and academics are planning to take part in that discussion so that should be helpful. Whether he will ever be able to adjust his own attitudes to the point where he and his students can contribute constructively to Wikipedia - I have to admit I doubt it.

Meanwhile, let's talk about you! You have been exposed to Wikipedia and I think it may have been eye-opening to you. I would encourage you to register a username and start to contribute here, in whatever areas you find interesting. Don't jump right in to article creation, just make little edits and corrections to existing articles until you find your way around. Don't use your username from the class project, and don't identify yourself as being the same person as this IP. And I don't think it's probably necessary to identify your new and old accounts to ArbCom; it was understood that the student accounts were temporary. I would advise you to just show up as a newbie and start out! If you want help or encouragement I would be glad to oblige. Yes, even though I went to Stanford! ;-P --MelanieN (talk) 03:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Wow

I could almost ask you out. I thought you'd delete my content without second thought and you instead revised it in an understandable way. Thanks. - Informant16 April 30, 2017

Hey, don't give up on Wikipedia! Valid content is always welcome here - even if it sometimes seems like everybody has itchy delete fingers. --MelanieN (talk) 02:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I see this comment just as I'm about to give up on Wikipedia... Hang on. What am I doing here? I'm supposed to be on wikibreak except for Theme Hospital . Adam9007 (talk) 04:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey, this is neutral territory, you are safe here. You are entitled to take a break from your wikibreak. --MelanieN (talk) 14:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I've barely begun it, and even that's only because I was stupid enough to get myself blocked. Adam9007 (talk) 16:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

It's entirely within your control - whether to take a wikibreak or not, or whether to take a break from some areas or activities while continuing to participate in others. It's all up to you. You also have complete freedom to decide on something, announce you are going to do it, and then change your mind. Nobody's going to hold you to what you said earlier. --MelanieN (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to a San Diego edit-a-thon

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Meetup/San Diego/May 2017 . RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48

Wrong Logo protected

Good morning. I requested protection for my company's page SKYJET Airlines because some user keeps changing the posted logo. You protected the page but the other user changed the logo again, now I cant change it back. please see our official website to confirm that the logo currently on the wiki page is not the official logo we have, and please restore to the official logo. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyjetmis (talk • contribs) 00:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, Skyjetmis. In protecting the page, I did not take sides as to which version was "right". And the fact that you "can't change it back" is the whole point of full protection: so that you can't continue edit warring with the other user. Edit warring is forbidden here and can get you blocked, even if you are sure you are "right". Use the article's talk page, explain why you prefer your version, work it out with the other person.

BTW I see that you are an employee of the company; that means you have a conflict of interest. Please read this link and understand what limitations it places on you. More to the point, I see that you may be using two usernames: User:skyjetmis redirects User:Cloudstar90. Cloudstar90 is not actually a registered username, so you are not in violation of our username policy right now, but why does your user talk page redirect there? This is important and you need to explain it. You can only have one username, period. --MelanieN (talk) 02:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Looking again, I see that you did not do that move or redirect; User:Skyjet164 did. I will move it back and have words with that user. They had NO BUSINESS moving another user's page. I'll fix it and get back to you. --MelanieN (talk) 02:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi MelanieN. I already posted a change request on the talk page where I explained why I think it futile to discuss with the user in question. He knows he's wrong, he just keeps doing it anyway for his own agenda. About the redirect to Cloudstar90, If he did that then you see what kind of user I'm dealing with?

I have moved it back and left a message on their talk page asking them to explain themselves. And I see that you have now disclosed your connection to the company on the article's talk page, and explained that you were sent here to change the logo. Some other Wikipedians may see your comment there, look into it, and decide what the logo should be. In the meantime, please never use an edit summary like this again. Civility is our policy; cursing and name calling are against our rules. By the way, please sign your comments on talk pages. You do that by adding four tildes, like this ~~~~ . The system will automatically convert it to your name and a datestamp. Here's what happens when I do that: --MelanieN (talk) 02:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I think I can see which way this dispute is going to be resolved, but let the 24 hours pass so the other user can comment - and explain himself. --MelanieN (talk) 02:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi MelanieN, I apologize for that unprofessional comment. You are aright. I'm new to wikipedia editing and don't know much about the syntax and shortcuts. Let me try that one for my signature. --Skyjetmis (talk) 03:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Another strange thing I noticed is that the page User:Skyjetmis was created by Skyjet164, and its original text seems to translate to "Good evening do not replace the old logo SKYJET thank you." Was he trying to leave a message? Adam9007 (talk) 03:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I guess he is, i think he's telling me to stop changing it back to the "old" logo. He's claiming that the logo he's posting is the new official logo which is simply not true. --Skyjetmis (talk) 03:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Another thing - Skyjet164's user page is copied from User:Bumbl loid. Adam9007 (talk) 03:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that good detective work, Adam! I was sure he had copied it from somewhere but didn't know where. I trust you saw the messages I left on his user talk page. I'm going to allow him the rest of the day to respond. I think it's clear by now how this logo dispute is going to turn out. It's not yet clear what will be the outcome with regard to Skyjet164. --MelanieN (talk) 13:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I too had a hunch that it was copied from somewhere. I looked at the source, and noticed this at the end: Category:Wikipedians in Zamboanga City|Bumbl loid This manual category not only contradicts the assertion that he lives in Quezon City, but also contains the someone else's username. I checked the category and, sure enough, that user's page is almost identical and predates Skyjet's. And yes, :Bumbl loid's page also has that exact line. (Oh, and yes I did see the messages you left him). Adam9007 (talk) 15:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

They've continued to edit war without answering your questions so I've indeffed them for disruptive editing (they have to communicate to get unblocked) and deleted their user page as a copy-paste. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought it was possible they might just quietly fade away (knowing they had been caught out) but no such luck. Since they resumed their disruptive behavior, I agree that was absolutely the right result. And I can't offhand think of any argument they might make that would result in an unblock. Totally WP:NOTHERE. --MelanieN (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

So here's a question for you, Neil: The edit summary in their second and third additions is an obscene insult in Tagalog. Should it be revdel'ed, or doesn't it matter since this is enwiki? --MelanieN (talk) 22:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I revdel those. An obscenity is an obscenity and I'm pretty sure a lot of Spanish speaking Americans would get upset if Spanish obscenities were left lying around. I actually did check these edit summaries but Google Translate threw up gibberish. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Gone. Your Google Translate must be a little more prudish than mine. BTW do you like the way I carefully followed the instructions at The Wrong Version? --MelanieN (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Options, options…

Dear MelanieN, I took the liberty to WP:IAR and add a shorter option B2 to your survey on the popular vote wording. It conveys the same thing but avoids repeating that Trump won the election. I hope you don't mind. — JFG ^talk 17:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

JFG, I can accept B2 also and I said so at the discussion. However, I reverted your making the change while the issue is under discussion. The discussion says '"x-and-such is the version in the article now"; changing it in mid-discussion makes that false and otherwise muddies the water. Hold off until consensus is reached, please. --MelanieN (talk) 20:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi again. Sorry your polite request for other editors to refrain from adding survey options didn't age well – and I started it , oy vey, must be Ye Olde Curse of the Popular Vote !! — JFG ^talk 18:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

More like Ye Olde Business As Usual. As long as we can keep it from spinning off into new discussions/new surveys! That's the real problem that has resulted in so many "no consensus" discussions at that page. --MelanieN (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Right. I'm still amazed at this particular Groundhog Day… But well, seems Hillary went on air to vent about why she lost, so perhaps that awakened the spectre of this particular edit dispute yet again! — JFG ^talk 21:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Everybody's fault but hers, right? She and Trump have more in common than I thought. --MelanieN (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	THANKS: for defending Wikipedia against the incessant attempts by outsiders and troglodytes to violate her integrity and land her smack in the current political and cultural warfare we see and hear all around us. Quis separabit? 16:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Don't thank me yet, I'm only about 10% of the way through. BTW thanks for letting me know Wikipedia's gender; I never realized she was female. Is that why the majority of editors are guys? 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Didn't mean to offend. I was waxing poetic and used the feminine in the same way that boats and ships and very often other things that people have a special affection for are usually referred to as "she"; also a pronoun is needed given the wording. Which one should I have used? I am too old for PC re-education, so my apology will have to do. How do you know "the majority of editors are guys?" Just curious. Also, in re "I'm only about 10% of the way through", why don't/didn't you use ROLLBACK? Quis separabit? 16:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Not offended; amused! Being female myself, it's nice to know Wikipedia is with me. It's pretty generally accepted that most editors here are male; see Wikipedia:Gender bias and editing on Wikipedia. Wikipedia at one time set a goal (not yet realized, I believe) to increase female editorship to 20%. Of course these figures are based on some kind of user survey, since most registered editors here do not identify themselves as either male or female. Anyhow, I am comfortable being in the minority here, but I'm glad to know Wikipedia and I are both subject to special affection. As to why I'm not using Rollback: because every article is different; some have had intervening edits, some haven't; and there is a grammatical error in the sentence I am retaining that needs hand-correcting. It's a slog but somebody's gotta do it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

User:216.165.95.64

This IP keeps blatantly readding the POV/OR text in re American Health Care Act of 2017 to various GOP congresspersons (all in NY State). Quis separabit? 00:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. I have warned them to stop. I see you are reverting, good for you. If they keep doing it after my warning, I may have to take action. At this point we have to AGF, that they don't realize it has been rejected by consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks like they stopped several hours ago. Having already done all the damage they could. Did you get them all? BTW I was meaning to say, I have always liked your signature. I assume it refers to this? --MelanieN (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

FYI re RFPP

Hi M. I sure understand why you declined the request on this. Only 5 or so edits over the last month but the IPs change so I was hoping to drive them to the thread on the talk page. Hopefully that will happen now. Best regards and have a pleasant Sunday. MarnetteD|Talk 21:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. It was a borderline call, and if they persist let me know and I'll lock them out for a while. --MelanieN (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks and will do. MarnetteD|Talk 21:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi again. Now they've taken to blanking huge sections of the article. MarnetteD|Talk 05:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi'ed for a week. Good luck getting them to the talk page. BTW your note there needs some copy editing. --MelanieN (talk) 06:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the PP and the heads up on the c/e. My "e" key is sticky and is causing all sorts of problems - but that doesn't excuse the rest of the error - trout almondine for me for not hitting the preview button :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 06:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Don't you hateeee it wheeeeeeen that happeeeeens? --MelanieN (talk) 06:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

It is an eeeeeeky situation M. It has been a slow Sunday morning but I have now added my thoughts at the talk page. If you feel more is needed please let me know and I will see what I can do. MarnetteD|Talk 16:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Update

I had a couple of mint juleps while watching the Kentucky Derby and I am down for the count. I will see y'all tomorrow.--MelanieN (talk) 00:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Protection of Swahili

Why did you protect this article even though you declined to do so on the request page? Have you noticed the persistent addition and restoration of unsourced material (for example) to this page, which in my opinion is the real reason that the protection request was made? Have you noticed that the requestor has ignored repeated requests to discuss Swahili versus Kiswahili on the article talk page? 2605:6000:EF43:8500:8D1D:42A:EA65:9EF5 (talk) 09:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I initially declined to protect the article because there had been only a few recent instances of problem editing (although there had been many a week or two earlier). I said at the time that I would reconsider if problems continued, and they did, so I did. The talk page is the place to work this out, via discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

And the "problems" you are preventing are what, exactly? Surely you know. 2605:6000:EF43:8500:8D1D:42A:EA65:9EF5 (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Mass deletion of material, and edit warring to make what is clearly an incorrect edit to the infobox. I'm not going to get involved in the actual content, which should be worked out on the article's talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Melanie, you prevented IP editors from editing this article while allowing registered editors to continue to edit. Your semi-protection of this article was followed immediately by restoration of unsourced material by a registered editor who has been involved in this controversy. You, in effect, "got involved" and favored registered editors by not protecting the article fully. Very disappointing and unfair. 2605:6000:EF43:8500:8D1D:42A:EA65:9EF5 (talk) 11:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Just do as you have been advised by MelanieN. Take the matter to the article talk page. Melanie has not got involved, as you portray. She has acted in the conduct of an administrator, and followed her duty to protect an article that was under disruptive editing - which is the correct procedure. If the incorrect revision has been stored, then make that known at Talk:Swahili. Wes Wolf ^Talk 12:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify the page where the discussion has been started is Talk:Swahili language. Both the IP and Wesley Wolf have used a link that goes to the DAB page. MarnetteD|Talk 17:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Protection on Poola Rangadu (2012 film)

You had pending changes protected the page on my request. Can I request you to change that to Semi-protection. There has been 1 editor and probably his sockpuppets removing referenced edits from the page. I pinged him for discussion on the movie's talk page, besides warning him on his own talk page. He however does not seem to be interested in discussing the merits of his content removal, and had stopped the vandalism yesterday after I gave him a final warning on his talk page. However he is continuing with his vandalism using IPs now. I don't want to take him to AIV as it might seem as a little harsh on a newbie from my side. I feel that if the power to edit with IPs are gone, he will probably decide to comment on the talk page as he knows he will be blocked for more arbitrary content removal. Thanks. Jupitus Smart 07:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that the problem editing has increased to the point that PC protection isn't enough. I have added semi-protection for a week. When it expires the PC protection will still be in place. Let me know if the problems resume then. --MelanieN (talk) 13:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank You. Jupitus Smart 17:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

ACDA

Closing. This is the wrong place for this.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello. You seem like a mind of reason, although some of what was going on before you jumped-in smacks of anti-intellectualism. You ought to agree with the wikipeda maxim that there is no such thing as objectivity, and to be neutral is to describe debates rather than engage in them: Achieving neutrality: As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage Even when Watson and Crick published their revolutionary paper on DNA in Nature, it contained a famous mistake/ommision in the structure; making some of what they believed and said, not fact but opinion—and not peer reviewed. This is because even research is objective, and more significantly because of the fact that most research findings are wrong. There is a fair bit of righteous irony in using one's own unsubstantiated opinion to rid the world of another's opinion—that there is some vast conspiracy by connected researchers of so called neo-prohibitionism to hijack Wikipedia. Let's just consider a few other explanations: (1) there is organic interest across the country for disparate reasons—the most likely way edits happen; (2) some high school student is retaliating for PCocks peculiar high-school edits on a different page—or the balancing view that some academic journalists validly consider Breitbart News an oxymoron; (3) there are many subject matter experts and they are not connected; (4) other; (5) a western collation of defence attorneys connected to the Innocence Project are irate over careerist peace and prosecution officials destroying people where 0.02 BAC is not a probable reason for failing a field sobriety test; (6) growing interest in bringing the public safety focus to speeding and road safety which has greater health dividends—guns and butter; (7) the road cyclist lobby wanting their roads safer; (8) and many cute little dogs randomly with computers that still nobody knows are on the internet. Only one of the nine scenarios is considered: the odds are probably against it! I have been watching this page as part of Road Safety Week, where speed is the focus. In fact there is a quarter page public message about this in today's (May 8th 2017) New York Times (page A17) about this issue. Just because a POV on alcohol is popular does not make it true: now the page being referenced on the ACDA page is authored by an unconnected subject matter expert, has many peer-reviewed footnote citations, and is probably balancing to at least mention—especially since most of Europe has a much different approach to alcohol all-together. Hardly a fringe view, but may be quite foreign to some laypeople. Perhaps several subject matter experts should read it first and say what is wrong with it. Politics is the who gets what, when, where, and how of anything. You will find it everywhere, and it is not a bad thing for Wikipeda to shed public light even on so-called buried or dark conflict, rather than to engage in it. There is nothing insidious going on here—the document has validity and is thought provoking. No reasonable person wants drunks driving, but speed management is arguably a vastly underappreciated issue in comparison. Graham's hierarchy of disagreement: Aim at the top during disputes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‪170.213.2.175 (talk • contribs) References Hello, ‪170.213.2.175‬. I presume you are talking about this article, which I protected. The article talk page is the place for you and all the other IPs to make your case. --MelanieN (talk) 06:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC) You presume correct. Thank you. 170.213.2.163 (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Opinion

Hi, Melanie. Just curious as to what your opinion is of this interplay ([3], [4]). Was I basically correct or am I overreacting? Yours, Quis separabit? 13:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Your initial reaction was strong but possibly justified. However, when other people chimed in with other sources, you should have taken it to the talk page instead of continuing to revert or edit war over it. I see that no one has yet taken it to the talk page, but IMO it is definitely time for talking instead of editing. Luckily for all of you the article does not appear to be under DS. Please realize that I am commenting, because you asked, without any opinion or knowledge of the specific allegation being made there, and I don't intend to get involved in that issue. --MelanieN (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Sources do back up the use of the world false

For example, see the WP article. The article directly provides a quote saying the admin wanted such statements.Casprings (talk) 14:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The other two articles certainly don't. I can't read the WaPo article (over my limit for the month) but I would be very surprised if it says "false". They were asked to say publicly that they saw no evidence of collusion. To characterize that as "false" assumes that they DO see evidence of collusion, and that would be an enormous story if true, but I don't believe either of them has said such a thing. Anyhow, our report should say what specifically they were asked to say, not a vague "made false statements". Also, anything we add needs to say "reportedly", not assert it in Wikipedia's voice. And it should go in the text body, not the lede. (For example see which WP article?) MelanieN alt (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Quate from the WP:"Senior intelligence officials also saw the March requests as a threat to the independence of U.S. spy agencies, which are supposed to remain insulated from partisan issues.

“The problem wasn’t so much asking them to issue statements, it was asking them to issue false statements about an ongoing investigation,” a former senior intelligence official said of the request to Coats. "

Casprings (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. That's kind of a weak and offhand support, but in any case I think we should say specifically what they were asked to say rather than a vague "false statements ". And in the text, not the lede. And "reportedly". Do you have a problem with any of that? MelanieN alt (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

No I am fine with all of that. That said, I think elements of this story are lede worthy.Casprings (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

At least let's wait a bit and see if this becomes a major part of the story or just one more drop of water in the flood. MelanieN alt (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi MelanieN: just a tip if you're "over my limit for the month" on WaPo or any other paywalled source, try opening it in a "private browsing" window. That usually gives you a fresh session with a number of "free articles". You may have to disable any ad-blocker though. — JFG ^talk 05:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Add one to semi-protected institutes please?

Thanks for putting semi-protection on that slab of phone-spammed Indian institutes! However, I forgot one - JSSATE Noida - whcih promptly got spammed again tonight. Could you please add that one? Cheers! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done Let me know if you find any others. --MelanieN (talk) 14:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

'Nother one please: Krishna Institute of Engineering and Technology. Cheers! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

And another two: Ishan Institute of Management & Technology, DIT University. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:53, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done and I have requested a rangeblock. This is ridiculous. --MelanieN (talk) 15:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

No luck on the rangeblock. We'll just have to keep playing whack-a-mole. --MelanieN (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Whackity-whack :p Add Dr. D.Y. Patil College of Engineering, Pune please, and a whack for newest sock User:Bazar patna. - Dude must have an interesting business model... --Elmidae (talk · contribs)

Done and done. And I think I figured out who they are: http://admissionbazar.com/contact-us.php . --MelanieN (talk) 18:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I see! Does that allow some targeted blocking action? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I doubt it. Looking further I find that they insert different phone numbers into articles, and only one of the phone numbers led to that company, so even focusing on the phone number(s) doesn't seem to get everything. --MelanieN (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Google searching the phone numbers led me to another WP one from the sockmasater that we missed. I wonder if we need to double check that they are all cleaned out? [5] --MelanieN (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

No, that one should be covered - the majority of articles in the original RfPP list were based on the contributions of that account. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Two short protections earlier made by Oswah just came off again and immediately got spammed: Galgotias College of Engineering and Technology, Galgotias University. Please add. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Done. --MelanieN (talk) 14:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Next sock: Rahul Prakash 55555. - He may not be very bright, but he's persistent. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Blocked. The good news is: if he is now resorting to using talk pages, that means that the semiprotection is working. --MelanieN (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Galgotias University is getting it again from IP. Maybe protecting the talk page itself can be done? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Protecting talk pages is rare. I don't think we are to that point yet but let's see what happens; keep me posted. I blocked the IPv4 but that won't help much since they are so dynamic. --MelanieN (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Ajay Kumar Garg Engineering College has come off protection, and the IP is back. I'm guessing that this will happen to all the affected pages if they are coming off protection now.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Gave it a month this time. Keep me posted. --MelanieN (talk) 12:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Here we go again (IP): DIT University, C. V. Raman College of Engineering, Bhubaneshwar, Galgotias College of Engineering and Technology, Galgotias University. - All basically at the moment that MusikBot removed the template. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

All protected for a month. This spammer is certainly persistent! IMO they aren't really paying any attention to the presence or absence of the template. In several cases they did it while the template was still in place but the protection had expired. (The bot can take several days to get around to it.) In other cases it was a week after the protection expired. Most likely they simply tried every school on their list when they noticed that the protection had expired for some of them. BTW I noticed that in several cases you restored the template; if you were hoping to fake out the spammer, it didn't work, and merely made the bot remove it a second time. --MelanieN (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah no, that was just me undoing too lazily :p --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Isn't this fun?

Maharashtra Institute of Technology, this time with attempted impersonation of Head of Admission. Sigh. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:57, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Protected for a month. --MelanieN (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

More please: VIT University, Talk:DIT University (check out the modus on that one - quite inventive!), Amity University, JSSATE Noida. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

All of these hit again, and also add Dr. D.Y. Patil College of Engineering, Pune, R.V. College of Engineering, Lakshmi Narain College of Technology and Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, please! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Got 'em. I suspect it's this person [6], [7], somebody who claims to be able to help people get admitted to such schools. If they start up again after the protection expires, I'll try again for a rangeblock. --MelanieN (talk) 15:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

BTW these month-long semi-protections are going to expire in early July, and I will be away during part of that time. I think we'd better loop in another admin, maybe User:NeilN?, that you can ask for help if they resume the attack while I am AFC. Neil, you OK with that? --MelanieN (talk) 15:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I'm on vacation right now but will be free from the clutches of jam smeared hands and hunting for monster fairy vampires (yeah, I don't know either) next week. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Great, thanks, Neil. I'll continue to carry out what is needed in this case while I am available, but in a long-term case like this it's helpful to have someone else who knows the backstory. This particular adventure started in early May, and is repeated pretty much whenever protection expires. The spammers are all socks; I think RP singh love is the original sockmaster (followed by Rahul singh love and several others, until he caught on that registered socks can be blocked and IPv4s pretty much can't). Enjoy your vacation! and best wishes to the monster fairy vampires. I think I know how that game starts, we call it "yes and". "Let's be vampires." "Yes, and let's be fairy vampires." "Yes, and let's be monster fairy vampires." Big improvement over arguing whether to be vampires or fairies. --MelanieN (talk) 17:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Prithee, here's Krishna Institute of Engineering and Technology, and Noida Institute of Engineering and Technology forthwith, which one commendeth to your good services and sundry palliative ministrations. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

E'en so enacted according to thy entreaty. --MelanieN (talk) 15:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Rejoice, for Haldia Institute of Technology has arisen and promises great savings; and lo, witness ye also the Presence at Talk:JSSATE Noida (although, being a talk page, it may not be branded with the Mark of Cain). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Verily it appeareth the Haldia site hath been unfortified for more than a fortnight! My most humble apologies for this dereliction. It shall rectified. A rampart shall be erected forthwith.

This villain is unrelenting. If he persisteth in this malfeasance, I shall be compelled to... purchase a new thesaurus! 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Holy Cross of San Antonio editor

Holy Cross of San Antonio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is an article you protected once. It's still got PC on it, and has an editor who continually adds unsourced and promotional material, removes maintenance templates, etc without ever responding to talk page notices.[8] I guess I could take them to ANI, what do you think? There's little to no chance they'd respond there. Doug Weller talk 10:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Yes, I see that they are a problem. They are an SPA for that subject (except for a couple of equally unsourced edits at another San Antonio school). Their additions seem to be entirely unsourced and/or promotional. The PC doesn't stop them because they are autoconfirmed. You have worn out your fingers explaining things on their talk page, over and over, without any response. I believe they are operating in good faith as they understand it (I did exactly the same things on my high school page when I was a newbie), but they are also NOTHERE - unwilling to abide by WP guidelines, unwilling to cooperate, unwilling to learn. I understand why you don't want to take unilateral action, you are INVOLVED. I think you are right that they would not respond to ANI. And they don't have email enabled. I'm thinking I could step in, as an uninvolved admin. My thought would be 1) a final warning; 2) a shortish, get-their-attention block if they do it again; 3) see what happens next. Or would you prefer a community (ANI) approach? --MelanieN (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I doubt that a short block would be effective as they are so sporadic. I have blocked editors indefinitely for not communicating, explaining carefully why and that communicating would probably get them unblocked. I would say final warning with an explanation of the important of communication in an collaborative project, and if they ignore that and edit again indefinite explaining they need to communicate, or if not that ANI for a possible topic ban - but that might just waste peoples' time. Doug Weller talk 18:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Besides, a topic ban would be completely ineffective - since they would ignore it as they do everything else. I was thinking a "shortish" block would have to be at least a month, since they edit every few weeks, but with school coming to an end we might not see them again until September anyhow. Well, I'll give them a final warning and we'll see what happens. --MelanieN (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Good points, I'm sure you're right about a topic ban. Fine, go ahead, and thanks very much. Doug Weller talk 20:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Welll, sheesh! I just took a look at the article and found that while we've been yelling at this editor for adding unsourced material, the article contained not a single source! I just took about an hour to add what sources I could find. Was this a case of "do as I say and not as I do", I wonder? --MelanieN (talk) 23:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Good work. I kept hoping he would I guess, and certainly didn't have time. But I see he or she ignored your post, added people, and another new editor added more unsourced. So I'd say either he's socking or recruited a meat puppet in reaction to your post. Doug Weller talk 05:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I actually had to laugh - he added the people again, but put brackets around their names! Did he think that would magically give them Wikipedia articles? I didn't have the heart to block him for that; I think he is trying, in ignorance, to do what we are telling him. Earlier he was adding a couple of references, although not in the right place or the right way. At least he has called some needed attention to the article; besides my added references, User:Kuru came along and did a lot to whip the article into shape. (Thank you, Kuru!) So even if he winds up blocked, he will have inadvertently gotten a better article for his school. I don't think the other user is him; their edit was quite different from the ones he has been making. --MelanieN (talk) 09:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

It could be just a competence issue. But I still think the new editor must have been asked to come.Still, no problem. We just deal with the edits. I try to remove unsourced 'rival school' claims, and in this case a different school from the one in the infobox is mentioned in the body of the article from the one in the infobox. Doug Weller talk 10:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Y'all have the patience of saints. I would have been tempted to block long ago, for the copyvios alone. As you note, their school year just ended on Friday, so maybe they will back off a little. I don't think any of the information is inaccurate; I have not found anything that was fabricated so far - it's just trivia. The lack of communication is puzzling; this is obviously an English-speaking contributor. Concur with the approach above; short blocks if they continue to edit disruptively, especially with copyvios or BLP issues. Hopefully that will draw some attempt at communication. I'll keep plugging away at the sourcing and removing anything not included in local 3rd party material. Kuru (talk) 11:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Cjhard

Cjhard has been engaged in Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding behavior towards me. I have reason to believe they created the D.Pearson account in order to continue the harassment after you protected United Daughters of the Confederacy, because shortly after you created the protection they created a bad faith page claiming I made it as a sock puppet. What can I do to get them to stop hounding and following me please? Morty C-137 (talk) 23:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know, but I feel their suspicion about the new user is warranted, and I said so at the SPI page. A WP:Checkuser will determine who is who. (BTW your timing is off; D.Pearson started editing BEFORE I protected the page.) --MelanieN (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Simone Schaner

I am not sure she is notable, but the assertion that a person is even an assistant professor in a university is an indication of plausible significance. Please restoe, and then take to AfD if you like, but it doesn't fall under A7. (or move to Draft, if you'd rather do it that way DGG ( talk ) 08:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. There are tens of thousands of assistant professors around; Dartmouth alone has hundreds. Are you saying that basically A7 cannot be applied to any academic? Nothing in this article suggested to me that she is in any way "plausibly significant" - and any time someone is described as "rising" that is in my mind to equivalent to "not there yet". But at your request I will restore it and AfD it. --MelanieN (talk) 13:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

A7 can certainly applied to an an assistant professor at a 2-year college. I might conceivably apply to an assistant professor at an unknown 4 year college. Dartmouth, however, is a major Research University, Using a description of rising implies the article was written by PR staff who foolishly think it a complement. Where you are correct is that few assistant professors have been held notable at WP, but significance is a much lower bar than notability. And., although just an asssitant professor, it turn out she has enough of a publication record to show herself at least borderline notable. DGG ( talk ) 16:35, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

More R/D needed

Hello M. Thanks for protecting the RD Humanities. I wanted to let you know that - while you rev/del the initial post by the troll there were three more edits by the subsequent IPs that contain the same cr**ola. They are one, two and three. It seems they were removing another editors post to try and cover what they were doing. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 01:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert. They are scrubbed. I gather this is a familiar LTA who does this all the time? What is the matter with these people? --MelanieN (talk) 03:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning those up M. More often then not it is either this one or this person. Occasionally it is someone impersonating them. I hope that you have a pleasant Sunday! MarnetteD|Talk 04:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

User:redtoadmedia

It seems likely that this account is created by a business, http://www.redtoadmedia.com/. Its first edit was inserting a mention of Louisville, KY and I can't find any basis or source for that edit. [9] What is the appropriate procedure for such situations? Morty C-137 (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

@Morty C-137: Thanks for the note. With regard to this username, it looks like administrator Doug Weller is already on it. In general, the best procedure would be to raise a question about them at WP:Usernames for administrator attention. As for the Louisville insertion, you would be perfectly justified in reverting it if it was unsourced. --MelanieN (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Bunco Man

Easiest for you just to sanction him. He's violating the DS on AmPol that I warned him about, see the discussion on his talk page. Doug Weller talk 17:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Nope, it's over a year ago. But he knows, and there's the earlier block. I'll go drop the DS on his talk page again. Doug Weller talk 17:50, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

You might also want to add a DS notice to the Austin Petersen article, just so it is in everyone's face. And remind him that the sanction you threatened him with was a topic ban from libertarian topics, which is clearly the area where he is passionate - too much so sometimes. --MelanieN (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Reply

I'd appreciate it if you don't refer so vitriolic negative to my hard efforts at research and article writing.

Your choice of words will greatly impact the tenor of future discussions.

I'm quite happy to discuss See also sections with you.

In fact, I started a section at that particular article's talk page, Talk:Dismissal of James Comey.

I think you'll find I haven't undone your edits on most of the other removals, despite your quite hurtful choice of wording about my article writing efforts. Sagecandor (talk) 23:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I've posted explanatory notices at article talk pages. In a few cases, you did indeed actually remove articles that are directly relevant to the subjects of those articles. Sagecandor (talk) 23:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I posted a new section at Talk:Links between Trump associates and Russian officials and Talk:Donald Trump–Russia dossier. Maybe you can explain your reasoning there? Perhaps without negatively referring to my new article creation efforts? But rather keep it focused on the discussion in particular? Sagecandor (talk) 23:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN:Can we discuss on those talk pages? I'd like to hear your thoughts on those specific cases? Sagecandor (talk) 23:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN:I've gone ahead and reverted myself per good faith gesture and attempt at talk page discussion. [10] [11] [12]. Hopefully now we can talk more about these on their talk pages? Sagecandor (talk) 23:59, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, maybe I was a little harsh. Sorry about that. But I seem to recall commenting at a recent AfD about your habit of adding your new articles to the "See also" section of literally dozens of other pages. I said there, and still think, that is inappropriate. Imagine what our articles would look like if everyone did that! --MelanieN (talk) 00:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. We appear to have different views on what is relevant to a topic or not. I happen to feel if everyone did that, then See also sections would be an excellent index of alphabetized relevant articles for future readers and researchers. I don't see the harm. Sagecandor (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure Wikipedia agrees. Per WP:SEEALSO, "The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number." --MelanieN (talk) 00:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Right, well, again, we disagree on what is relevant. And it's hurtful to refer to my efforts as "spamming". Please understand that was never my intention. Sagecandor (talk) 00:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: I see that you are starting discussions at many article talk pages. Could you ping me if you want me to participate? Not all of them are on my watchlist, and I didn't keep a list. --MelanieN (talk) 05:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay will do. Sagecandor (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Problem image

So I have another question, and maybe it takes someone on a different site?

The image that was inserted by StephanieH in this edit [13] is pretty obviously inappropriate, how does it get removed? It seems not to actually be on wikipedia and I'm not sure how that works.

Thanks Morty C-137 (talk) 03:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

You did the right thing: you deleted it. And someone has already commented at the user's talk page (although not as strongly as I would have). It should probably be removed from Commons also but I rarely do things at Commons. I'll see if I can find someone to carry it through to deletion there. --MelanieN (talk) 03:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Morty C-137: The image has been deleted. Thanks for the alert. --MelanieN (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

MelanieN,

Thanks for the good faith way we've interacted, I really appreciate it.

I've taken some time to reflect on your advice, and you're totally right, it is best to work links via references and sourced material directly into the article body, as opposed to "see also" sections, wherever possible.

Sagecandor (talk) 22:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Sessions article

Melanie, I think this was removed earlier per WP:QUOTENAME. Jeff is short for "Jefferson" or "Jeffrey", so I think they removed it per the guideline... some were going thru a bunch of articles removing nicknames for this reason... Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 05:52, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I see. I like to have the bold name refer to the article title, but QUOTENAME is pretty clear, so I will remove it. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 13:41, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with ya, but it'd be too much of a hassle (at least in my opinion) to try and change others' opinions! Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 14:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Procedural Advice?

Hi,

Could you look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/1.144.96.39 please? Given the recent editing history I think it may be being used by D.H.110 (various sockpuppet investigations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/D.H.110/Archive), whose sockpuppets like Heroin123 seem to have an axe to grind on LGBT issues. I'm not sure if it needs a full sockpuppet investigation filing or not? Morty C-137 (talk) 12:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I didn't follow that case, although I remember several sockpuppets were confirmed. And I don't have the time to get up to speed on it now. I notice that particular IP has been posting here, off and on, for several years; of course that doesn't rule out the possibility that they are D.H.110. You could file an SPI, but it might not do you any good. Checkusers won't publicly connect an IP address to a username, for privacy reasons - so even if they check and find out it is D.H.110, they will not usually say so. Is the user disruptive, or simply stating a particular viewpoint? Are they restoring edits made by D.H.110, using the same words and phrases, or simply expressing a similar viewpoint? Having similar opinions does not make someone a sockpuppet, although this one's emergence right after the registered users were blocked could be suggestive. IMO you would need really strong evidence (diffs where they are saying the same things in the same words; focusing on the exact same points in the same articles) to make an SPI case. --MelanieN (talk) 13:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Steve Scalise

Thank you for reverting the vandalism to the Steve Scalise article. Is there no way Wikipedia can prevent vandalism from (a) unregistered 'editors' (b) who come from IP addresses? That type of 'hidden vandalism' seems quite frequent. MaynardClark (talk) 20:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. As a matter of fact I have semi-protected the article for a week. --MelanieN (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

MENA/pending

Thank you for your message, Melanie.
I'll review the resource links you shared with me. I'll let you know if I have any hiccups. DA1 (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Liliya Watson "Unambiguous copyright infringement" It's not.

Hello, I have the authorisation to use this biography http://saintandrewcharity.org/en/about-founder) on Wikipedia. Should I contact real admin of Wikipedia? Put the the website, "can be use on Wikipedia for Liliya Watson" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LyvansB (talk • contribs) 20:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, User:LyvansB. I will answer your question, but first let me tell you frankly: there are several reasons why you might be better off not even trying to write this article. In the first place, there is the copyright issue, which I will address below. In the second place, with or without the copyright problem, there is a good chance that she would not meet our requirements for having an article here. Those requirements are spelled out at WP:GNG and WP:BIO. If she doesn't, the article would get deleted regardless of the language used. Personally I suspect that she would not meet the requirements, and the article would wind up getting deleted anyhow, after all your work. Just so you are aware of that possibility. Finally, since you apparently work for the charity or are associated with it, you have a conflict of interest. You need to read WP:COI and abide by what it says.

Now if you still want to try writing an article, I suggest you write it in your own words, without needing or using the exact wording or structure from the website - in other words, without using the copyrighted material. A much better way to create a Wikipedia article about her is to write a new article from scratch. using the website as one source of information (among other sources), but not using the exact words from the website. Write the article in your own words, without copy-pasting it from or "WP:close paraphrasing" it (that means using almost the same language but changing a word here or there). You could create such an article in your "sandbox". That is a private place where you can practice your writing and develop an article at your leisure. (You can't use copyrighted material in your sandbox, though.) There is a link to your sandbox at the top of the page when you are logged in. We would still need to have formal permission to use the picture of her.

In order to use copyrighted material, Wikipedia needs to have a formal release from the copyright holder, either via email, or via a release notice on the webpage where the material is posted. The copyright holder needs to clearly understand that when they release something to Wikipedia, it is not limited to just Wikipedia. It becomes free for ANYONE to use it for ANY purpose, including commercial purposes, and anyone is free to change or modify it. That includes the article here on Wikipedia, where other editors will almost certainly make changes to the material in the course of normal editing. I can guarantee you that other editors would quickly remove flowery language like "It is she who was the source of wisdom, spirituality and love for growing Liliya" or "Ukrainian beauty contests in 2002 became gifts of fate for her where Liliya won two really prestigious titles". This is an encyclopedia, and we will make sure it is written in encyclopedia style.

If after all this, the copyright holder really wants to use the exact language from the website (which I don't advise), they should read Wikipedia:Copyrights to understand exactly what kind of permission they are giving. In technical terms, material published on Wikipedia is available to the public under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License. If they are willing to release their copyrighted language - and the picture of her - on this basis, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. That will explain how to have the copyright holder affirm their permission. They would have to write from an email address associated with the saintandrewcharity page, and specify who they are and how they speak for the organization. A sample letter of permission is here: Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. The letter should be sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Another way to release the material is for the copyright holder to post a "copyleft" notice on the website where the material is posted, if they really wish to release everything there under this kind of license - which they may not. --MelanieN (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello Melanie, Thank you very much, you are the first one who explain me everything in details, you are very helpful ! I will follow your advises after study each solution... Thank you for all ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LyvansB (talk • contribs) 05:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Take it to the artlcle talk page

Hello Melanie, Apparently you have page protected the 2Chains pretty girls like trap music album notes - which is admirable. However, my client, Rijhay "RE" Sampson is a co-producer on the "OG Kush Diet" record and is eager to be recognized for his contributions. Please permit me to update this item on the page or kindly make the changes on our behalf. Thank you in advance.Ahonore1 (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Ahonore1. Sorry, but you will have to make this request on the article's talk page. You will have to provide a reliable source to show that Mr. Sampson actually is a credited co-producer. And you will have to let someone else make the addition to the page, rather than you, because you have a conflict of interest. Please read WP:COI. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. --MelanieN (talk) 23:08, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I see that you already have made your request on the talk page. That's good. Now you need to wait for another editor to respond. You said "the label" has not yet recognized Mr. Sampson's contributions. If that is the case, his contribution is unconfirmed, and the information will almost certainly not be added to the article at this time. --MelanieN (talk) 23:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Diffs v. Contrib link

Is it really too much to expect admins to click on the "Contribs" link? I agree I should have linked to the case history though.

Power~enwiki (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Admins have enough to do at that (or any) board. Don't expect them to do the research. Don't expect them to immediately understand, by glancing at the contributions and the edit summaries (if any), what you are talking about. On some boards, complaints without diffs are summarily closed. When I added the diff, I at least saved you from getting yelled at. --MelanieN (talk) 00:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

RE: Jessica Mulroney page protection request

Hello Melanie,

Thank you for answering my inquiry. I am okay with not having privileges on the page as long as the correct and sourced information is correct. As a casual user, I can understand why I would be prevented from making such edits, however I feel that the prevention of anonymous edits would serve the greater good in context of continued vandalism.

Could you be a dear and please put the page on your watch list, just to ensure that my request, whilst declined, is fresh on your mind in light of any future vandalism?

Bless! G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.230.246.33 (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Sorry, but I don't see this page as in need of protection or watching at this time. I see one edit reverted by you on the 20th, one on the 19th, and one edit modified by you on the 18th. The previous edit before that was in April, and the previous one before that was in December. This is not a long-term problem article. As for the current disagreement about whether to include the information about her being the publicist and stylist for Meghan Markle, you should really post something on the talk page explaining why you think it should be kept - rather than simply reverting people. (Of course you realize that you would NOT be blocked by protection if you register a username, which I encourage you to do - but if you'd rather not, that's your choice and you don't need to explain it to anyone.) Sorry I couldn't be more help. --MelanieN (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	I am still around. ;) Jim Carter 20:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Glad to hear it, my friend! I know you are busy. Thanks for the barnstar. --MelanieN (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump the Republican presumptive nominee

I believe you were the first editor of Donald_Trump–Russia_dossier to use the word "presumptive". I invite you to add any comment you may have on a discussion at Talk:Attempted assassination of Donald Trump#Presumptive nominee. —Anomalocaris (talk) 02:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Jane O'Meara Sanders

Unless you were there, you don't have any more information than any of the rest of us about what Maietta actually pledged. All we have are two competing claims. We should summarize what reliable sources say about the dispute without inappropriately claiming to know what "actually" happened. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, you are right. --MelanieN (talk) 03:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

In fact I have deleted the whole phrase about the donor promising an unspecified amount. We don't know what the donor said. We don't even know if there was a donor. --MelanieN (talk) 03:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, MelanieN. Just popping in here to apologize for my flaky attendance at the Jane Sanders article after your most recent proposals. I've been trying to throttle back my participation a bit, and allow other editors more room to participate -- but I didn't want you to think I had forgotten that we were still in the middle of a discussion. As other threads on that page may show, I can be rather persistent and forward when it comes to politically-fueled speculation and allegation on BLPs, and you've been reasonable and even accommodating during our recent interactions. A bit disarming, but nonetheless appreciated. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. No problem, and I think we have it worked out. Something I have learned, in life but particularly at Wikipedia: Arguing about principles and theoretical positions can be endless and never reach resolution, but bypassing the generalities and getting down to specifics (in this case "how shall we word it") can often lead to a swift and reasonable agreement. Funny how that happens. I think we probably have it to the point where we can go ahead and insert your version D.2.1 or wherever we are into the article. --MelanieN (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

For the love of Pete

Hi Melanie. Could you please do something about O.celebi who clearly is not here to build an encyclopaedia. All they're interested in is inserting Turkish and Ottoman everywhere (usually in the lead) by any means necessary (source misrepresentation, insertion of irrelevant foreign equivalents, wp:or, wp:synth, wp:fringe, etc). Attempts to guide them are ignored. At first, I removed their source misrepresentation here (the source is about the first world war not the Algerian war) without making a big deal, and then I removed their wp:synth here and warned them not to do it again (their response is not even worth mentioning). There are other examples: if you look at my last edits you'll see that they haven't ceased, nor do they have any intention of doing so. While I don't mind cleaning up after them, the fact that they are prolific makes it really hard to keep up with them. Your attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated. Best regards. M.Bitton (talk) 00:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, M.Bitton, I really can't help you. I don't know you, I don't know the other user, I'm not familiar with the subject area to be able to judge their edits. I suggest you ask for help from an admin who is familiar with those subject areas. --MelanieN (talk) 03:39, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

In all honesty, I was about to contact NeilN when I saw your comment about him being away and thought that maybe you could help, but it's not a problem at all. Best regards. M.Bitton (talk) 23:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seraphim_System#Reverts_under_DS

Is there something you are planning to do to me that I should be aware of? Morty C-137 (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

At this point, no. Your behavior will determine whether anything needs to be done. I will say that your comment to Seraphim Systems at Oath Keepers seemed like a reversion to the behavior that got you blocked previously. If you recall that block was for ""disruption, personal attacks, battleground attitude and general behavior that is inconsistent with building an encyclopedia". I hope you will be able to step back from that kind of talk and (as Wikipedia requires) discuss the content, not the other editors. --MelanieN (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

If you review (or maybe read for the first time?) the discussion, you will notice that it was Seraphim System who started in by making a snide attack of "please do not resume your old pattern of disruptive editing and edit warring" before literally attacking every other editor on the page with "if the regular editors here insist on continuing this pattern of POV editing,... It's been an ongoing problem on this article and I've had enough of it." If anyone has a battleground attitude here, it's not me - although I am noticing that wikipedians in general are really fond of playing games like throwing the first punch and then claiming their victim has a "problem attitude" if they don't meekly accept being bullied. I've dealt with enough of that manipulative form of abuse in real life, I know it when I see it. Morty C-137 (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

And KDS4444 has now decided I am an easy target to go after and make snide comments about. KDS4444 was extremely mean and aggressive in the "dispute resolution where nobody was informed they were a part of it" ploy. [14] Morty C-137 (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that KDS has posted on your talk page, several times. You do know that you are within your rights to tell someone to "stay off my talk page," and they are supposed to honor that request. --MelanieN (talk) 22:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I told them I want no part in what they have to say - and they messaged my talk page again anyways. What more do I need to do? Do I need to hit their talk page and post some kind of template saying "warning, do not message this user again per WP:HUSH" or something? They have had it out for me because I wouldn't be bullied into a "DRN" thing that (a) I wasn't informed I had been listed in and (b) was basically full of misrepresentations and insults towards me, and now they're jumping around hounding my edits and leaving the snide comment I linked for you a bit ago. It's this kind of WP:HARASSing behavior that drives people to anger, and that's clearly their intent, they're hoping they can drive me into some kind of angry statement or edit war. Morty C-137 (talk) 22:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

If this isn't WP:WIKIHOUNDING, what is [15]? KDS4444 is literally hunting me down to make attacks on me. Morty C-137 (talk) 07:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I do see that they had never edited at that article before until they showed up to comment on your editing. I assume you will be adding this to your catalog. I also see that your behavior at the article was problematic: after two established, non-sockpuppet editors agreed at the talk page that some material needed to be in the article, and one of them added it, you removed it (against the talk page consensus) with a rude edit summary about sockpuppets and POV material. I guess I need to take another look and see if this is still a pattern with you. --MelanieN (talk) 14:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

So if I react to someone who's deliberately trying to provoke me, I'm to blame. If I report bad behavior to you, you're going to find some excuse to threaten me and attack me for it? I guess basically nothing I can do is correct?

1. No, "two established, non-sockpuppet editors" did not agree on the talk page until AFTER I removed the material. I edited 13:26, 30 June 2017‎, Trystan's reply did not come until 01:32, 1 July 2017‎ and I would have responded and undone my edit but by the time I saw it, KDS4444 had already left that nasty personal attack and I thought I should report it to you and wait for your response first. But again, I guess nothing I can do is "right", because if I responded that would be wrong, but now you're apparently claiming reporting it and waiting was wrong too along with your getting the timeline wrong.
2. Axl's edit was very similar to D.H.110's wording (Axl: [16] D.H.110: [17]), including the issue of using Unreliable Sources. D.H.110 used youtube links from "Rebel Media"[18] and later "The College Fix"[19], then direct "open letters" pasted to a user document submission site [20]; Axl started off with "Life Site News" as well as then complaining about "censorship" - when Trystan, not me, removed the Life Site News linking. Morty C-137 (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

You removed it 13:26 June 30. By that time, Trystan had ALREADY (13:07) modified Axl's edit, deleting the unreliable source and adding a second reliable source. Trystan's first talk page edit came a few minutes later, at 13:44 on the 30th. So, I stand corrected about the talk page timeline, I didn't check the time stamps to see when the second editor joined the talk page discussion. But it was only a few minutes after your deletion, and he had in effect already endorsed the material (prior to your deletion) by improving and adding to it in the article.

Earlier, on June 29, you had invited Axl to "com(e) up with some wording for a brief section on controversies during passage that actually has reliable sourcing." On June 30 Axl did exactly that, citing a Reliable Source (the BBC) as well as an unreliable source. By the time you deleted it, the unreliable source been removed and a second reliable source (the Globe) had been added. I'm glad to see you have restored it, although I don't see why it required a second talk page comment from Trystan, on July 1, for you to realize that the material you deleted was actually quite well sourced. --MelanieN (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

On a lighter note...

Thanks for this. Actually it's the first time anyone here's ever invited me to anything  ;) Except AN/I I guess. Can you hear those violins! :p Cheers! — fortunavelut luna 17:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt that. Unless it's that no one recognizes you in your new clothes. (Very attractive by the way.) --MelanieN (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Indian universities redux

Thought I'd better start a new topic now that the original one has wandered so far up the page.

Here's a hopeful new named account attempt: Jaisingh55 [21], doing his boo-boos on Talk:Galgotias University. Pray smash. Cheers! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocked. I wonder what in the world they thought that particular edit was going to accomplish? --MelanieN (talk) 17:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

How could you?!

Blocked your husband[22]? Thank you. PackMecEng (talk) 14:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

LOL! Thank you for this, it's always good to start the morning with a laugh. --MelanieN (talk) 14:59, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Is it because he attacked CNN at wrestle mania? [23] lol who does this kind of stuff? Pretty funny though. PackMecEng (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree, it was funnier than the usual vandal. Pretty good imitation, except that RealDonaldTrump doesn't usually post in all-caps. --MelanieN (talk) 15:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

What do you bet User:Genseric, King of the Vaandals and Sacker of Rome is the same person? (In fact I have a hunch who it is, but this is a new approach for them.) --MelanieN (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

They certainly seem to like their long user names and disdain for Trump. Also creation time about an hour after the first one was blocked. I'm a little new to get to know all the sock masters floating around. PackMecEng (talk) 16:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

How would one go about proposing a site-wide style change?

Hi. One thing that has been bugging me about Wikipedia's pages on immigration is the inconsistency in usage of "illegal immigrant" versus "undocumented immigrant", and the constant edit warring that this causes. Would it be possible to propose a site-wide style rule where Wikipedia opts for the usage of one of these terms across its pages? What is the appropriate forum? What rules do I need to cite? Is there some other admin that I should approach with this? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I have a feeling I have already seen this discussed somewhere. Let me see if I can find it. --MelanieN (talk) 19:14, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans: The current article is called "Illegal immigration". What to call it is in the section Illegal_immigration#Terminology. At the talk page, there were several previous, informal discussions about terminology several years ago, see Archive 2. In 2015 there was a Requested Move of that article to Undocumented immigration; the result was not moved.

I checked the NPOV Noticeboard to see if that was where I saw something recent. Nothing recent. It was discussed there in 2015, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 54#Illegal vs undocumented. The discussion was heated and reached no conclusion.

I could not find anything more recent, but it looks as if consensus up through 2015 was pretty strongly for "illegal". Things could have changed since then but it could be an uphill battle. In the meantime, the fact that our article is called "Illegal immigration" would seem to suggest that is Wikipedia's choice of terminology. Any stalkers care to chime in, with comments or a suggested venue for a discussion? --MelanieN (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

P.S. If you are looking to establish Wikipedia-wide style, one possible place to discuss it might be WT:Manual of Style/Words to watch. --MelanieN (talk) 20:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I would only propose changing illegal to undocumented in relation to individuals who migrate, not the act of immigration. So 'illegal immigration' would be fine, but 'illegal immigrant' would not. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:52, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Trump/Russia

I'm not planning to talk about Trump/Russia stuff on the Donald Trump page as long as my AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice team is open. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

That's fine. I just wanted to make sure people had the opportunity to weigh in if they want. --MelanieN (talk) 19:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Blatant bias against Trump and nothing on Hillary

I don't understand what is complicated about this. These specific negative qualifiers are listed in Trump's intro under the election portion:

-Old
-Rich
-Russia Hacking
-False statements

Ok. Well, these very important, speficic qualifiers can be accurately applied to Hillary, but are (ironically) missing from her intro:

-(also) Old
-(also) Several false statements
-Under FBI investigation
-Questionable tampering of DNC primaries against Bernie Sanders in collusion with DNC Chair (for which there is email evidence)

There is NOTHING misleading or controversial about anything I added to that article. It is literally all factual information, for which I included citations. I have a feeling it is being reverted, not because it is "actually" controversial, but rather because of selective bias in favor of Hillary, and against Trump. You guys talk about POV, but Trump's entire intro is almost entirely written with a negative connotation, while Hillary's is a complete 180. If this info can be listed for Trump, it can be listed for Hillary as well.

Either remove it from Trump, or level the playing field with Hillary. Us average folk are sick to death of having the truth hidden from us, and having this bias thrown in our faces all day. Wikipedia used to be my safe haven from the Fox News/MSNBC paradigm, but it appears that is no longer the case.