Jump to content

User talk:MelanieN

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jim Carter (talk | contribs) at 11:29, 3 August 2018 (→‎Precious anniversary: +). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


My press

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

Oh, and again here (at the bottom). Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, and here it is again [1] in a separate story about the same issue. Think I'm notable yet? 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notification (historic)

This is to notify you that I have opened a complaint about your behavior in the Victoria Pynchon matter here:

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive757#Complaint About Editors' Behavior In Victoria Pynchon Deletion Discussion

Pernoctus (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

AN Notification (historic)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wikipedia editor paid to protect the page "John Ducas". Thank you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent RfCs on US city names

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

April 2012: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2012/June#WP:USPLACE was not officially made into an RfC or officially closed.

September-October 2012: On another page, Talk:Beverly Hills, California/Archives/2012#Requested move was closed as "No move".

An extensive November 2012 discussion involving 55 people was closed as "maintain status quo (option B)". Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2012/December#RfC: US city names.

A discussion in January 2013 later was never officially made into an RfC or officially closed; discussion died out with 18 editors opposed to a change and 12 in favor. Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2013/February#Request for comment .

Discussion started in June 2013: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2013/June#Naming convention; speedy-closed per WP:SNOW.

December 2013-February 2014: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2014/February#Should the article be at Bothell or Bothell, Washington? . Closed as "no consensus to change existing practice (that is, USPLACE)."

January-February 2014: Associated proposal for a moratorium on USPLACE discussions. Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2014/February#Moratorium on WP:USPLACE change discussions. Closed as "There is a one year moratorium on changing the policy at WP:USPLACE unless someone can offer a reason that has not been discussed previously."

Dogged

Hi M. Isn't funny somebody deleted me for saying "dogged" -- me, dogged SPECIFICO! As if I think Dogged is any kind of insult. What's next? Anyway... Thanks for your concern on my talk page. If the clerk doesn't respond I will address the issue to Arbcom in their mailbox, since I think that's the proper procedure. I don't know how else to handle it. SPECIFICO talk 17:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I made a note of his edit in my section of the discussion. (Started to make my comment in your section, then realized that's a no-no.) --MelanieN (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I see Mdann has now rolled back his edit. However, it is there in the history. --MelanieN (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Newsletter

Are non-admins allowed to subscribe to the monthly Administrator's newsletter? Thanks! Codyorb (talk) 15:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Codyorb: Yes. You can opt-in here. --MelanieN (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unsalting Paddy Barrett

Hi, I just went to create an article for Paddy Barrett and noticed you had salted the page after multiple AfDs. Barrett has now made his United Soccer League debut (see the starting lineups here) and thus passes WP:NFOOTY, so I think it is okay to allow the article now. Could you please unsalt the title? Thanks, IagoQnsi (talk) 02:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --MelanieN (talk) 13:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Long standing material

Just for some clarification on your post here. It is not long standing material cannot be removed without consensus, it is treated the same as standard DS consensus required. An edit cannot be restored without consensus if it has been challenged. The long standing is just a reference for when content that was added is no longer new and cannot be challenged via revision. I mention all this since some are going around challenging all new material because it changes or removes long standing material with the only rational that it is longstand material. PackMecEng (talk) 14:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The intent of the "consensus" requirement is stability of the article. That means that newly added material can be challenged (by removal) and it cannot then be re-added without consensus. It also means that an edit which removes longstanding material can be challenged (by restoring the material), and the material cannot then be removed without consensus. The default in all cases is the version which has been stable for a period of time. That does not make retention of longstanding material automatic; it makes it subject to discussion, with consensus needed to remove it. --MelanieN (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed if the revision that removed the material is challenged, consensus is required to remove it again. The way you wrote it gave a different impression. But sounds like we are on the same page. PackMecEng (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's an excellent summary of the concept. It should be framed and hung prominently. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But who determines whether or not the article is actually stable, or that the challenged material is longstanding? When material has repeatedly been challenged (including that which was challenged prior to the restriction being added which is usually why a restriction is added), and it remains because editors restore it under the context of "longstanding" who determines what is or isn't "longstanding", especially in these meandering lengthy articles like the Trump articles have become? There is no way editors who are new to the article can keep track of what is or isn't "longstanding". Atsme📞📧 16:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The only time I have heard a definition of long standing is from NeilN on Trump-Russia dossier here. 4-6 weeks of being in the article when the article is heavily trafficked. I am not sure how that relates to stuff that has been in the article that long but over time constantly tweaked and how that may or may not change what is considered long standing. PackMecEng (talk) 16:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Article stability isn't going to be achieved until the subject is no longer "current news" (look at Barack Obama for an article with a similar trajectory). The instruction, "If in doubt, don't make the edit" should be well heeded here. Ask for uninvolved admin input if the situation is unclear. I've always used "four to six weeks" for specific material. --NeilN talk to me 16:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What does an administrators personal relationship situation have to do with asking for input? It shouldn't matter if they are single or involved in a relationship. PackMecEng (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Who determines? "We" do. For better or worse, the powers-that-be have determined that there are no firm rules, no bright lines, and no referees. At one end of the spectrum are cases that are clearly longstanding; e.g. two months. At the other end are cases that are clearly not longstanding; e.g. one week. Between them is a gray area where there may be case-by-case disagreement that requires discussion to resolve, although I haven't found this to be a serious time-consumer at the main Trump article, where I hang.
There is no way editors who are new to the article can keep track of what is or isn't "longstanding". True, and that's the purpose of the challenge. Using the page history, the challenged editor can decide whether they feel the challenge is reasonable, and whether they want to challenge the challenge in talk. If they lack the competence or motivation to do that, they simply have to defer to the challenger. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mandruss, I disagree because when actions violate a policy that even editor consensus cannot supercede, there's a problem. Neil - I think stricter adherence to NPOV and particularly NOTNEWS policy would prove beneficial. It is highy disruptive when editors ignore policy that states it cannot be superceded by editor consensus. If editors would simply abide by NOTNEWS, these added restrictions would not be needed and we would be able to do a much better job with editor retention. It's the news source allegations in breaking news and news sources that have crossed the line that are causing the problems. Just look at what happened with the ABC/NBC news embarrassment which WaPo responded to by saying it was "particularly unhelpful to the Washington press corps' collective reputation." Atsme📞📧 17:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm concerned, WP:CONSENSUS is the sole super-policy; i.e. how to apply policy to a specific case is decided by consensus, not by one editor who thinks they are a better editor than everyone else present. I have proposed making this relationship clearer with no traction. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, WP:NPOV does state “This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.”.O3000 (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And that needs changing in my opinion. Too many editors use the principle as a weapon, and the cost greatly exceeds the benefit. NPOV is, necessarily, far too vague for such a thing to work. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)It would be a good policy if so many editors didn’t confuse NPOV with MPOV (my point of view). O3000 (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And they will forever do so until we repeal human nature. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You've been here more than long enough to hear variations of, "my preferred version adheres strictly to NPOV whereas yours makes it obvious you're a conservative/liberal stooge." Half the arguments on talk pages are editors arguing with other editors that their edits are required by NPOV. --NeilN talk to me 17:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of those cases where the Admins happen to be correct. We just need a rule, even an arbitrary rule, to structure the discussions. SPECIFICO talk 19:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when it comes to an informal survey, consensus rules. But, when it comes to a contentious RfC. I think the closer pays more attention to NPOV. Then, it’s the closer’s duty to understand NPOV and apply it correctly. Which is why an uninvolved admin should close a contentious RfC. Not convinced there’s a better way. O3000 (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
😂 Admins always "happen to be correct" when they agree with you/me/us, SPECIFICO. ❤️ But seriously...all good points have been made here. Yes, Neil - there are all kinds of strawman arguments - and that is why NOTNEWS should prevail if we're truly unable to determine what is or isn't NPOV (DUE or BALANCE appears to be persuaded by the prevailing POV). Speculation that crosses the NOTNEWS boundary is where the bulk of the problems lie in political articles, especially when important elections are in the wings. If we can at least agree on a timeframe for inclusion of news in political articles (say 2 weeks or a month after initial publication...???), and maybe suggest a respectable limit for how much speculation is verifiably DUE (considering we now have articles based on nothing but unproven allegations which are clearly politically-based here today/gone tomorrow type material) then we will see the strawman arguments, disruption and gaming subside substantially. Maybe it will also force more editors to utilize our sister project, Wikinews, which is where such material actually belongs. Atsme📞📧 19:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Admins always "happen to be correct" when they agree with you/me/us. That's basically the first axiom of adminship. --NeilN talk to me 19:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Someone logged into my account

Hello, I am the owner of this account. Yesterday someone succeeded in penetrating my account and requested to delete my talkpage!! I have no idea why he did that and who he may be. A few days ago, I also noticed that someone tried to log in. Is there anything you can do to prevent such actions.--Sakiv (talk) 05:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sakiv. Almost all of us have gotten the same notice this past week. You can read all about it here. In almost all cases it was just an attempt; our accounts were not actually compromised. But are you saying that the recent request to delete your talk page was not actually from you? I see that just before you posted here, someone using your account blanked your talk page; was that you? If either of those actions was not from you, then your account was hacked and you should change your password to something stronger. You can do that by clicking on "Preferences" at the top of any Wikipedia page. --MelanieN (talk) 09:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

Hi. Quick question, this newly created stub, Kid (1990 film), has as it's one line plot summary, a direct copyvio from imdb.com. Film probably meets WP:NFILM, should I just remove the line, leaving it without a plot summary? Is one line too short to worry about? Onel5969 TT me 19:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

People do this all the time on films. Sometimes we're lucky if that's the only thing they copy! I'm pretty sure we should remove it; not sure if any other action needs to be taken. @Diannaa: what is the standard procedure here? --MelanieN (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Paraphrase it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That can be hard. These things that people add are not really plot summaries; they are advertising teasers to get people to see the film. --MelanieN (talk) 19:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, here is a real plot summary if someone wants to take the trouble to paraphrase it. Meanwhile I am going to delete the teaser. --MelanieN (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some revision deletion and left a note for the editor. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry all, was in a meeting for the last few hours, so missed all of this. Thanks for your help. And I thought about paraphrasing, but knowing what Melanie said about imdb content, wasn't sure that was the right move. Onel5969 TT me 21:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for closure

Hey there, MelanieN!

It's been a while! I was wondering, as an uninvolved editor, would you be able to close the merger discussion at Talk:Donald Trump and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action? Consensus seems to be near-unanimous to merge Donald Trump and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action into United States withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action at this time. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 19:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion, DarthBotto, but actually I was involved in early discussions about the viability of the article, and I suggested it be merged elsewhere. So although I didn't chime in on the current discussion (I would have supported the merge), I would not be comfortable closing it. Maybe one of my talk page stalkers might take a look at it? --MelanieN (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brewery name convention

I'm contacting you as an active contributor on brewery articles and/or member of WikiProject Beer. There is some discussion going on as to how we should name our brewery articles. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beer#Change_brewery_titles? and Talk:Greene_King_Brewery#Requested_move_10_May_2018. If you are interested, please comment. SilkTork (talk)

Never imagined

...I would have missed you as much as I did while you were on vacay. Glad Dayem near ecstatic and relieved that your back. Atsme📞📧 18:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, maybe I should go away more! Absence makes the heart grow fonder and all... --MelanieN (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't imagine anyone not missing a (orange butt icon Buttinsky) who does excellent work, even if one may disagree with the results from time to time. ❤️ Atsme📞📧 21:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thank you. It's nice to be appreciated. However, I should add to your illustration the same disclaimer I have on my user page: "Despite rumors, this is not me." 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To strike or not to strike

It occurs to me I'm unclear as to when a sock's comments should be struck. My initial inclination was that it would most effectively deter sockpuppetry to strike all of a user's comments in active discussions (i.e. not on archives, in hatted threads, etc.). Rereading WP:SOCKSTRIKE, however, seems to suggest it should be more selective. !votes in XfDs, RfCs, etc. are obvious, but beyond that... ? (Obviously this comes from my striking of Mr. Daniel Plainview's comments on a few pages, then unstriking in favor of a note). What's your take? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging Doug Weller, who I see struck some on other pages. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, see WP:TPO's last bullet. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Rhododendrites. I'm not a functionary of SPI so my comments are just one person's opinion. I'd be glad to hear comments from stalkers with more experience or a better understanding of policy. My own preference is to strike all their active input AND to make a comment explaining why - either at the end of the struck comment if there is only one, or somewhere in the thread if they made multiple comments. IMO striking the comments both deters the sockpuppetry and makes it clearer to the other participants in the discussion which comments they can disregard. When I added that note, I was intending it to be explanatory, not to replace the striking. Thanks for all your work cleaning up after this sock - which survived for months and made more than 500 edits before getting caught. --MelanieN (talk) 16:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Mandruss, that's helpful. Although it seems to apply only to !votes and doesn't really give any guidance about extended discussions. --MelanieN (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hence, FWIW. :) ―Mandruss ☎ 16:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't seem to be clear guidance here, but I usually strike through sockpuppet comments. Banned/blocked editors aren't allowed to edit, and we need to make that explicit and to show other editors that a banned/block editor has been evading their block. Otherwise we find other editors quoting them sometimes, and of course they feel they've gotten their point again. I'm annoyed he got away with it so long, but it does mean he's not going to be allowed back, he'll have to sock. And hopefully we'll find him faster next time. Doug Weller talk 16:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the work. I suspected HT. But, I didn’t think the quacking was loud enough. I’ll contact a CU next time I think he appears. O3000 (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The whole sock thing, and tracing it down is impressive work. I feel so naive but I guess the latter has a positive side, too. It's just sad that editors feel they have to resort to such tactics. Atsme📞📧 16:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just figured out this is the guy whose user talk comments I worked my butt off copying to WP:AN because I felt he deserved a chance to defend himself. Now he's shown that he did not, and I regret doing that. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t regret it. IIRC, his own words sealed the case against him. O3000 (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We were all fooled, Mandruss. I won't be next time, though, now that I know more about his writing habits, interests, and other "tells". I hadn't heard of the sockmaster until today. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:00, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to help someone is kindness, Mandruss - never regret a show of kindness. Well, that makes 2 disappointments for me this week but the positives still outnumber them. Atsme📞📧 17:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To expand on my initial comment, WP:SOCKSTRIKE includes this text (importantly, that page is an essay, not the policy page, but it's the one that's typically cited when this sort of issue arises):

If an account has been blocked specifically for sock puppetry, then removing some of their edits is acceptable. [...] In discussions such as WP:AFD, RFCs or other !voting discussion, you should strike their contributions using one of several available methods. Sometimes, a combination of these methods is best. [...] Don't worry about their comments on their own talk page, small article edits, or every single comment on an article talk page. Don't be "nitpicky".

Emphasis mine, of course. "Nitpicky" is completely ambiguous to my reading, sufficient to make me want to ignore it completely, but the preceding sentence is where all of the practical confusion is, as far as I'm concerned. The advice isn't saying "you should not" but seems to advise against striking non-!vote comments on talk pages. If anywhere, clarification should probably be made to the bulletpoint Mandruss linked to. Do you think there would be pushback to a change like this:
Original:

Removing or striking through "support" or "oppose" comments of editors subsequently blocked as socks. Comments with no replies may simply be removed with an appropriate edit summary. Striking through with a short explanation immediately after the stricken text is done when other editors have replied to the comments. e.g. Support per nom. (Striking !vote by blocked sock.)

New:

Dealing with users blocked as sock puppets editing in violation of a block or ban. Comments made by the sock with no replies may simply be removed with an appropriate edit summary. If comments are part of an active discussion, they should be struck instead of removed, along with a short explanation following the stricken text or at the bottom of the thread. There is not typically a need to strike comments in discussions that have been closed or archived.

Obviously this is not the place to actually propose such a change -- just getting some feedback to see if this is the impression other people are under. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like a good summary of my preferred approach. --MelanieN (talk) 17:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My ear wants that to read, "should be stricken", but I can't cite the grammatical rule. Just in case you want to actually propose such a change. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Eh. I just went ahead and boldly changed it. I've not actually heard any objections, so won't bother making a formal proposal unless it's controversial. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites: Reverted by edit.[2] ―Mandruss ☎ 05:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. NewsAndEventsGuy opened a thread about it on the talk page here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HeeHee

Hi M. I figured that this was a misclick. I sometimes think that we could write a lyric to this tune along the lines of

misclick misclick
crazy little misclicks
misclick misclick
drives me nuts - dumb

On the plus side your edits gave me a chance to stop by and say hello. Cheers and enjoy the week ahead. MarnetteD|Talk 23:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have always hated rollback for that reason, and in fact I had it disabled - but when I became an admin it came with the package. Anyhow, thanks for the jingle and I hope I don't need to sing it too often! --MelanieN (talk) 23:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome. For me the main culprit is the screen jump that happens for no sound reason just as I click my mouse. Grrr :-). Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 23:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work adding "material" back into article

Hi MelanieN, Nice work. Do you know when that "material" was added to the Trump article? Didn't think so. So editor boldly adds garbage to article. Another editor removes it while discussion about it starts. You re add it. Ok. --Malerooster (talk) 22:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was added four days ago. (5/24 at 00:35, by my reckoning) You removed it today, while extensive discussion is already underway, and "remove the material" is not one of the options under discussion; people are simply polishing the wording. Based on that discussion, keeping it in the article appears to have consensus; the only disagreement is exactly how to word it. YMMV. --MelanieN (talk) 22:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was added 5/23 by Signedzzz here. Then modified a few times today after a second source was added not long after original insertion. PackMecEng (talk) 23:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You see it as 5/23 (probably at 11:35 PM), I see it as 5/24 (at half past midnight). I've noticed that about WP times, it may be a matter of your preference settings or mine. Call it four days or five as you prefer. Either way it was added at that time, by Signedzzz, and a second source was added shortly thereafter. Nobody objected to its inclusion at the time. It was the modifications (one of which I made) that called it to my attention, as needing work on the exact wording. I started a discussion about that in an attempt to head off any edit warring. --MelanieN (talk) 00:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly Wikipedia should use US central time for everything, none of that left coast nonsense. Mostly just wanted to give the link to it. PackMecEng (talk) 00:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No good deed goes unpunished. PackMecEng (talk) 15:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't resist...

In response to this diff and the confusion of others. ^_^

"It's About Time"

If you lose track of time, and don't know the hour,
That you posted a comment, it may make you sour,
At the UTC expanded in plain text,
Leaving you confused over what to do next.
Just ask Ritchie333, he's the one with the key,
To fix your clock the way it should be.
So if your clock doesn't work, and you don't know why,
You just need a hand from the clock-fixing guy.
Atsme📞📧 01:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, MY clock works just fine. It's PackMecEng's clock that's messed up! 0;-D . Thanks for the poem! --MelanieN (talk) 03:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
X-) Mine did, too - I just didn't know how to read it. Ritch fixed something, and I still don't know how to read it. I look at times on a TP, but when I try to find them in view history, the times are different. I really don't have the time for this...^_^ Atsme📞📧 03:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel?

Hi,

Do you reckon that this and this need to be revdelled? I don't think I've ever seen the likes of it before! Adam9007 (talk) 02:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)Holy crap - yes. I've nuked it from orbit. SQLQuery me! 02:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, both of you. --MelanieN (talk) 14:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit Airlines Response

Hello!

Thanks for taking a look at everything. I work for a different airline (regional not affiliated with Spirit) and have mainly made contributions to aviation related topics I am knowledgeable about. I removed those sections because when compared to articles such as United Airlines or American Airlines for example, there is no section for things of that nature and felt that it was biased due to the airlines reputation. Plenty of people despise them but why would information such as that be acceptable for Spirit Airlines but not with others? Just seemed unfair.

I didn't feel the information presented was acceptable since legacies have had their fair share of mishaps and that information is consistently removed from their articles. It appears biased from my point of view. For example in the about section at the top of the page "In recent years Spirit has been embattled by a number of class action lawsuits and punitive actions by the US DOT, including allegations related to deceptive advertising practices[4], the airline's non-ticket passenger fee policies[5], data security[6], and handling of complaints by customers with disabilities. [7]" appears but when visiting any other airlines wiki that information would be irrelevant and does not represent the company. It's vague and if it was retained shouldn't be the representation of the airline in it's entirity.

If that was the case someone could go into United Airlines and state "The company employs over 86,000[18] people while maintaining its headquarters in Chicago's Willis Tower.[19] Through the airline's parent company, United Continental Holdings, it is publicly traded under NYSE: UAL with a market capitalization of over US$21 billion as of January 2018.[20]

They have been embattled with many lawsuits throughout the previous several years including incidents related to passengers being forcibly removed from aircraft and multiple instances of animals dying" obviously more thorough if posted but I'm sure you get the jist.

I have other ideas but would like to know why it's acceptable for those edits to exist on Spirit Airlines but are not listed with other airlines in the United States first and foremost, as well as why the about section would be deemed professional considering the comparison to other airlines?

I just want the website that everyone goes to, to be balanced, fair, and educational.

Thank you for your response in advance. Angryfa (talk) 20:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You also inserted inaccuracies back into the article such as bases that don't exist for example. Am I allowed to revert before we come to an agreement? (I'm still newer to contributing and want to make sure I'm following the rules) Thanks. Angryfa (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely - about the bases. I noticed you had removed them but I didn't know why but obviously you have knowledge I don't have. Let me look at the other issues you raised and I'll get back to you. --MelanieN (talk) 22:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Angryfa: OK, you make some good points. For starters, I agree it’s WP:UNDUE to mention the lawsuits and such in the lede paragraph, and I will delete it. That kind of thing is only done with really horrible companies like Trump University. Also, if we are going to mention a lawsuit or incident in the text, I think it should have at least two sources to show that it really did attract significant coverage, so I will evaluate them and I will remove anything where I can’t find a second source. Sound fair?
Now about your comparisons to other articles: Wikipedia articles are not all alike - they depend on who has added what material to them. And problems with an article cannot really be resolved by comparing with other articles, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. But looking at United for example, since you mentioned it: they don’t have much information about individual incidents and lawsuits because there are whole separate articles about their individual incidents , e.g. United Express Flight 3411 incident. American Airlines has a whole separate, highly detailed article, List of American Airlines accidents and incidents. Both United and American have multiple separate articles about accidents and crashes; I think Sprint can be glad they don’t have any of those!
Comparing it to other cut-rate airlines: Allegiant Air doesn’t have a controversies and lawsuits section, but maybe it should: I see there was a “60 Minutes” report last month that criticized them heavily.[3] It looks as if no-one has tried to add info about it to the article, but it was heavily enough reported to deserve a mention. Let me think about that. Frontier Airlines doesn’t have a controversies and lawsuits section, but that's probably appropriate; I couldn’t find much in a search.
So, let me get to work on this and then we can talk some more. --MelanieN (talk) 00:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Your haughty scolding"

MelanieN it was clearly, both by the indented format and the timing of the content directed at @Mandruss: who took a rather bizarre tone in his response to my straightforward comment there. Needless to say, when you (MelanieN) use words like "haughty scolding" to refer to something in the context of conceding that you don't understand what it is or to whom it's addressed you are not helping to sustain the tone of the talk page. Mandruss took a rather sharp tone. I ignored the tone and replied to his concern. We both realized there was a misunderstanding and it was over. Until you (MelanieN) decided to go haughty-tone. Which is undue and too bad. SPECIFICO talk 21:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My tone was not unduly "sharp" under the circumstances, and "it was over" only because I refrained from escalating that further than you already had. I had already backed off the statement[4] prior to your scolding for it. I will have no further comment on this. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You were talking to MANDRUSS? OK, I can see how it relates to the indenting and to your “case closed” comment. But it’s hard for me to see his comments as anything but straightforward, especially when he withdrew them after your reaction. But you took his comment as “instant arousal to an indignant and insistent tone”? and chose to scold him for his comments even after he had graciously withdrawn them? OK, well, that’s hard for me to follow but I apologize for the misunderstanding. --MelanieN (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. As I think I made clear, I graciously ignored his nasty tone for the purpose of straightening out the essential issue which was not his nasty tone by rather the DS wording. So that's why my reminder to him came after he withdrew. And here he's making it sound as if he withdrew and apologized for his snippy tone, which of course he did not. At any rate thank you Melanie for your quick, friendly resolution to his molehill. As you know, I've admired your ability to craft clear NPOV language that has resolved several tough issues in the Trump article recently. SPECIFICO talk 22:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Create a blocked article?"

@MelanieN (talk) Since I am not an Administrator is it possible for you to create an article for me that you block this person's name? [[5]] How can I send it to you for you if this article of the person is Wikipedia worthy? Wiki Gainz (talk) 05:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note, Wiki Gainz. Sorry, but no. You should stop trying to write an article about this person. He does not meet our requirements for having an article, which are listed here and here. He would either have to be a professional athlete in the highest level of his sport, or else to have received a lot of coverage in sources like news articles. Articles about him have been deleted multiple times, under the names Michael James Tamondong, Michael J Tamondong, and MJ Tamondong. All these names have now been “locked” to prevent articles from being written, since he does not qualify to have an article here. Please stop trying. --MelanieN (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Need your help again with the Volga Tatar, Tatar and Irreligion in turkey

I think the same ip guy is back while operating under various other ips accounts and a google serasch of those ip addresses show the guy is from russia like the other ip account he is starting to revert my edits on these three wiki pages the first two ones he reverts my references in which he puts the reference which links to an interactive map of the region tatarstan which also has a large russian population so it should not be used as refering to individual tatars that are mostly muslims unlike russians that are mostly christian or atheist and in the irreligion in turkey wiki page the ip is not targeting my deism entry but the beginning section that is linked to a article made in turkey so could you please add protection onto these pages so that ips don't keep messing with the wiki page.Arsi786

Looks like it's been taken care of. --MelanieN (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

question

Beg pardon as I don't know you, but can tell me how to hat a part of conversation on a talk page that is disruptive? Bodding (talk) 04:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)Bodding - Typically, you would use {{hat|result=Caption goes here, then sign}} at the top of the discussion, then {{hab}} at the bottom. See Template:Hat for more information. SQLQuery me! 05:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Bodding (talk) 14:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flow Hive

pp has expired & ip vandal has reverted [flow hive] again. Not sure what to do next. Clappingsimon (talk) 12:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC) Clappingsimon (talk) 12:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have extended the protection. Looking at the article, I am concerned about the “criticisms” section. The criticisms seem to be poorly sourced, and the rebuttals to the criticism are not sourced at all. I removed one unsourced sentence that was pure puffery. Since you have an interest in this article, can you see about either fixing the sourcing or deleting the claims/counterclaims? Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sítio do Picapau Amarelo (album)

You may want to keep an eye on this one – an IP editor and another editor have been ignoring the AfD result and have been recreating the article (with basically no meaningful changes from the deleted/redirected version). To be safe, I've added an {{Old AfD}} tag to the Talk page. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I've locked it. Let me know if you see any more of these. This guy and his socks are awfully persistent. --MelanieN (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at User:Kudpung/What do admins do?

 You are invited to join the discussion at User:Kudpung/What do admins do?. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Increased protection on an article

Hi, Melanie. You semi-protected Silk Way Airlines for a month because of sockpuppetry. Checking through the history I have found that the problem has been going on since at least as far back as November 2017, with new sockpuppets coming up after old ones were blocked. It therefore seems to me that a one month block is unlikely to make much impact: someone who has been edit-warring with numerous socks for that long won't be put off by a month's break, especially since the article has already been protected five times during that period, including once for two months, and the problem has not diminished. For that reason I have increased the protection to six months. Please let me know if you think I was wrong. I also see that in December another administrator imposed extended confirmed protection, saying in the protection log "disruptive users are autoconfirmed. semi does nothing", so we may have to go back there, but I am leaving it at semi for now. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, JamesBWatson, I'm good with that. --MelanieN (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

POV tags for whole articles?

Thanks for this. I can't think of a time when that use is ever justified. 99.999% of the time they're disruptive. Only specific placement, accompanied by talk page explanations, should be allowed. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment on the subject at WP:AE. --MelanieN (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've read them. I'm really wondering if we should get policy/guideline changed to deprecate this practice completely? I've never seen it serve any good purpose. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I Wish to Remove My Page

This page (Steve Marshall, Writer) was put up years ago when I was attempting to promote my career. It is a compendium of my professional accomplishments. I was since notified that Wikipedia frowned on autobiographical pages but I didn't know what to do about it. Anyway, the page is devoted solely to my career but in the wake of a highly embarrassing event in my life, someone saw fit to add it to the page. When I discovered this, I edited the material out and it stayed gone for nearly two years before mysteriously re-appearing. I have made several attempts to remove that information that have been labeled "vandalism." I am now retired and have no reason to have this page exist any longer, certainly not at the cost of having embarrassing information as a part of it. How do I go about having the page removed altogether? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.248.62 (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

{Cross-posted at User talk:Meters.) ―Mandruss ☎ 23:29, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I've posted this at AFD; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Marshall (writer). power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for handling this, folks! I love my stalkers! --MelanieN (talk) 03:09, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

....but her jacket!

I just noticed this removal and your "trivia" comment. When massive media attention is triggered, it ceases to be "trivia". That jacket choice was no "accident", and it garnered quite a bit of attention, and of an unfortunate type which was triggered by that choice. The media was gaslighted. This article is rather insightful:

This fits the gaslighting pattern we've been seeing from the White House. None of this happens by "accident". -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note, BR. I stand by my deletion, although you are welcome to take it up at the talk page if you want. What are you proposing - that we report on the jacket and then give equal coverage to a couple of conspiracy-theory editorials about it? (Basically Liz Plank [6] and Chris Cillizza.[7]) IMO we should simply ignore it. To me it is irrelevant whether she wore the jacket innocently/naively, or because she wanted to send a message that she really DOESN’T care, or as a kind of bait for the media. (If that was the idea, it was a dumb one; she got a lot more of the effluent on her than the media did.) Why she wore it is speculation, and the fact that she wore it is trivia - a flash in the pan, unworthy of the silly, massive, (but short lived) coverage it got. And in fact if we mention it in the article, aren’t we being gaslighted too? --MelanieN (talk) 03:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We'd be victims of it. The whole charade operates on "government by chaos", IOW using confusion, distraction, and lies, all from Putin's playbook. We can't document every part of it, but every seemingly trivial "event" is part of the whole:
Then factor in what the dossier informs us about Putin's reasons for choosing Trump. It all makes sense. They aren't "rivals in chaos", but rather, Trump is creating the chaos Putin knew he'd create, and that suits Putin just fine. Chaos in the Middle East, Europe, and the USA, all serves him well. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I take an intermediate stance here. I do not think that we should include any content suggesting that she wore the jacket as an elaborate chess move from Putin's playbook. On the other hand, it is indisputable that she chose to wear that particular inexpensive jacket that contained a provocative message in the context of that particular trip, and that simple fact was covered by many, many reliable sources from a broad international spectrum. I cannot see how mentioning that fact, referenced to one or two high quality mainstream news sources, and perhaps a high quality fashion source, would be anything other than an improvement to her biography. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thoughtful input. I see there is a discussion now at Talk:Melania Trump so we really should move our comments there. --MelanieN (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this belongs there. Right now it's a subject of discussion on This Week, with George Stephanopoulos, with comments that it was a deliberate message and notable deviation from normal practice for Melania (which says a lot), used like a sandwich board, but with uncertainty as to whom it was directed. It's a very notable event, and it should be mentioned, with some of the commentary and opinions. A paragraph should do it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Truly notable events per Wikipedia policy are not determined by whether or not George Stephanopoulos talks about it on his Sunday morning show. Notability of an event in a case such as this is characterized by whether or not inclusion of the event will stand the test of time. After today's rehashing of it on the Sunday shows, it will end up yet another nothingburger. As I already noted at the article talkpage: WP:FART. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has gotten off topic and personal. --MelanieN (talk) 23:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
BR - I know you don't take everything you read at face value...unless it's criticism of Trump, and then I always give you the benefit of the doubt and check it for validity...but the position you are arguing now, re:Melanie's jacket, is obviously based on media speculation and their attempt to further their own hate-Trump agenda (or to increase clickbait revenue). Sad. It is what I consider the extreme of the extreme, and liken it to speculating that the reason our beloved admin, MelanieN, has a picture of Melania on her user page is nothing more than a discreet attempt to advocate for Trump - yes, it is that ridiculous. That's how I view your argument about the silly $30+ jacket FLOTUS wore to board the plane. Atsme📞📧 21:43, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as you write, that's how you see it. This is Melania Trump's clickbait, chosen to create discussion, and the press fell for it. Don't blame them. I see a lot more, as do RS, especially since Melania Trump's spokesperson and Donald Trump disagree about why she wore it. Your view seems to impute a degree of ignorance or stupidity to Melania Trump, a view I don't support. I hope I'm wrong. This choice was no accident. She's smart and does nothing without a good reason, especially her wardrobe choices. Donald says she did it for a purpose, and so do most RS. The only quibble is the exact reason, and Wikipedia documents all kinds of matters. We do not document "just the facts". Far from it. We document the discussion as well. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nope - it's reality. What you're seeing is spin and speculation. How the hell do you know that was on Melania's mind when she chose that jacket? You don't know - you're going by whatever biased media reports. What the hell makes them experts on her choices? There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE to support what the media is alleging and it is shameful, if not embarrassing for WP editors to consider that "encyclopedic information". OMG!! Again - read the essay Wikipedia:Editorial discretion. It is junk like this that destroys WP's credibility. Atsme📞📧 22:28, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! You need to step back and listen to yourself. You're assuming a whole lot about what I think. I don't "know" what she had on her mind....at all. I have my own theories about some aspects of the matter, but I have not described them. The mutually exclusive and contradictory reactions from her spokesperson and Trump himself are cause for thought: one or the other is lying, and I suspect Trump is doing it, and tried to spin this to his own advantage, but I'm not a RS. That doesn't inform us about what she was thinking. The only thing that's obvious, and alluded to in that RS, is that it was done to create discussion, and that was what happened. She's not stupid. She doesn't do this type of thing accidentally. Why? We don't know exactly what message she was trying to send, but it did get attention. That's all we can be sure of. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:10, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, there are no aspersions in my comment - read WP:ASPERSIONS and learn the difference. Worse yet, you are attempting to push your POV on others which is based on nothing more than a conspiracy theory put forth by biased media who clearly have an agenda by trying to make it appear as though FLOTUS purposely wore that jacket because she doesn't care about those children. If she didn't care about those children, she would not have gone to see them firsthand to make sure they are properly being taken care of - and don't forget - she is an immigrant herself and knows full well what is required. Her entire agenda as FLOTUS has been about children - she has been promoting a public awareness campaign to help children; i.e., "Be Best.". Your POV is based entirely on clickbait speculation in the media - a conspiracy theory that you want to include in a BLP for no other reason than the media reported it? Read the BBC article - it is pretty obvious which spin you've chosen, and even more obvious that the media has no clue why she chose that jacket. Your bias has decided why she chose it, and that's why you need to step away from Trump-related articles. Please stop. Atsme📞📧 23:43, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme, you are way out of line here. He did not accuse you of "apsersions", but you did. You accused him of "bias" and "attempting to push his POV" and told him to stop editing the articles. You said his proposed edits are "shameful" and "embarrassing". Not to mention the "what the hell" and "how the hell" while BR remained civil throughout. I'm going to hat this thread, but first to tell you you really need to get your passions and partisanship under control. --MelanieN (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieN - you hatted the discussion, but you need to know that your accusation against me was unwarranted - he actually did accuse me of aspersions in his edit summary, but I can understand why you didn't catch it. Please strike your accusation so it doesn't accidentally show-up on one of the drama boards that I was the one casting aspersions. Don't you just hate when that happens? Atsme📞📧 00:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know - it's never happened to me! 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 00:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Burn! PackMecEng (talk) 00:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

??? I figured it out....

...crazy happenings over the past few days, like me using the word "hell" in a comment, had to be the result of a crazy reason, so here it is. Atsme📞📧 15:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As Gilda Radner used to say, "It's always something." 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 16:08, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not that there's anything wrong with that...Atsme📞📧 16:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion polling for the Pakistani general election, 2018

Sir, please look in to this [8] force full addition of blogs and news anchor analysis. Please help in. Jawadmdr (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There was severe edit warring going on, so I have fully protected the article for two days while you all continue to discuss at the talk page. I cannot help you with the analysis of the material and sources. I'll try to help you find someone with knowledge in that area. I could not find any administrators who identify as Pakistani. User:RegentsPark, User:Titodutta, User:Sitush, can you help with this issue, or suggest anyone who can? --MelanieN (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, Thank you very much for protecting the page but kindly reverse Duniya news link. In Pakistan Media houses take sides of political parties therefore their surveys are biased. Please see other Pakistani user is also confirming this fact [9] and [10] . Even the person who is adding Duniya link has confessed the fact in his previous edit summary [11] Jawadmdr (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will further add, No editor has any objection on reputable survey organizations like Gallup Pakistan, Pulse consultants and GSP but Media houses such as Duniya and ARY are known for taking sides in favour of political parties. So during Talk page discussion period please remove controversial edits [12] . Jawadmdr (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We do not remove edits from talk pages, even if they are "controversial". The article page will stay locked as it is for two days, unless one of the people I mentioned here can come and evaluate the situation and change it. --MelanieN (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you reinstate semi-protection for autoconfirmed and confirmed users until at least one month after the general election? (25 August 2018). This is because many anonymous users are continually disrupting the page. We agreed to enforce semi protection until at least the election on the talk page a couple of weeks ago. Masterpha (talk) 10:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Masterpha, I agree that the article needs semi-protection and have installed it for 2 months. I'm glad to see that you and the others were able to work out your content dispute during the full protection. Good luck with the article and the election. --MelanieN (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Superhuman (Aretha Henry Album)

Hello i did not created this page but it appears on the list of pages created by me.Pls help me to remove this from the list. Thank you. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 03:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Akhiljaxxn, and thanks for the interesting question! Apparently you did “create” the article, in that you moved it from a different title. You actually took the article through several moves and renames. Each article history I look at shows you originating the article by moving it from some previous article, and I can’t identify the original article before those moves. It went through drafts and page moves and even a round-robin history swap; it’s very confusing. But I'm afraid I can’t find a creator’s name before yours. (Maybe one of my wonderful talk page stalkers can trace it back to an origin?) Anyhow, it might not be possible to change the record even if we find the originator. I suggest you not worry about it. --MelanieN (talk) 04:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey sorry for this belated reply.You know what makes me worry?. A few months ago I requested for autopatrolled flag and they denied by saying most of the pages that i created are stubs and five of them are deleted. I would like to have autopatrolled right in the future so I don't want them to deny me again with matter of increasing number of deleted pages. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, User: Akhiljaxxn, I don’t think that one "deleted" tag is going to be the deciding factor in whether you get the autoconfirmed right. IMO you are borderline for this user right: you have created 40-some articles but most of them are categorized as stubs. But moving beyond that: why do you even want the autoconfirmed right? It makes no difference to you or your editing. It doesn’t let you do anything that you can’t already do. It is really just a way of reducing the case load for new article reviewers. I would suggest that you just focus on what you are doing - creating articles and editing - and not worry about whether you are or are not autoconfirmed. --MelanieN (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with repeated WP:COI allegations

I've asked for your advice before about User:Activist's hounding of me. S/he's kept it up, and is continually accusing me of having an undeclared WP:COI on a number of different pages (I don't know what they specifically think my COI is, since they've made allegations on a number of pages). Back in February, I replied here about their COI inquiry (when they brought it to my talk page, rather than trying to discuss my conduct on article talk pages, which is what they are doing now). They never acknowledged or responded to my explanation, but have kept up a steady stream of accusations since. See Talk:Steven Horsford, for example (an article which they followed me to, in the process of stalking my edits). I don't want to interact with this editor because that has never been productive, and I don't think I should have to keep stating that I don't have a COI when they just keeping accusing me of having one. I've also been told by other editors that this editor has emailed them about me. Basically, they are stalking me every which way. I could just ignore them, as I've tended to do, but they keep following me around. Should I seek an interaction ban? Or could you or another administrator ask them to refrain from accusing me of COI? In my view, if they actually think I have a COI, they should pursue that through appropriate channels (Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard) rather than harassing me about it ad infinitum. Thanks. Marquardtika (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a warning on their talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Marquardtika (talk) 20:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re-litigation

Are editors allowed to re-litigate the same issue on the same noticeboard a year later or would that be considered disruptive and sanctionable? I'm considering going for this[13] again. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) WP:Consensus can change: feel free to go ahead, but please exercise judgment to evaluate the chances of success of any proposal. Don't revive issues that have been settled with an overwhelming majority. (No idea about the one you're looking at now, as I did not participate in that discussion.) — JFG talk 10:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly don't think it would be sanctionable. Some people may criticize you for bringing it up again, but a year later is acceptable, and the original discussion had only a "rough consensus". But I think it's unlikely to get a different outcome. A blanket, Wiki-wide ban is pretty drastic. Maybe you should consider going for a local consensus applying to one particular page? Less drastic and more enforceable. JMO. --MelanieN (talk) 14:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (talk page stalker)For what it's worth, Snoo, I'm a great supporter of immigration to this country, including less-than-legal forms of it, and I generally use "illegal alien" as opposed to "undocumented immigrant" or other, more PC terms.
I doubt you'll get much traction, because there's only one reason not to use it (some people find it offensive) and multiple reasons spanning the political spectrum to use it*, including the simple fact that it's an extraordinarily common term. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
*

For a left-leaning/liberal reason, consider that it highlights the fact that we're essentially making people outlaws because they didn't fill out the right forms before doing what they can to save/provide for their families.

It's widespread as a slur and an equivocation, but it is linguistically and legally meaningless to call a natural person "illegal" -- actions are illegal -- and although we might have an article on the use of the colloquialism, we should certainly try to reach consensus on the use of the term in what are required to be NPOV expositions of facts and events. SPECIFICO talk 19:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You completely missed my point SPEC: It didn't get traction last time and it's highly unlikely to get traction this time because it's just not as unequivocal as it's being made out to be. Whether or not it's the best term to use is immaterial to that.
Also, any widespread use of a term is linguistically meaningful. Finally, the law does, actually recognize slang terms (else any evidence using it would be inadmissible), so it's legally meaningful, too. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nah. I think you completely missed my point. I must be getting tongue-tied. Thanks SPECIFICO talk 20:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are aware that this sort of rhetorical tactic ceases being effective around 7th grade or so, right? "No, you are!" hasn't really bothered me in a couple of decades. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7th grade, or presidential campaigns. [14] 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 22:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Political office campaigns get a special dispensation. They get a "poopyhead" quota, as well ;). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(orange butt icon Buttinsky)...more like fingers-tied, perhaps? ^_^ My thoughts - illegal immigrant/immigration is a ubiquitous legal term, although some may consider it not a politically correct one. WP is not about PC because that is just another form of censorship, and WP doesn't censor. As for the use of the term in RS, a good start is the recent PBS article which uses both, but specifically that (my underline): Congress passed a law 70 years later prohibiting illegal immigrants from voting “for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner.” Happy editing - Atsme📞📧 20:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme, the point is that "illegal immigration" is a meaningful and testable statement about an event. "Illegal immigrant" is a slur. People don't get "illegal" no matter what they do. SPECIFICO talk 00:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc

I thought open RFCs were closed by nonparticipating persons preferably an admin?--MONGO 00:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. We've discussed it and worked it out at the talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 05:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "I didn't intend to create drama", I can't fault you at any step along the way. The outcome was clear, the close was fine, and reverting the close was the path of least drama when it was challenged. ~Awilley (talk) 05:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

THE Melania Jacket

Hi MelanieN. I notice that the discussion on the Melania Trump Talk page has been closed, so I hope you don't mind my replying to your questions to me here.

Towards the end of the First World War, the Italian Special Forces known as the Arditi adopted the defiant catchphrase or slogan "Me ne frego", a boast that they did not care if they were killed in battle. The phrase literally translates as "I don't rub myself (about that)" (compare the English expression "to rub one out"), which was considered vulgar or obscene at the time, and which is paralleled in meaning and sexual implication by the English phrases "I don't give a toss" and "I don't give a fuck." The actual Italian phrase features grammatical points of interest to linguists, which is mainly why Language Log was examining the issue (see Menefreghismo), though admittedly LL, like Reality, has a distinct Liberal bias.

Former Ardeti members and others in various subsequent movements and bodies, such as the terrorist Black Squads who became part of the Italian Fascist movement, continued to use the slogan though the 20s, 30s and WW2 itself, during which Mussolini's Italy occupied the Slovenian homeland of Melania Trump's family. The slogan (as well as several others) is still in wide use today by Italian neo-fascists, and by fashion and graphic designers who pander to them: Pope Francis recently referred to this very slogan while discussing the horrors that Italian fascism wrought.

The vendors of Melania's Jacket have previously sold items with apparent (if not actual) fascist or nazi implications (such as a handbag with a swastika, and a child's teeshirt with the stripes and yellow star of Jewish concentration camp inmates), and it has been suggested (though I myself can't corroborate) that some of their designers are linked to those producing for the neo-fascist market, and that THE jacket carries a deliberate translation of this fascist slogan. Being professionally involved in the fashion industry herself, speaking fluent Italian (she herself claims), and coming from formerly Italian fascist-occupied territory, it seems at least feasible (though it may not actually be true) that Melanie Trump would be aware of some or all of this, and would not therefore have worn THE jacket unthinkingly.

Whether all of those dots do join up, or whether her wearing THE Jacket was nothing more than a tone-deaf gaffe (which, surprisingly, none of her personal staff flagged up), I myself neither know nor care (having never being nearer than 2,500 miles to the USA). As a disinterested Wikipedian, however, it does seem to me that the controversy over the issue might merit inclusion, and having stumbled over the alleged possible "fascist connection" on Language Log (which I read regularly for interest) I thought the material was relevant to the discussion.

I hope you're enjoying your holiday. Regards, {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.0.113 (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz was wearing the same jacket when he gave the order to destroy the Earth to make way for a hyperspace express route. I could be wrong. O3000 (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He really didn't care, because all he knew about Earth was that it was mostly harmless. --MelanieN (talk) 04:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm sorry, but I don't seen any connection at all between someone saying "I don't care," and an Italian expression meaning "I don't give a fuck" and specifically used by the Fascists in a particular context. If someone says "pardon me," and someone else digs up an old German expression meaning "please commute my death sentence," I don't see a connection there either. --MelanieN (talk) 01:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It's interesting to speculate, but we can only use SYNTH and speculation made in RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
+1. This is the English Wikipedia. Things are complicated enough without introducing usage from other languages. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not for a moment suggesting that Wikipedia should make such OR/Synthesis claims. The point is that others in the (English Language) Real World are making such suggestions: I've seen mention of them in fora completely independent of Language Log (did you actually read the linked post and comments?) and the article it excerpted, and that this is part of an ongoing (though currently perhaps slackening-off) media controversy. What Wikipedia should do is consider whether or not the controversy currently merits inclusion in the article, and that consideration should be aware of the gamut of relevant material.
My own estimation is that, currently, the controversy isn't quite prominent enough to be included in the present article, but things may change. I would also say, speaking as a disinterested foreigner, that the article presently seems very anodyne and perhaps over-sanitised, suggesting that it is being subtly curated by pro-Trump interests rather than being neutral. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.0.113 (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was recently decided, by overwhelming consensus (16 to 2) at that article’s talk page, not to mention the jacket at all. If we are not mentioning the jacket at all, we are certainly not going to be exploring media analyses of its possible meaning. With that overwhelming a consensus, this is clearly not a “subtle curation by pro-Trump interests.” This decision, like other decisions involving that article, comes from a large and diverse group of editors editing the article in accordance with their understanding of Wikipedia policy. Personal observation: It may be that in this and other articles about First Ladies, the balance between DUE and UNDUE comes down a little more on the side of privacy, and a little less on the side of aggressively covering every move they make and every controversy they get involved in, compared to the articles about their presidential spouses. That’s just a hunch, I haven’t made a study of it, but I think you will find that most First Lady articles have been handled this way. --MelanieN (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Trudeau

Hi Melanie. Sorry for the disturbance, but I would like your opinion on on this edit, whenever you have some free time to check it out. Thank you. Dr. K. 03:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. As you know, I am uninvolved at that article. I took a look and tidied up the section. IMO this would never have been mentioned in his bio on the strength of an unsigned editorial in a minor local paper - but his recent denial was reported in enough major media outlets that it probably does now have a place in the article. That's just one person's opinion; the actual discussion about whether to include it or not should take place on the article's talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 04:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. As I said, I am uninvolved there and don't know the article's traditions, but shouldn't there be something in the article somewhere - maybe under foreign policy - about the recent difficulties with the U.S. over trade policy specifically and level of discourse generally? --MelanieN (talk) 04:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much Melanie for taking the time to check this out and also for your copyedits. I know this article is outside your normal subjects, but I value your opinion, and, in the absence of any reaction from the regulars there, I think I will leave this alone for now. As far as the recent developments, you are right, as usual. However, my focus on that article has been on removing BLP vios rather than adding any political events. I think this will eventually be added by a few active editors there. Dr. K. 11:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Monarch butterfly migration GA article review

I am working to bring the article on Monarch butterfly to GA status and thought you might be interested in helping out. I read your article on Katalina and like it very much. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 21:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Barbara. I'm away from my regular computer for a couple of weeks but I will take a look when I get back (maybe it will already be a GA by then). MelanieN alt (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Barbara (WVS): I do have a few comments about the article's coverage of the 1975 discovery. It does not mention Fred Urquhardt's wife Norah, who by all accounts was his collaborator and co-researcher (although her name does not appear in his formal publications due to her lack of a PhD). Also, a little more explanation of the army of "citizen scientists" from all over the US and Canada who did the tagging would be helpful. Finally, the earlier historical paragraphs are confusing because they mention "before 1975" when there has been no mention of 1975 at that point. Thanks, sorry I can't help with the actual editing at this point. MelanieN alt (talk) 22:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your suggestions and I will certainly add the information you suggest and clean up those things needed. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 02:13, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

California Proposition 6 (2018) user Issues

Hi Melanie,

A user keeps adding political opinion into a Wikipedia page I created. Please advise on what I should do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_6_(2018)

I edited in the message below to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Narayansg

As the creator of the page, I have been working with Wikipedia Editor Patrick Rogel https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Patrick_Rogel to ensure the page is correct.

On the first major revision, I have noticed the Car Fee Tax portion of California SB1 was removed and then paragraphs placed with opinions denouncing the Proposition 6 2018. I spent some time getting the page back to facts only. Upon the second major revision and the newest revision the opinion information were entered once again.

It is wrong to turn the Wikipedia Pages as an opinion to sway vote against or for any Proposition bill or any election, especially when not voted yet. The page should be just facts with reference for research and not included any political opinion. Please communicate with me so that the Wikipedia page we both are working on is edited with only correct facts as Reference only. Political opinion quotes should be left to blog posts.

Thankyou Melanie for taking the time,

--CRTGAMER (talk) 13:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)CRTGAMER[reply]


Hi Melanie,

Narayansg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Narayansg) and I are currently discussing on a compromise on the Wikipedia page. I once again removed the opinion statements but did leave some of Narayansg edits of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_6_(2018).

I also noticed that Narayansg had edited Carl Demaio (the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_DeMaio) page. I reverted this page back to march 8, 2018 and recommended to Narayansg that both of us should be hands off on that page.

There are already some defaming statements in this section that I cannot repeat here. Perhaps you might want to delete, look at paragraph 5 in the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_DeMaio#2014_congressional_election

Thanks again for taking the time for this,

--CRTGAMER (talk) 23:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)CRTGAMER[reply]

Hello, CRTGAMER. I am out of town and can't do much online. I took a look at the Carl DeMaio article and I think you were wrong to remove his entry in its entirety. It was mostly factual and well sourced; it is only necessary to edit out the political opinion. I will restore it and do that. As for the paragraph about allegations, that is factual and well known, and it has been in the article for a long time. I'll take a look at the proposition article a little later. --MelanieN alt (talk) 00:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. And where did you get the idea (expressed on his talk page) that if you are editing the Prop 6 article you mustn't edit the DeMaio article? There is no such rule, and in fact it is common for people to edit closely related articles. --MelanieN alt (talk) 00:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Melanie,

Thank you for taking the time to review the pages and helping Narayansg and myself to sort out the articles. I thought it was unethical to touch the Carl Demaio page due to the back and forth editing in the Proposition 6 page. Carl Demaio is the sponsor of the Proposition 6 bill; this is why I did not want to edit out the politics of the Demaio page and felt that Narayansg who placed that "gazelle strategy" took a political stance. I will not touch that page, especially now that you are reviewing and editing it.

Thank you,

--CRTGAMER (talk) 10:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)CRTGAMER[reply]

Dear Melanie, Thank you for getting involved to resolve this edit war. None of want to be in an edit war, and since you and I are both travelling on vacation right now, I will not edit these pages for the next few weeks. Every single piece of info I added to the pages on Prop 6 and Carl DeMaio is factually correct and properly sourced, and I believe that they are all relevant to encyclopedic articles about Prop 6 and DeMaio. The only "opinion" I added was a quote which I attributed to Governor Jerry Brown, and I believe that is relevant. However, I respect Wikipedia's neutrality and I will trust you to make this a neutral and good page, when you have time to do so. Thank you,

Narayansg (talk) 14:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, please don't back out of any page just because I am also editing it. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, no one owns a page. The fact that you are editing a particular page does not make it "unethical" for you to edit similar pages; on the contrary, it is common for people to work on multiple related pages at the same time. What would be unethical would be if either of you had an actual relationship with Carl Demaio; if so you have to disclose it and have your edits reviewed by a neutral editor. (Fun fact: some years ago, when Demaio was on the city council, I discovered that his article was purely promotional - in fact mostly copied from his campaign website - and when I fixed it I found myself in an edit war with someone trying to restore the promotional stuff. Turned out Demaio had ordered his staff to maintain the article, and a local newspaper found out about it and publicized it; you can read the whole sorry adventure here on my talk page, under the "my press" section at the top of the page.)
Anyhow, I will not be monitoring the proposition page on any sort of regular basis, so please continue to work on it. And where you disagree, discuss on the article's talk page until you reach a consensus. That may sound impossible but you would be surprised how often it is possible for two people who disagree in principle to come up with a wording that both can accept. And BTW there is nothing wrong with having a section at the proposition article which includes commentary for and against the person or issue. Not just any random commentary, and not from a primary source (that is, the person him/herself); it has to be comments from prominent people that have been reported by multiple independent secondary sources. And it should be summarized, preferably to a single sentence, rather than quoted extensively. Look at other proposition articles and you will see what I mean -MelanieN alt (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. On a talk page discussion, don't separate comments by a line; the usual format is to indent a reply under the comment it is replying to, as I have done here. To indent one space put a colon : at the front of the line; to indent two spaces put two colons :: and so on. --MelanieN alt (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again Melanie,
A different user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:47.151.23.7 added a Polls section to the page which showed a public opinion leaning positive to approving Prop 6 bill. The poll does not count for every single registered voter so only a partial public opinion. As in earlier additions by Narayansg that to me presented a reverse negative opinion, I felt any post that leads to opinion of any proposition bill is wrong especially since the vote will not be until November 2018.
We really need clarification on where Wikipedia stands concerning sway of any upcoming election. I believe in free speech of all contributors and every one owns the page, but do not think any entry should have opinions inserted influencing voter decision. That would lead to a huge warring effort from both sides of a given election. Whichever side more diligent in posting opinions even with substantiated references will sway voters and this to me is very wrong. To remain fair to all, I feel best that Wikipedia maintain upcoming election posts as factual reference only.
Perhaps Edit in referenced opinions only after an election?
Thanks and please post guidance on this.
--CRTGAMER (talk) 04:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)CRTGAMER[reply]

Option G

Re [15], no worky. MONGO already laid claim to the letter G. I'll let you sort that out. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:56, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I fixed it. Glad you recognized me in my disguise. 0;-D --MelanieN alt (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hatting

Hi...why would you hat my response to your off topic comment but not your off topic comment? can you adjust that to include at least the part of your comment that strayed off topic? [16]--MONGO (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair request. --MelanieN alt (talk) 20:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Checking in

Re: [17], got it. Sorry. MastCell Talk 00:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prior consensus for the lead

Re your editsum: Since when? ―Mandruss ☎ 23:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that was an overstatement. But the lede in that article has already been so thoroughly parsed and discussed that it is almost always controversial if someone decides to add something to the lede without discussing it first. You know that; the talk page is full of "I think we should add this to the lede" discussions which are vigorously debated. --MelanieN (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but that doesn't warrant inaccurate and misleading statements from admins. The reason for the revert was that the reverted edit violated bullet 1 of the restrictions. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And IMO almost all significant changes to the lede violate some bullet or other of the consensus list. Like I said, that lede has been thoroughly, thoroughly debated. --MelanieN (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion polling for the Pakistani general election, 2018

A new survey result is to be added to the article, I believe the article should be unprotected or semi protected, as no edit warring took place before it was given full protection Jibran1998 (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You should make this request to User:Enigmaman, who imposed the full protection. --MelanieN (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"as no edit warring took place before it was given full protection" This is not correct. Enigmamsg 02:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Enigma. I totally defer to your judgment on this one. --MelanieN (talk) 02:46, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion please

Enough of this. OID, there's no need to get nasty.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi Melanie - I'd like your opinion on something as both a woman and an administrator. I came across the following on an editor's talk page as left by another editor. The text I'm having issues with is, "You fucking retarded bitch....need to go play with my pussy because I'm a bitch who needs some release" [18] I get that it was posted as an attempt at humor, however, even as a male, I see it as sexist and extremely offensive. Not to mention use of "the 'R' word" is offensive for obvious reasons. I'm imagining how it would be seen if it had a racist tone, and I know it wouldn't be seen as acceptable. Yes, Wikipedia editorship is mostly male, but that's no excuse, in my opinion, for it to remain. Neither is the posting editor's excuse that it was said to him rather than by him, therefore, it's no big deal and doesn't need to be deleted. I brought this to the attention of the editor in question at his talk page - discussion can be seen here [19]. Thanks for taking a look into this. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn't even dignify this with a response, but I will note that "You fucking retarded bitch" wasn't even in the visible text on MjolnirPants' talk page, it was part of the link. Alexis Jazz (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Does it matter? Such commentary need not be promoted whether it be by linking to it or repeating it or having it visible in the diff. It was poor judgement on your part from then to now (with you defending its existence and visibility in any form or location). -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Go find something better to do with your time than being a talkpage traffic warden. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you're right. One should just ignore and encourage the perpetuation of insensitive, discriminatory, sexist, and ugly language in Wikipedia because... tolerance and professionalism, right? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not interested in playing your concern troll games. When someone refers to themselves clearly quoting someone else who has insulted them, and you start whining about being offended just because you have had to see language that you do not like *in the context of someone talking about abuse they have received*, that is your problem not theirs. They are under no duty or obligation to satisfy your personal whims. What you are attempting to do is making someone who is genuinely the victim of harrassment, into an attacker. And it is entirely to justify your own needs. It is a vile and base tactic and has no place here. If you want to continue being the talk-page tone police, you will swiftly regret it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:41, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"If you want to continue being the talk-page tone police, you will swiftly regret it." A threat? How original.
(edit conflict)"it is entirely to justify your own needs." The only ones justifying anything are those who have no problem reposting and excusing what Melanie rightly referred to as "vicious name calling using every offensive word in the book." [20] Do carry on, if it makes you feel better about yourself, but don't expect others outside your in-house applause circle to agree. [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:55, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Karen McDougal

Regarding this section: Michael Cohen (lawyer)#Discussion regarding Karen McDougal

Last night Rachel Maddow stated repeatedly that Trump's lawyers had leaked that tape so they could get ahead of the story since it would come out anyway. I haven't looked for it in RS yet, but let's keep our eyes open. That would be legitimate content if properly sourced. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prob’ly true. But, as much as I respect Maddow’s knowledge, intelligence, and effort; I tend to avoid her show nowadays as I’d rather view sources that are a bit more filtered by time. O3000 (talk) 01:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There was also a report that the Special Master had withheld the tape as privileged lawyer-client communication, but that the Trump attorneys had said, never mind privilege, give it to the prosecutors. But again, no confirmation. And I would never use Rachel or any MSNBC host as a source - just as I would never use a Fox commentator. If I can't find it in a neutral mainstream news source I won't use it at all. Wanna bet we can find both of these items very quickly if we try? 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 02:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It should be on CNN somewhere, because this report cites it happening there, but it's Chris Cuomo and Rick Santorum who say it. Sometimes these things aren't available until the transcript is released, and that can sometimes take weeks. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen this source, but it cites The Times (presumably the NYT, since it's mentioned earlier, and it's a good source for this): "Cohen’s lawyers found the recording when reviewing the seized materials from the raid and shared it with Trump’s lawyers, The Times said, citing three unnamed sources." I'm not a subscriber and my free access limit is used up right now. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's a flaw in the NYT paywall. You can usually access it with FireFox without a subscription. Or, access in Chrome using an incognito window. O3000 (talk) 11:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Or use a different computer - for example, if your desktop access is used up, use your phone. --MelanieN (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything solid yet. Cuomo is just speculating that Trump did it, and the others are unclear what they are even saying. A Times article I looked at [26] says they got the information about the tape from "lawyers and others familiar with the recording". No help there. And Guiliani confirmed it, presumably after the reporters already knew about it and asked him. There's nothing in this article about who found it or who shared it with who whom. (correction for grammar nerds) But let's keep our eyes out for something we can use. --MelanieN (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's half of what we were talking about: it is true that the Special Master evaluated the tape as privileged, and that the Trump attorneys waived privilege and let the prosecutors have it.[27] I have added that to the Michael Cohen article. Still no confirmation of who leaked it or why. --MelanieN (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And as for Rachel's comments: I listened to the tape, and she is speculating or deducing (along the lines of "it can't have been Cohen's people so it must have been Trump's") - not reporting something she knows for a fact. So no real information on that, but it will be really interesting to find out who it actually was. --MelanieN (talk) 16:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If Trump wanted to take the headlines away from the summit, and regain the offensive, he certainly did so with the release of the FISA warrant about Page. I am reading that such a release was very rare - since FISA warrants are highly classified. I also saw a suggestion that Trump himself was the one who declassified it, but I can't find confirmation so we will have to regard that as a rumor. Anyhow, he certainly came out swinging with all of his old favorite positions as soon as it was released. --MelanieN (talk) 16:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Add it. --MelanieN (talk) 15:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, well, now we have the actual tape! Turns out Giuliani's version is baloney; is anyone surprised? Let's discuss on the Cohen talk page how to handle this. --MelanieN (talk) 04:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Giuliani's version not entirely truthful???? What??? I can hardly believe it. (It's pretty sad when one's default attitude toward this whole administration must be to distrust everything they say, because 99% of the time that's the safest position.) Like I've said many times, Trump is a RS for the fact he said something, but never a RS for its veracity. There is a huge difference. In fact, the old adage usually applies: "How do I know if he's lying being untruthful? If his lips are moving..." (There should be a few thousand RS to back up that position.) -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BTW here's how we should have known that Giuliani's quote of Trump saying "make sure it's done correctly, and make sure it's done by check" was fraudulent: It's a complete sentence. Trump doesn't talk in complete sentences. --MelanieN (talk) 23:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Really? PackMecEng (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So sad! --MelanieN (talk) 23:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Could we at least pretend BLP is a thing? PackMecEng (talk) 23:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(EC)Come on, you were obviously joking by posting a one-word comment (i.e., a non-complete sentence), so I responded in kind. Humor, arr arr. One would have to have an ultra-hair-trigger sensitivity for even the tiniest BLP violations to discern any problem with that. --MelanieN (talk) 23:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He can read complete sentences in prepared statements, but that's the extent of it, and he often interjects his own true thoughts ("strays from the script"), and that's what gets him in trouble. Normal people don't like the real Trump he reveals. Normal people also write his speeches, but then he gets hold of them. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego stories

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

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

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

Thanks for the note. I'm afraid I am not a photographer. One person here at enwiki that I know has taken San Diego photographs is User:Worldbruce. Also I see that User:Ruff tuff cream puff has taken San Diego pictures, including some maritime pictures; for example File:San diego mooring bollards with uss dolphin.jpg . Congrats on the articles; I will take a look at them and see if I can add anything. --MelanieN (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep an eye out for an opportunity, but don't expect quick results from me. RightCowLeftCoast is on the lookout for San Diego organizations with which Wikipedia can partner. If one of the agencies has an open house or can arrange a tour, I'm sure RCLC would be up for coordinating an event. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I live in San Diego and can take pictures. I fish on the bay a lot and am familiar with some of the Port of San Diego locations; I see harbor police boats quite a bit but haven't seen an actual fire boat, would need to find out where to spot one. Something that may be helpful is the Port of San Diego Flickr stream. They have CC-BY images that can be uploaded to Commons (thousands of them) and I've meant to browse through it at some point. You might find what you need there. Will watch the bay in the meantime, thanks Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 10:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, both of you! @Geo Swan: Here's a couple of possible helpers for you. --MelanieN (talk) 20:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great to see many active in improving content about articles that fall under Wikiproject San Diego. Please feel free to check out WP:MUSD for activities being planned locally. We are still looking for September, October, and November events this year. A photo scavenger hunt on the water sounds interest; would give a different perspective of photographs for Wikimedia Commons.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldbruce and Ruff tuff cream puff: Here's some information about the Port's fireboats: "The blue painted vessels are docked at the Harbor Police Headquarters at 1401 Shelter Harbor Drive, San Diego, CA.". [28] From attached pictures at that site it looks as if they are docked at Shelter Island in full public view. --MelanieN (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RFPP Toronto election

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

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

Precious anniversary

Precious
Five years!

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

Has it really been five years? Thank you, Gerda, I appreciate your support. --MelanieN (talk) 16:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats again! :) Jim Carter 11:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MelanieN&oldid=853245345"