User talk:MelanieN

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

My press

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

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

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

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

ANI Notification (historic)

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

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

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

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

AN Notification (historic)

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

Recent RfCs on US city names

for reference
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
April 2012: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2012/June#WP:USPLACE was not officially made into an RfC or officially closed. September-October 2012: On another page, Talk:Beverly Hills, California/Archives/2012#Requested move was closed as "No move". An extensive November 2012 discussion involving 55 people was closed as "maintain status quo (option B)". Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2012/December#RfC: US city names. A discussion in January 2013 later was never officially made into an RfC or officially closed; discussion died out with 18 editors opposed to a change and 12 in favor. Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2013/February#Request for comment . Discussion started in June 2013: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2013/June#Naming convention; speedy-closed per WP:SNOW. December 2013-February 2014: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2014/February#Should the article be at Bothell or Bothell, Washington? . Closed as "no consensus to change existing practice (that is, USPLACE)." January-February 2014: Associated proposal for a moratorium on USPLACE discussions. Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2014/February#Moratorium on WP:USPLACE change discussions. Closed as "There is a one year moratorium on changing the policy at WP:USPLACE unless someone can offer a reason that has not been discussed previously." August-September 2018: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Proposal to eliminate comma-state from unambiguous U.S. state capitals. November-December 2019: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#US-centric USPLACE continues to cause confusion

Thanks

Thanks for the pointers Melanie. The bit about Twinkle in your page protection guide needs a tweak now that its behaviour has switched to ensure CSD is a two-handed process for everybody (techy bit in the newsletter above). The guidance is much appreciated. Cabayi (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, Cabayi. A question: Tell me what your Twinkle has as the default under CSD. I immediately changed my default to be "tag, don't delete" so I can't tell what Twinkle's is now. Sorry for the ping, need to do more research. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

OK, mine now works as described above. That was a sore spot for me because my very first action as an administrator was to accidentally delete a page I had only meant to tag! -- MelanieN (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

my very first action as an administrator was to accidentally delete a page I had only meant to tag! You think that's bad? Just minutes after becoming an administrator of a wiki on Fandom, I made a right dog's dinner of a page move that was actually rather difficult to put right. Yep, my first action after becoming the admin there was to demonstrate for all to see that I did not, in fact, have a clue what I was doing! I'm just bleeding useless aren't I? Adam9007 (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the club! 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 03:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

It's not a particularly big wiki, but still, the evidence is there in the logs should anyone go looking. I say the move went badly. The move itself went fine; what happened was I needed to edit it to remove a deletion tag, but it couldn't be edited where I had moved it to, and there was no easy way of moving it back. It took me several minutes to get it sorted, but of course I was supposed to know what I was doing, but I clearly didn't. Adam9007 (talk) 04:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

You were very aware of the problems you were having, but I bet most people didn't even notice. Not something to dwell on, since I suspect you have done a lot of things perfectly since that bad start. I still laugh at myself for my bad start, but I don't let it bother me since I have done a lot of helpful things here since. So have you. -- MelanieN (talk) 05:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Please LOCK the main Kayastha page

Hi Melanie(administrator),

Please lock the following page

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kayastha

It's the main page of Kayastha and the information present there is very important.

People have already started to vandalize this page. The rights to make edits to this page should only be given to reputed and recognised editors here who have been contributing to that page since years. Not to people like me. I'm a greenhorn here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmin

Similar to the page mentioned above WHICH IS LOCKED,the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kayastha

was also LOCKED till a few days ago but since 2-3 days, it's been unlocked.

HOW?

I think that it's an error made by you guys!!

So,I hope that you LOCK that page to prevent vandalism!!  The pages like Brahmin and Kayastha are very important. People of wrong intent in their mind can easily vandalise this page.

Since the administrators like you don't have any idea about the content that can be added or deleted in this page,it'll be very difficult to retain that page's "correct information" once it's deleted by miscreants!!

I hope that it makes sense to you.

Awaiting your reply at the earliest! Dinopce (talk) 09:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I added this separate discussion again as I was not able to access the previous discussion page on your Talk page.

The several discussion topics were not being shown due to some reason.

Something should be wrong with your talk page settings. I am not sure. Thanks Dinopce (talk) 11:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok Melanie. Thanks for the reply.

You're the admin(boss).:) You'll know better!

It was my work to inform you regarding the politics behind it.

There are people who would like to mess with the contents of this page in future,similar to the Brahminpage.

There are people who write wrong articles about Kayasthas.

Eg: https://peoplegroupsindia.com/profiles/kayasth/#:~:text=From%20Chitragupta's%20two%20wives%2C%20Eravati,and%20Balmiki%20from%20the%20second. If you'll see the 3rd para of the origin section section in the link. The Varna or class status of the Kayasth has been a matter of controversy and they have been classified as Brahmin (highest Hindu priestly caste), Kshatriya (2nd highest warrior caste of rulers) and even Sudra (4th and lowest class of peasants and serfs). Despite their own high self-perception, the common view is that they belong to the Vaisya, or 3rd highest caste of traders.

Our reference in scriptures is that of Brahmin varna(The learned) or Kshatriya varna(The warriors) if you'll go through the recent changes in the main page that I made with references.

Kayasthas were not able to prove their Brahmin varna(The learned) status under law but they've proved their Kshatriya varna(warrior or ruling class)status in Calcutta and Patna high court.

Under law, Kayasthas are purest of Kshatriya! Once upon a time,Kayasthas ruled more than half of entire Indian subcontinent.

Swami Vivekananda (The man who established Hinduism as a major religion in the Parliament of World Religion in the year 1893) was a Kayastha(caste). Not a Brahmin(caste).

VID-WAAN(Extremely knowledgeable regarding scriptures, religion etc )- In the old days,only Kayasthas and Brahmins(caste) could become a VIDWAAN. It's all a game of genes! Note: I hope you'll not think of me as some crazy person or anything after this. It's just that I wanted to share what I know!

You can clearly understand the politics behind it now. If any site or person is writing other wise,then he's messing with the history for vested interest. Wikipedia articles are considered credible! Messing with the information here regarding anything means people will acquire wrong information about a topic in their mind. Wiki-pedia means Quick Encyclopedia! That quick part shouldn't contain half-baked knowledge,if you can catch the drift.:) Just keep this in mind! The rest you'll know better.

Also,just checked the following page. Somebody has messed with it. It'll require a revert,I think. It's hotch-potch.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panipuri

Ciao! Dinopce (talk) 05:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Melanie. Understood. As an admin,you'll know better. Dinopce (talk) 05:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Protection of the page "Kayasthas"

Hi Melanie(Administrator),

Please lock the following page

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kayastha

It's the main page of Kayastha and the information present there is very important.

The rights to make edits to this page should only be given to reputed and recognised editors here who have been contributing to that page since years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmin

Similar to the page mentioned above WHICH IS LOCKED,the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kayastha

was also LOCKED till a few days ago but from a 2-3 days ago, it's been unlocked.

HOW?

I hope that it's an error made by you guys. So,I hope that you lock that page to prevent vandalism!!

Note:The rights to make changes to that page should be given to TRUSTWORTHY USERS. If Wikipedia feels that I'm not a trustworthy user,then don't give me access to make changes in that page.

Note1:The page "Brahmin" & "Kayastha" are prone to get vandalised by people of other castes as these two are one of the most hated castes here in India by people of lower castes. Wanted to give you this information. Kayasthas are more or less like the "protestants" of Hinduism(similar to the Protestants and Catholics of Christianity). Protestants=Kayastha Catholic=Brahmin

The above is for your knowledge as you're a foreigner.

PS: Please LOCK THE "Kayastha" page and give access to genuine users only.

Awaiting your reply at the earliest! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinopce (talk • contribs) 10:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Dinopce. If you're wondering why I didn't reply earlier: I was offline all day yesterday. About the page Kayastha: it has been semi-protected since 2012 and still is. That prevents editing by anonymous editors and brand-new users. I don't see any disruption in the recent history that would call for a higher level of protection. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Implementing a manual of style change in US politics

If I wanted to propose a Wikipedia policy / rule change, what would be the best / most likely way to get it implemented? The rule change / guideline I want to propose is something along the lines of: "When possible, use aggregate polling rather than individual polls". I think this rule would get rid off some pointless arguing and edit-warring. Usually, sensible people can agree that aggregate polling is infinitely superior and that it solves the problem of cherry-picking polls to fit certain narratives, but after seeing editors on Trump-related pages forcefully argue for individual polls in 2016 and most recently editors on Bernie Sanders-related pages fight for the inclusion of individual polls in this election cycle, it's clear that making a rule-change would solve some unnecessary headaches. This problem sometimes also pops up on pages for individual congressional candidates. Page watchers can chip in. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Snoogans, thanks for the note, but I'm probably not the best person to ask. I rarely get involved with meta issues or general discussion pages. Offhand I would say what you are seeking is not a policy or rule - possibly a guideline, or possibly a consensus applying only to U.S. politics. I'm trying to think of a well-traveled site where this could be discussed and a definitive consensus reached. This is an issue of content, not style, so not an MOS page. One possibility would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/American politics. That is not a heavily trafficked page, but with notices at multiple appropriate talk pages it might be possible to have a valid discussion. Another might be Talk:Opinion poll, but that is an even more obscure page. I'm going to ping some other admins who might have better suggestions for where to hold this discussion. @Neutrality, Muboshgu, and TonyBallioni: Any thoughts where to take this question? -- MelanieN (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Seems like it would be a sensible change for all politics, not just US. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics, 336 watchers? Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums, 151 watchers? Cabayi (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans:, sounds like a case for the Village Pump. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Maybe an MOS issue? From a practical standpoint, I doubt it will gain consensus unless it already has it. RfCs exist more serve to document pre-existing consensus that no one bothered to write down than anything else. Trying to change policy that way rarely works without significant buy-in before. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Protection of US universities

Hi MelanieN, I see that you've semi-protected a whole bunch of US universities due to vandalism taking the form of "X university is an online university". It's a good idea to get a jump on the ball. I just wonder if two weeks of semi-protection is rather extreme, since it looks like it's usually vandalism from 1 or 2 IP addresses, which doesn't strike me as heavy, persistent vandalism. I would think that a couple days would be more appropriate, and then extensions if need be. Ergo Sum 23:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, Ergo Sum. I agree that two weeks is more than I would usually give for something like this. (Violates my own guidelines at User:MelanieN/Page protection!). The reason I am giving them all two weeks rather than my normal two days is that I think it is likely to continue for at least that long and I don't want us to have keep re-protecting them. Yes, I guess I was using IAR and thinking a little bit pre-emptively, but I feel it is justified in this case. I was also installing protection when that particular edit had been done and reverted twice; normally I would want to see three vandalism edits before protecting, but this is clearly a pattern, probably being promoted via social media somewhere. The exact same edit is being done by different people at dozens of pages. When we get a Wiki-wide onslaught like this, I think we need to be more aggressive in combatting it. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Parkdean Resorts

Thanks MelanieN, you did a really good job of cleaning up that article and streamlining what I had written. Thank you for making the text tight and concise. Great job. Appreciate your time and input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.190.111 (talk) 01:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome. I saw it at RfPP and decided I would edit the article and let someone else handle the protection request. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

P.S. One thing I didn't do is expand the references into proper citations instead of bare urls. I'll let you do that. If you don't know how, see Help:Referencing for beginners. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:39, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Thanks! That's a good bit of practice for me to get used to this. Thanks for taking the time to signpost the how-to. I'll do my best to tidy this up! Great to collaborate :)81.187.190.111 (talk) 02:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Discuss first for Trump lead

Greetings. I can't find the talk page thread, but I'm fairly certain I recently flat out told Markbassett he was wrong to revert for that reason. I don't recall any disagreement with that. If that's a thing, I wonder what the twelve "do not change without prior consensus" hidden comments in the lead and infobox are for.

If we're going to make that a requirement, I think we should have an explicit consensus and it should be in the consensus list. Otherwise the lead should be subject to BRD like anything else that's not in the list. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I've often heard things like that said at the talk page - "you shouldn't have changed this, you should have discussed it first". And in any case removing it is an application of BRD. But since I reverted, I should discuss, and I will. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

2020 Olympics

Hi Melanie. Just wanted to drop a quick note to let you know that I have unlocked the Olympics given the official confirmation of the delay. I reset protection to semi-pp x 48 hrs. I hope you and yours are well.. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Ad Orientem, I was hoping someone would do this as soon as it was official. (I had figured I might be in the wrong time zone, and sure enough I was!) I suspect we may need semi for longer than 48 hours, but we can wait and see what happens. Also, let's keep an eye out in case people start moving the article; it is currently not move-protected. Right now they are having a nice civil discussion at the talk page about the article title. If they reach consensus and do an agreed-upon move all will be well; if people start renaming it outside the process we will have to move-protect. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Muhajir people

User:Gotitbro was constantly removing reliably sourced content and replacing it with unsourced made up content. The user seems to have an old history of edit warring across multiple articles. Please review the edits. I can provide the sources for the edits he removed so they can be reviewed and verified.76.69.44.222 (talk)

Thanks for your note. But the place to discuss content is Talk:Muhajir people. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I have repeatedly explained in edit summaries and cited all the edits, including from Oxford University and the Encyclopedia of Asian and Oceanic peoples.76.69.44.222 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Don't explain in edit summaries. Explain on the talk page. Show your sources, with links. The talk page is where discussion happens. That's where consensus can be reached. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	I'm awarding this barnstar for your tireless efforts at WP:RFPP. Clovermoss (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Clovermoss! My guilty secret: page protection is my favorite area because it's the only admin action that you ever get thanked for! -- MelanieN (talk) 19:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

We can all use a little humor while we shelter in place

I probably shouldn't do this, but hey, it's MY talk page! This is the funniest thing I have seen in days. Somebody named Daniel Matarazzo has rewritten the words to Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious for our current situation. [3] -- MelanieN (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I've petitioned the OED to include this new word. Liked the comment to next do the song: Don't Stand so Close to me. O3000 (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

By "new word" you mean superbadtransmittablecontagiousawfulvirus? I'd be in favor of that. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Not as long as pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis. But longer than floccinaucinihilipilification which I managed to use once. O3000 (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Well done! Hey, here's another song they should adapt for current use: Every Breath You Take. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

See, we were warned. By British rock musicians. O3000 (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

And Duke Ellington. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

"The only truth is music. Music blends with the heartbeat universe and we forget the brain beat." --Kerouac. Well, he forgot wine. O3000 (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Where have all the Kleenex gone?

Happy to be able to report that humour is also good for treating the actual symptoms (rather than just our moods)....spewing hot tea out of the nose is good for clearing nasal congestion. Meters (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Now the tea shelves will be empty in the markets. O3000 (talk) 21:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

And the Kleenex shelves. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

"Long time passing...When will they ever learn?" O3000 (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I thought I was the only person that remembered that song. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm a child of the 60s. Now, I'm going to have that song going through my head all night long. O3000 (talk) 21:37, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

BTW I forwarded this to a friend, and she replied "Superclevereruditeinfectioussongdelightsus!!" -- MelanieN (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Robert Campbell (California politician)

On 29 March 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Robert Campbell (California politician), which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Temporary protection

Yesterday you declined temporary semi-protection at Arthur Rudolph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), saying it was just one IP and issuing them a final warning. They are still at it, and now have moved to a mobile device, causing the same disruption. All together, there have been 4 IP's involved in this disruption, all of them using the same edit summaries, all causing the same disruption, and all locate to the same area. If you believe the article is not a candidate for semi-protection, what would you advise? Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, User:Isaidnoway. I have semi-protected the article for two weeks. If they resume after that expires, let me know or list it at RfPP, and we can re-protect for a longer period. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

User talk:Lomita

Hi, and thank you for your action on User talk:Lomita. Since my request at RFPP is archived, I'm replying here. (Poke @Lomita: )

The last vandal on her page was dealt with at AIV and indeed it was some spillover from fr.wp. What I'm concerned with is, since Lomita is the most active admin on fr.wp, this kind of abuse is bound to happen again sooner or later once the protection is lifted. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 07:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@Comte0: OK, I've slept on it and you have convinced me. I will make the semi-protection indefinite. I was close anyhow. This is kind of IAR, but I can see her situation is unique.

I can pretty much follow your conversations with her - I haven't forgotten quite ALL of my high-school French - and I can see you have been a good friend to her, so thank you for that. I have no idea what the vandals are saying. Is any of it bad enough that it should be revdel'ed? -- MelanieN (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. Actually I patrol the en.wp user pages of the admins and RC patrol people on fr.wp, this is how I found out about her situation. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 12:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Indefinitely semi-protected pages previously pending changes protected

Hi, could you reset the pending changes settings for these indefinitely semi-protected pages?

Henry Kissinger, Harry Truman and Richard Gere.

These pages were previously pending changes protected but are now indefinitely semi-protected but the prior pending changes settings have never been reset.

Thanks, Putwood (talk) 01:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done -- MelanieN (talk) 01:16, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Irdeto Wikipedia Page

Hi Melanie,

Thanks for your reply about the re-creation of the Irdeto Wikipedia page.

For next steps, we will be pulling together independent reliable coverage and we will have someone from the industry, not affiliated with Irdeto that will be contributing to the new page.

Does that work? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Me2307 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Do whatever you can and make it into a Draft page. Instructions are at WP:Drafts and at Help:Your first article. Don't ask me to review it. Let the normal draft review processes work. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Regarding my request for page protection

Because I was requesting PC, that is a decrease in protection level according to Twinkle. Was it moved because I then requested ECP? Thepenguin9 (talk) 17:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Penguin, and thanks for your note. I moved your request to "requests for increase in protection" because it wasn't clear to me that you understood that PC was a decrease. You sounded like you thought it was an increase. You asked for PC because "semi-protection isn't sufficient enough," when actually semi-protection is stronger - more "sufficient" - than PC would be. (PC allows all edits, even those by non-autoconfirmed users, which then have to be manually deleted if they are disruptive). You then wondered if "PC would be too harsh" when it is actually is weaker than semi-protection. You then said "If PC is too harsh, then would ECP suffice" - when ECP is more "harsh" than the existing semi-protection and much more harsh than PC. In any case, the article is not a candidate for PC protection because PC doesn't work well on articles that get many edits a day - any time there is a pending edit, it blocks all subsequent edits until the pending edit is dealt with. Semi-protection is better in such as case, and semi is working well at that article. See my essay on page protection for more about the difference between the various levels of protection and when they are appropriate. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking about it in two different ways, with the reduction meaning more manual work for reviewers, and ECP being less harsh as it does not require manual work.

But, I was merely curious as to why it was moved and not really bothered about it either. I will read your essay soon when I'm more awake for it. Thepenguin9 (talk) 01:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Question about reversion and pending changes

Hi! Sorry if this isn't the appropriate place, but I had a couple questions I was hoping you could help with:

1. The Thomas Modly article has both the semi-protection and pending changes templates applied. According to this table, that should mean that autoconfirmed/confirmed users are able to edit normally. However, as an extended confirmed user, my edits were pending, which appears to only apply to unregistered/newly registered users when a page is in pending changes protection. Is this expected? Is there a level of protection where all non-admins/reviewers must have their edits approved?
2. You reverted my edit to the Modly article. The original (and current) wording stated that Modly was "castigating Crozier as "too naive or too stupid" to be in command of a ship." I felt this violated NPOV because what Modly actually said was Crozier was "[either] too naive or too stupid to be the commanding officer of a ship like this [or] the alternative is that he did this on purpose." Reading the rest of the speech makes it clear that his aim was *not* to say that Crozier was stupid or naive, but rather that Crozier intentionally wanted the memo leaked to the press. Using the word "castigating" along with taking his words out of context seems to be very non-NPOV to me.

Jaardon (talk) 00:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Jaardon. I was surprised, too, that your edit showed as pending. I have never seen that happen with someone who was autoconfirmed. I just checked your user rights and you are not only autoconfirmed, you are extended confirmed. So I have no idea how that happened. Anyhow, let's talk about your edit. I am open to something with a fuller quote, but I felt that your edits and modifications to the quote left too much out, or distorted it even worse than the brief "naive or stupid" snippet most sources are using. Should we just put in the exact quote as he said it? And in fact, include his qualification that he was talking not in generality about "stupid or naive," but specifically about Crozier not anticipating that it would leak to the press? The entire quote is

"If he didn’t think, in my opinion, that this information wasn't going to get out to the public, in this day and information age that we live in, then he was either A, too naïve or too stupid to be a commanding officer of a ship like this," Modly said of Crozier. "The alternative is that he did this on purpose."

I think we could leave out the "alternative" sentence because most sources are not mentioning it, probably assuming he didn't mean it. Maybe just put "..." instead of "either A,"? And now that I look at the quote, he has an unintentional double negative in there that messes up what he was trying to say. (If he didn't think... that the information wasn't going to get out.) How much of this do you think we should use? Let's craft a quote and use it. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your response and willingness to work together on this. Note that I think what Modly did in firing Crozier was absolutely wrong, but in the interest of maintaining a NPOV, I feel we should be fair and careful in how we characterize his words. Let's take a look at the speech—I recognize that most sources are conveniently leaving out the "alternative" part, but this seems disingenuous. If you read the rest of the speech, he makes it clear he felt Crozier intentionally leaked the memo. The question is whether Modly purposefully characterized Crozier as naive/stupid OR was he only using hyperbole to contrast with his actual beliefs (that Crozier *wanted* the media involved). Having listened to the audio a few times, I believe this best sums up what he meant to say:

"Crozier was either (A) too naive or stupid to think his email wouldn't leak to the press, or (B) he did it on purpose."

The confusion seems to come from the fact that he forgot to say "B" and didn't immediately clarify that he believes the answer is B, not A. Considering the context, you can tell he wants to highlight the absurdity of Crozier's argument (that he was didn't mean for it to leak, yet copied 20+ people). Here are some excerpts from the speech that show Modly's view that Crozier wanted the memo leaked:

• "he compromised critical information about your status intentionally to draw greater attention to your situation. That was my judgment"
• "there is no situation where you go to the media"
• "Imagine if every other CO also believed that the media was also the proper channel to hear grievances with their chain of command under difficult circumstances."
• "those facts show that what your captain did was very, very wrong"

These quotes characterize Crozier's actions as purposeful. Modly argues that Crozier knew *exactly* what he was doing when he sent out that email, he's not stupid or naive.

So how to quote it properly? Following your suggestion of including a fuller quote (and leaving out "castigating" for NPOV), how about:

"If he didn't think that information was going to get out into the public...then he was [either] too naive or too stupid to be a commanding officer of a ship like this [or] he did this on purpose."

I feel this captures the full context of the naive and stupid line (btw, the "unintentional double negative" doesn't actually exist, if you listen to the audio or read the CNN transcript he says "was." I noticed the Task and Purpose transcript has numerous issues like this). Jaardon (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

BTW I have removed the PC protection. It overlapped with and duplicated the semi-protection, and it seemed to be malfunctioning. You should be able to edit normally now. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I noticed that :). Yeah, that seems to have fixed the unexpected behavior I experienced earlier. Jaardon (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, I put that into the article, using the CNN transcript as source. That also solved a disagreement I was having with another editor about where to place the reference. And I notice we already have a quote in the same paragraph from when he apologized for the remarks, confirming that he meant to imply that Crozier did it on purpose. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Yay! Glad this all worked out well, and everything got resolved. Jaardon (talk) 01:49, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Legitimate Page Protection Request

Since you are one of the most trustworthy admins on Wikipedia, I wanted to ask you if you could add page protection to The Phelps School Wikipedia page. Persistent disruptive editing by IPs destroying the page. The school has been the center of some controversy lately so it is not surprising, but please add protection. It has absolutely been justified by these IPs adding unsourced information and deleting other information randomly constantly. -Editor940-Thanks. Editor940 (talk)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor940 (talk —Preceding undated comment added 23:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Editor, give it a rest. You have been trying and trying to get someone to protect that page, because you want to win your disagreement with an IP by making them unable to edit the page. You have tried WP:RFPP at least twice. You have tried several administrators. You have never made any effort to use the article's talk page, which is a basic requirement if you want anyone to take your requests seriously. You did manage to get the attention of an administrator, Eagles247, and they have been working to improve the article. Be grateful for them, work with them, follow their guidance and advice, and stop shopping your request all over the 'pedia. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Just a heads up, they didn't appreciate your advice. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Eagles: Thanks. I had seen that and was preparing a report about them redirecting their talk page, but you intervened and took care of it. I didn’t mind them criticizing me; as an admin I expect some of that. They were legitimately angry with me, because I was pretty strong here in my reaction to their forum shopping. But that scam with making their talk page into a redirect - that was a particularly sneaky way of getting around the prohibition on deleting talk pages. Anybody who can figure out that series of moves - and anybody who has the ability to move their user page to their talk page without leaving a redirect[4] - is no newbie and is almost certainly a sock of some kind. Thanks for your attempts to work with them - we all need to AGF - and thanks for dealing with them once they made it clear they were disruptive. Their gratitude to you can now be seen on their talk page. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that they're likely a sock (I was the one who moved their talk page back into place without a redirect). Anyway, I appreciate your support and hopefully this editor can be less disruptive when the block expires. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I missed that, sorry. I saw the redirect but missed that it was to a mainspace article. They are certainly angry right now.[5] At least Serial Number got them to change their tone a little. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Request for Undeletion of the article

Dear Melanie, I see that the article Ashwin Kumar Lakshmikanthan has been deleted in a AFD consensus. While reviewing the senior editor’s comments, I realize that the Overuse of the references had infuriated them asking for a Harsh Delete. I shall work with the article’s nominator and other senior editors who have commented on the page and rectify the references as per their guidance. I realize that my mistake is not reaching out to experienced editors thru talk for assistance as I was under the impression that seeking help during AFD deletion process is not permitted. I shall get their valuable inputs and remove irrelevant references and make it a better article. Please take this into consideration and help me with this request. Much appreciated.Adapongaiya (talk) 18:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Adapongaiya, thanks for your note. I will draftify it for you. I do advise you: don't be in a hurry to try to move it from draft to article. Get advice and input while it is still a draft. Try to make it actually different from the restored article; don't just add or subtract a few references. The reason I advise this is: an article which has been deleted by an AfD discussion, as this one was, can be "speedy deleted" (see WP:G4) if it is not significantly different from the deleted version. So make sure it is significantly different. I should also warn you that an article about this person has been deleted twice already, and if it gets deleted a third time it will probably be "salted", which means the title gets locked so it can't be created any more. So don't be in a hurry to put it back in the encyclopedia; get advice so you can be pretty sure it will be kept this time. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, you can find it at Draft:Ashwin Kumar Lakshmikanthan. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Melanie, thank you so much for such a quick turn around. I shall be patient this time, get ample inputs before submission. Very much grateful to you.Adapongaiya (talk) 20:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Second opinion

Hi Melanie, I wanted a second opinion on what to do about List of Henry Danger episodes. It's PC protection recently expired and I think it might benefit from indef PC protection. Amaury has been an active reviewer for it so maybe they have an insight too. I doubt there's a wrong choice, but I'd feel better with more heads. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

A good way to gauge a need for PC (vs. semi) is to see how many good IP edits are being made (i.e. how many are not reverted and kept in the article), if the number is too low in contrast to the total number of edits, then it's good to just semi it. AFAICS, only about 3/100 edits seem to be not reverted, in that case, PC is not helpful and just increases work imo. If you're starting off with RFPP, you tend to err on the side of caution and be more conservative (I was as well and Melanie pointed it out to me actually). Either way, whatever she says is probably going to be more insightful, hope I could help! --qedk (t 愛 c) 19:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Wugapodes, and thanks for the note. I always look first at the protection log. In this case, the article has needed almost continuous semi-protection since its creation five years ago, so IMO it is clearly a candidate for indefinite protection of some kind. For the last month it has had PC protection as an experiment. During that time editing has been heavier than I like to see with PC, which really only works with lightly edited articles. And I agree with qedk that the contributions from IPs during that time have mostly not been constructive. So I would restore the indefinite semi-protection. Sorry, IPs, but you can always request an edit on the talk page. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Might as well throw in another of my shameless plugs for User:MelanieN/Page protection. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks both! Strong arguments for indef semi-protection, so I've added that. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:19, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Sigh

How dare you abuse your position of authority by making a simple factual improvement of obviously encyclopedic relevance to an important Wikipedia article! And in a totally neutral way too - it's outrageous! ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your well earned reprimand. How foolish of me to think that there might be anything, anything at all, that could be considered uncontroversial when it comes to current American politics. I wonder if they would accept a mention that the sun came up this morning? 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 14:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, it could be fake sun :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't believe it's the sun at all, please obtain WP:CONSENSUS first. --qedk (t 愛 c) 15:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I dunno, I think Guy made a good point there.[6] On it's face the edit was fine but there are issues with editing through protection in general. PackMecEng (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I already reverted the edit and apologized for assuming it would be uncontroversial. Several of us made minor undiscussed edits to that page while it was under full protection; I assumed this could be another one. You know the old joke about what happens when we ASSUME; we make an ASS out of U and ME. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I was surprised by how many where editing through personally, I counted seven. I think you just got lucky! PackMecEng (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Or unlucky, depending on your viewpoint. 0;-D It was just luck that I saw that AN complaint; I hadn't been notified about it. But at least I did see it, so I could respond, hear the feedback, and react in a timely manner. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing uncontroversial about this.[7]. The DNC and journalists may have colluded to suppress the Tara Reade story until getting Bernie to endorse Biden.[8] Frankly I think it's time to discuss the bias of the mainstream media in the RS noticeboard (if we can get better sources than The Hill). Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Felipemelo5820

Hello. Sorry to bother you, but he's come off the block and immediately made the same revert. Perhaps an indef from that article, or a longer general block may be in order. Cheers, Number 57 11:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert. Blocked from the article for two weeks this time. Third time will be indefinite. About whether a general block might be warranted: That article has been his main focus, but I see a few edits at other long-ago elections. You would be much more able to evaluate those than I. This edit, for example, might be a problem? -- MelanieN (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

It seems to be ok; the 11 July date appears to be the Korean calendar date, not the Gregorian. Number 57 17:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Template:Editnotices/Page/2020 Summer Olympics

Hello there, could you please make this request for edit noticing users to remind about the 2020 Summer Olympics being held in 2021:

ApprenticeFan work 14:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, ApprenticeFan. Thanks for your work in creating this edit notice. But I think it should be discussed at the talk page before adding it. Once there is consensus to add it and agreement on the wording, suggest it to an admin who is more familiar than I am with how to add these. Thanks.-- MelanieN (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Douglas Mastriano and Drwillow

Thank you for stopping the continued vandalism today on this page. Would you be able to revert the page back to it's previous state? Hyderabad22 (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Hyderabad22. I suggest you ask one of the autoconfirmed users who post at that article, such as LuK3 or Ifnord. The history is confusing, and I am not sure what is and is not supposed to be in the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Understandable, MelanieN the page seems to have begun to be brigaded a few days ago starting with this edit. I've placed a check user request for DrWillow. The user seems to also be the subject of the article and has a clear undisclosed conflict of interest in the page.\

MelanieN request for revert back to previous state on this page and a semi-protected status be placed on article. DrWillow seems to have made a new account F&INerd and has continued the same pattern of disruptive editing and editorializing as before. I have a SPI investigation request in for the accounts. Request lock and revision to this version of the article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_V._Mastriano&oldid=953575094 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyderabad22 (talk • contribs)

Hello again, Hyderabad22. I have looked into the situation and commented at the SPI investigation. I hesitate to protect the article right now, while the issue is at SPI. Also because the F&INerd account is autoconfirmed so semi-protection would not help. As for deciding what version of the material should be in the article, I don't want to get involved in that and would rather leave it to the other editors at the article (which could use more eyes). I agree that the additions by these two accounts have been highly promotional and that they are almost certainly the same person. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Hyderabad22: You'll be glad to know that per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/F&INerd all three accounts have been blocked as socks. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Thank you for the heads up and your assistance. How can I get other editors to help check the article? I feel like there's a lot of work that needs to be done to the article to fix all it's issues. Hyderabad22 (talk) 23:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Hyderabad22, you're welcome. It would help to have more eyes on that article - more people who have it on their watchlist. For now, the socks are gone and you can clean it up. But you might look back through the history and see if there are other users - either registered users or IPs - who have been helpful more than once, and put a note on their talk pages thanking them and asking them to put the article on their watchlist. (There are currently only 13 people watching it.) A comment about yourself: now that you have registered a username I hope you will keep using it. It gives you a lot more abilities, such as filing the SPI request, and it allows you to edit protected pages, and it gives you an edit history which in turn gives you credibility. One other piece of advice: you did a great job filing your first-ever SPI request, but in the future when it asks for the name, don't list the name of the recent sock; you should list the name of the oldest account, the sockmaster - in this case Majorburton. If you think you have identified another sockpuppet of that group, list Majorburton as the name you are filing the report under. Or ask me first if I think your suspicion is reasonable. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The page Saheem Khan

Hello, How're you Sir? Recently you deleted an article Saheem Khan which I created it, saying that it's recreation of an article which has previously deleted. I accept the article was deleted already but it's been almost 1 year as it was deleted in June 2019. The title was not so much notable then and it didn't come in wikipedia notability guidelines. And now after 1 year, the title is qualifying the Wikipedia:Notability (people). And that's why I created it.SAHEEM KHAN (Google, News). Sir, Go and check in Google and also in News Section where now some recent published article showing on top which are not from so much notable websites I agree but many other notable news websites like Zee News, Navbharat Times, The Lallantop, KoiMoi etc published about his works and the awards he got at Creation Film Festival Canada.You are an admin, you are the senior wikipedian sir, please get in to deepness of the article and then create it because it's been 1 year almost when it was previously deleted and now the title is already been eligible for wikipedia Thanks. -Rama.dhanraj (talk) 11:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Rama.dhanraj, and thanks for your note. Yes, I deleted the article, because it was no different from the article that was deleted last June as a result of this discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saheem Khan (2nd nomination). That is a reason for speedy deletion, according to WP:G4. As of last June he had already received the CIFF award, so that was already taken into account in the June discussion. I also checked Google and did not find anything helpful. The article has now been created and deleted four times, so I locked the page so that it can't be recreated any more. The only way he could have an article is if he does some new, notable work, more than what he has done up to now. If he does, you could create a draft article in your namespace, at User:Rama.dhanraj/Saheem Khan. Then ask me or another administrator if it is different enough from the previous articles to allow it in the encyclopedia. Sorry, I know this is frustrating, but Wikipedia has rules about who can have an article, see WP:NACTOR. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Vetted Page

I see that the Operation Storm page has bene locked with reviewed edits. This seemed to have benefited one editor against another editor. The recent added UN info is dated with alter courts stating otherwise as the article has stated and the Veritas source doesn’t seem RS. Also it seems pov styled for one ethnic group in particular instead of being NPOV. Please take a look when you have the time. Thank you. PortalTwo (talk) 14:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, PortalTwo. I don't understand why your edits were held up as pending. You are an autoconfirmed user so your edits should be automatically accepted - just as Griboski's and Galendalia's are. I just looked at the history again and your latest edits have been auto-accepted - so the problem, whatever it was, must have fixed itself. Remember to discuss on the talk page if you and another user disagree. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

20XX-nCoV naming format

Hi Melanie. I see you've taken an interest in the Novel coronavirus page. Therefore, I'd like to let you know that I have just, for the second time, removed the invented 'pre-cursor' terms 2002-nCoV, 2005-nCoV and 2012-nCoV, for earlier coronaviruses. They weren't used, and aren't now, as is easily googled. I've similarly removed that term from the MERS page. I've commented, and invited any further discussion, at the Novel coronavirus Talk page. (I would have advised the original editor 89.206.118.4, as he inserted a well constructed table, but he only used his IP address, which has no active talk page.)
Thanks for keeping an eye on things. - Onanoff (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Onanoff, and thanks for the note. My only "interest" in the page was to semi-protect it in response to a request at WP:RFPP. I see the protection has just expired and already there has been one incident of vandalism. So I have added the page to my watchlist and will re-protect it if it seems necessary. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. - Onanoff (talk) 21:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For reverting this edit on the clerks page Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

De nada. Somehow I just had the feeling that person was not a clerk... 0;-D Amazing how trolls will find the strangest pages to vandalize. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Anarchism

Hi, can you have a look at Anarchism? An ip user is constantly adding a sentence at lede. Thanks! Cinadon36 19:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Semiprotected for a month. Thanks for the alert, Cinadon. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

That will do. Many thanks! Cinadon36 20:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Afraid to even discuss...

I saw the RfC you opened regarding Donald Trump's mental health.[9] I'm nervous to bring up this topic yet again, but it's such a noteworthy exclusion I have to look into it. Before I go any further, any thoughts on this first paragraph?[10] It's published in a peer-reviewed journal, and the other paragraphs are published by the APA (but not in a peer-reviewed journal). That first paragraph isn't actually describing Trump's health, so I thought it might serve to acknowledge the subject without violating the RfC decision. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Kolya, thanks for the note. Yes, I opened that RfC last year because I felt one was required by the closure of the AfD on the Trump's Health article. At the time I !voted to keep the material, not because I agreed but because I thought I should defer to the AfD discussion. But I was glad the result was not to say anything. We have discussed this many, many times with regard to Trump (as you can see from the links I provided). We have pretty much always managed to keep it out of the article and I concur with that. I also worked hard to remove the speculations about Biden's mental health from the Joe Biden article - it used to have a whole section implying he was losing it. I also worked to keep health speculation out of the Hillary Clinton article. IMO this kind of speculation, even from professionals, should be kept out per BLP. Some editor's opinions on the subject seem to be swayed by their feelings for or against the subject; they want to include it because they don't like the person, or because they personally believe the "diagnoses". IMO we should keep it out of all biographies unless it has strong reliable sourcing, regardless of what I think of the person. Your draft paragraph looks very much like the previous proposals and is based on the same material as the others were, so I doubt if it would fly. Not to say you can't try it, but you asked my opinion. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. What did you think of this existing article text: "Despite this letter, rumors and conspiracy theories concerning Clinton's health proliferated online. In August 2016, Trump questioned Hillary's stamina and Sean Hannity called for Clinton to release her medical records, fueling these theories."[11] I understand the opposition to repeating speculation, but I'm confused about the opposition to reporting that the speculation existed. If an APA publication reports this as news, why shouldn't we? Those are just some of the questions I've been asking myself. Now that I've slept on it I was leaning towards: In August 2016, for Psychiatric News, Aaron Levin wrote that "columnists and op-ed writers decided en masse" to speculate about Trump's mental health. He later wrote that "psychiatrists have publicly offered their views on the mental status" of the president. This text would simply cover the story. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

So rather than reporting what they said about him, you would simply report that some people are talking about it? You are free to suggest it, of course, or even to boldly insert it into the article and see if anyone reverts it. I would note that there have been dozens if not hundreds of books about Donald Trump; most are not mentioned in his biography. The Hillary material was apparently included as an example of "conspiracy theories" during her presidential campaign; there is nothing on the subject in her biography. But I'm guessing that "conspiracy theories" is not how you would treat this.

BTW I've been meaning to tell you, I like your name. It reminds me of Rumple Buttercup. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me how carefree my early editing days were lol! What do you think of adding my "Goldwater rule" draft[12] to his "Public profile" section? Everything is directly from the APA except for the last sentence. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not advising you to add it anywhere. You know how I feel about this kind of speculation/information, or references to such, in BLPs. As I said, if you want to boldly add it, you are free to do so, and see how it goes. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm actually really not sure how you or others feel about adding sources reporting on the speculation (and the reaction by the APA), vs adding sources who themselves are speculating. The RfC doesn't seem to address that. I heard you acknowledge that I might "simply report that some people are talking about it", but you didn't share your thoughts about it, besides the weight issue of the book itself. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I have told you that I definitely oppose putting speculation about people's mental health into their biography. You are now asking, what if you just point out that some people have speculated about it, without actually quoting what they say? You came here asking for my opinion and I'm not going to tell you what to do. I don't have the right to do that. You have the right to put into articles whatever you think is appropriate. But, if you want me to be more clear, I do not encourage you to do it, and I doubt if others would allow it to stay in the article. One, to me it's a backdoor way of bringing in a topic when we don't want to or can't bring it in the front door. Two, looking at the four different drafts in your sandbox and the trimmed version you just offered here: I frankly don't see encyclopedic value in any of them. Either they point out that lots of psychiatrists are talking about this subject (but we're not going to tell you what they said), or they expound on the Goldwater rule to explain why we/they shouldn't be talking about this. The Norman Ornstein quote is more to the point - it summarizes the fact that there have been lots of books written about Trump. There might be somewhere in the article for a statement like that, but it would probably be removed on the basis that the article is already too long and this doesn't really add anything. OK, there, I wasn't going to tell you how I felt, but you insisted. I am just one person, and at that article I am not even an admin, just another editor. I am not telling you whether to add it or not, and if you do, I will not revert it. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to say that. It's frustrating to hear that you were hesitant to either give me your opinion or directly tell me you didn't want to give me your opinion; that feels bureaucratic to me, but perhaps you're just an editor who doesn't want to argue. Thank you again for telling me. I hear very clearly that you personally don't want such information in articles, but I'm not hearing a policy reason for that. You said it is not encyclopedic, but that doesn't ring true to me. Although I don't ask you to share more of your thoughts with me. My thought is that the public perception of his mental health status is one of the most noteworthy things about the man, so I have to ask myself what is going on that this information is censored from the article? Describing the effort as "back door" makes it sound cynical. We have to consider the hypothetical of an individual who is 100% of the time identified with the perception of having mental illness; what would Wikipedia do in that situation? My thought is that we would do what we always do; report what the sources say about this person's public image. If I understand correctly, according to WP:HEALTHRS if we are to add information describing the mental health of a subject it must be from a professional who adheres to the standards of their profession, which would exclude armchair diagnoses. Therefore our purpose cannot be to inform readers of his mental health; our purpose must be to inform readers of this aspect of his life story, which is that this is the conversation around him. In that case, what are the appropriate RS? I'd say all we need is an analysis of the journalism, such as from Columbia Journalism Review.[13] But the least controversial route is just to use publications by the APA itself; they wouldn't print something in violation of their own professional standards (but if we're not actually reporting his health, what is the point of this source?). Regarding my Goldwater rule draft, the point of that information isn't to explain that psychiatrists can't opine about Trump; it is to tell the story of what happened around Trump. Perhaps it's too narrowly focused on his effect on the mental health profession...however the Goldwater rule is a huge part of how this media story is playing out with him. Thanks for helping me think through this some more; I think now it makes sense to prioritize the CJR perspective. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I just reread what you said above: "At the time I !voted to keep the material, not because I agreed but because I thought I should defer to the AfD discussion." It sounds like you are either misremembering or not being truthful. In the RfC you argued repeatedly in favor of including text about Trump's mental health.[14] Your honesty was questioned at that time as well.[15] I think that honesty is the most important thing when collaborating here. Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, my memory of that long discussion may be weak, so I just went through that long discussion searching for my name. My interpretation of what I argued for differs from yours. In any case, this discussion is about what you are going to do on this subject. You don't have to talk me into anything and you certainly don't need my permission to do anything. But if you want to rehearse your thoughts or arguments on me, that's fine. Here, I’ll give you a thought: The Levin columns are from 2016, during the campaign, and early 2017 when Trump had only just become president. The CRJ opinion piece is from February 2017, when he had only just become president. The Dangerous Case is from late 2017, when he had been president less than a year. The piece by Ornstein is more recent, from December 2018, two years into his presidency, but it may not make the point you are trying to make. Can you find anything recent, anything based on the now-three-plus-year sweep of his presidency, to show that this kind of discussion/evaluation is still going on? -- MelanieN (talk) 08:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Are you asking if this kind of discussion/evaluation is still going on? Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Sort of. I'm more asking if anyone has written ABOUT this type of evaluation, or called attention to this type of analysis, in a more recent reference than the ones you are using. This is the point you are trying to make, right? To report that his mental health has been written about and analyzed by many people? There is nothing wrong with your references, don't get me wrong. But they are several years old. I am just curious if - after all the furor about his mental health during the campaign and early in his presidency - no one has evaluated his actions of the last three years in terms of mental stability? (There is a book called A Very Stable Genius, but I think it's mostly reporting about his relations with aides, rather than a psychological analysis.) This used to be a very popular topic of commentary, but has everyone just dropped it? Or have I just missed it? -- MelanieN (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Of course.  This is like half of the conversation about the man.  We have sources talking about sources talking about sources talking about Trump.  What pieces about this from 2018 to now do you think would work?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't know. I was just suggesting that you might find something more recent to make the point that you want to make. If you are happy with your current sources then OK. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I was hoping that with all you have seen in the news discussing Trump's behavior/personality/temperment/potential mental illness that you'd have an idea what would work.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Never mind; forget it. I was just bouncing an idea off you since you seemed to want to talk. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes I did. You participated in the various discussions, including the merge and the RfC, and you said you thought if this were added again it would be removed, so I thought you might have an idea of which sources would comply with policy, because honestly I don't see a policy reason for people to be against including it, except IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Page Undeletion

Hi Melanie, back in 2012 the page for Rough Draft Brewing Company was redirected to your new page of List of Breweries in San Diego,California. It has been 8 years and there are numerous awards and citations about the company. Would you consider undeleting the Rough_Draft_Brewing_Company page and allowing for an updated version with info from the last 8 years? 24.94.18.164 (talk) 18:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for your note! The article was not deleted; it still exists as a redirect at Rough Draft Brewing Company. At the time the company was less than a year old and I can well believe it has gotten more notable since then. It would be possible to expand the redirect into an article. But first let's make sure the article would be kept. It needs to meet the WP:Notability criterion. A key indication of notability for a brewery is that it has received medals at the Great American Beer Festival and/or the World Beer Cup. Do you know if the brewery has gotten medals at either of those events? Those two are regarded as really establishing a beer as notable, particularly if the brewery has gotten more than one. Local and state and county fair type awards are generally not given much weight. I didn't find any listing of prizes or medals at the company's website. Can you give me any information? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Water polo European championship

Hi, I got a problem with Pelmeer10. Please, this is official LEN medals table for both competition, men's and women's. You can see what I say so many times - Medals from USSR belong to Russia, and from Yugoslavia to Serbia. Check this, please

However, read this

Serbia clinches 4th title in a row, though Spain falls only in shootoutFor the first time in the history of the European Water Polo Championships, the penalty shootout decided the title and it was retained by Serbia, despite an electrifying performance of the host Spaniards. This was the Serbs’ 8th gold medal, and the 7th in the last nine editions since 2001. Croatia got rid of its demons and clinched the bronze medal after four lost matches played for the third place in the past.

So, this is the prouv what i talking about, and Pelmeer10 delete this.

Again, this is OFFICIAL LEN SOURCE, i bring you adress check this. BudvaMontenegro (talk) 00:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Hello, User:BudvaMontenegro, and thanks for the note. The first thing you need to do is stop putting your version in the article. You are edit warring and that is against the rules. If you do it again you will be blocked from editing.

What you want to say has been removed by three different people. @Pelmeen10, M-Mustapha, and Sportsfan 1234: have all disagreed with you. You must not keep saying it when so many people disagree with you.

Go to the article's talk page, Talk:European Water Polo Championship. Post a note there, saying what you said here. You can copy it from here. Discuss it with them and see if they will agree with you. If they do not agree, it must not go in the article.

I will post a note on your talk page telling you that you must stop edit warring. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

How do u expect to put wrote when u block me?! Amazing!!

Firstly, Pelmeer10 and Sportsfan1234 is the same person. Check this ip adress. I talk withM-Mustapha he doesn't say that i m in wrong way. Second: did u see what i sent to you? I give you official source. This is a source from LEN! Third: Check Talk:European Water Polo Championship page, I wrote last year there, too, but nothing.

Again, check this link, there is a table. https://wp2020budapest.com/european-water-polo-championships/

BudvaMontenegro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.228.69.16 (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

User:BudvaMontenegro, you must NOT accuse Pelmeen10 and Sportsfan 1234 of being the same person. That is a very serious accusation, per WP:Sockpuppetry. If you accuse people of something without evidence that is against Wikipedia's rules and could get you in trouble. You have no way of knowing what their IP addresses are. On the other hand, YOU are a sockpuppet of DusanSilniVujovic. You have been blocked and you must not edit while logged out, as you just did here. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I told you check IP adress from this two guys. 99procent this is same person. DusanSilniVujovic is my friend from work, we re working in the same company. Anyway,

why are you avoiding the answer? I give you proof that I was right. The medals table are incorect here!!! I put you 3times correct link and you didn't get me any answer about it. BudvaMontenegro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.94.120.92 (talk) 11:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Distruptive editing at United States Congress

Hi, MelanieN, it seems editors are not following your discussion at Talk:United_States_Congress#Amash_is_officially_a_libertarian. and continuously changing it in-spite of 'Pending changes protection'. Please have a look and I have put a Temporary semi-protection request at WP:RPP. Thank you. Amkgp (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Amkgp. It's been semi-protected per your request. I had a feeling protection would be necessary, but couldn't do it myself per WP:INVOLVED. For that matter I couldn't do many more reverts either, so I'm glad other people are monitoring the page. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Another indefinitely semi-protected page needing pending changes reset

Hi, would you be so kind as to reset the pending changes settings on the Jazz page? It is indefinitely semi-protected but PC settings were never reset. Thanks. Putwood (talk) 04:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done You are right, the PC protection is no longer needed. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Full PP of Nominative–accusative language

Hi MelanieN! Regarding the edit history in the past two weeks, I accept the admonition about edit warring and the temporary full protection. But FWIW, there already is a non-canvassed third opinion from an active participant in the appropriate WikiProject (= WikiProject Linguistics). That fact that the other party systematically attributes talk posts by User:Uanfala to me should not nullify their contribution to the discussion. –Austronesier (talk) 06:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I was surprised at the protection. In the discussion, three editors have expressed the opinion that the text should be removed, and it was only Kent Dominic who insisted it should stay and who kept re-inserting it. When I warned him he's at 3R, instead of reverting himself (which I was sort of hoping he would do), he went and asked for protection. Now, this protection isn't a big deal, we can wait until the two days are over and remove the text, but it's likely that granting it might have given this editor the impression that his own view has been vindicated and that can make him even more recalcitrant than he has been so far. – Uanfala (talk) 12:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Uanfala:This whole business of attempting to sandbag an editor for imputed motives relating to personal vindication was obstreperously obvious, professionally unbecoming, and wholly unproductive. I don't presume to know which sense of recalcitrance you intended but, to the extent it applies to me, it relates not to any personal vindication but to an aversion to acquiring the time-consuming nuances needed to cleanly accomplish what I've summarized here. If the inciting editor had accordingly used his Wikismarts at the outset (i.e. rather than merely deleting text that properly belongs somewhere in Wikipedia), I'd have thanked him for saving everyone this senseless trouble and for enabling my recalcitrant resistance to developing my Wikitool and Wikiprotocol familiarity. I indeed have other interests that take precedence. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 07:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I apologise for my poor word choice, Kent Dominic. What I meant by "vindication" was just simply "demonstration that one is in the right". I haven't moved the text to another article because I don't believe it's a good treatment of the topic (it makes some far-fetched statements in the first part, and it omits mention of the crucial fact of hypercorrection in the second). – Uanfala (talk) 11:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Uanfala:Apology accepted, and no hard feelings. Yet, one further excoriation: the notion that I intend to demonstrate that I'm right is a mistaken presumption. I don't believe that one's actions, behaviors, or expressions of opinion necessarily signal the actor's belief in their respective rectitude. In fact, I admit was wrong to think that someone would catch my remarks from last year (which you can read here) and immediately try to fix the article's title, delete or re-direct the first paragraph, and take a scalpel to the faulty Sociolinguistics section. I'm amazed it's taken this long for anyone to attempt to improve it, albeit by deletion rather than revision. My repeated reversions in no way reflect the view that I think I'm right about the article; I've simply wanted to exercise the prerogative to keep the text there as long as possible to let someone (i.e. an editor who has more passion for sociolinguistics than I do) rectify the text - an impossibility if it's been made to disappear. I truly don't relish upsetting anyone's applecart, but any regret that I'd ordinarily have has been offset by my amusement regarding the childish taunting that's ensued. Really: no harm, no foul regarding all the hotheaded, sanctimonious attempts at condescension by one particular editor who seems to value ego and sloth above the praiseworthy-yet-faulty contribution of @Pablo-flores:. I suspected early on (namely from the "drive-by editor" brickbat) that reasonable contradictions would fall on the deaf ears of an audience that had either an unwillingness or incapability or just plain lethargy to work toward properly overhauling the article. The overhaul could have been done by now if a certain editor had resisted burdening himself with the needless stress that comes with taking academic disagreement personally. If he could only channel his energy a bit more constructively rather retorting with sticks and stones. Sad yet funny. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 15:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your notes, both of you. I admit that the wall-of-text discussion on fine points of linguistics was beyond my ability to follow it. But looking at the discussion more closely I can see that the edit warring is more one-sided than I appreciated. There does appear to be consensus to remove the section. I will have a word with Kent Dominic on the situation. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, MelanieN, and thanks for your diplomatic intervention. Please note that I haven't staked a position that favors retaining the text at issue. In fact, from 19 March 2019, I've expressed the view that the text does not seem fit for the article. More recently, I've not insisted that it should stay indefinitely. Instead I've argued that deleting it seems premature until the WikiProject (= WikiProject Linguistics) discussion is complete re. the article's proposed title change. Because of I'm unfamiliar with the Wikipedia protocol and tools for changing the article's name and migrating the disputed text (along with the entire first paragraph of the existing Nomintaive-accusative language page) under these or any other circumstances, I've encouraged the editors involved to do that in lieu of merely deleting the errant text. Absent their initiative, I'm left to seek your guidance concerning which protocols apply under circumstances that would entail (a) changing the current title from Nominative accusative language to Nominative-accusative alignment, and (b) redirecting users to a newly created/reconfigured Nominative-accusative language page that includes the text that's been ping-ponged. At least one of the other three editors involved suggested that very solution but unfortunately hasn't followed through upon notice that I don't know how to do it or whether it accords with pertinent protocols.--Kent Dominic 16:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kent Dominic (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your prompt reply, Kent Dominic. I understand that you and possibly others feel that the outcome of that move discussion will influence the resolution here. Wikipedia policy offers a general answer: consensus. The other three users think it should be removed pending that outcome. You think it should be retained. Conclusion: in the interim, leave it out. But also, start a new discussion, at the article's talk page or the WikiProject talk page where the move discussion is taking place, about how to proceed once the issue there is resolved. (BTW I'm puzzled by your rationale (if I understand you) that even though you believe the section ultimately does not belong in this article, you will insist on retaining it in the meantime. That almost seems like WP:POINT behavior, although I'm sure you don't mean it that way.) -- MelanieN (talk) 16:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

If standing on principle that editors should endeavor to retain one another's good faith contributions (incl. those that are tangentially related to a given article, as one of the editors involved conceded) violates the WP:POINT standards, I suppose I'm guilty. My bigger offenses here include (a) not being rightfully acquainted with a culture whose rules enable Argumentum_ad_populum, and (b) having too much patience for others who jump to the conclusions that whatever motivates their actions and behaviors similarly motivates others who evidence analogous actions and behaviors. Look here for an example of my characteristic disruptive tendencies indomitable sense of faith in the human spirit of decency. Kent Dominic 17:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kent Dominic (talk • contribs)

Consensus isn’t entirely a head count; the merit of the argument, and its basis in Wikipedia policies and guidelines, is important. The policies and guidelines are also the result of consensus, by the way. WP:Consensus is the only way Wikipedia can possibly work. The alternatives are either a top-down bureaucratic structure where all edits are judged by - who exactly? - or else a complete jungle where edit warring is constant. And Wikipedia DOES work. It has worked for years and has produced a remarkable, free compendium of human knowledge. Here an insight I like: "The trouble with Wikipedia is that it only works in practice. In theory, it can never work." [16] -- MelanieN (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

BTW just a comment about writing comments: I have noticed that when you write a comment, you sign it manually, or possibly using some kind of tool, with your signature, date, and time. But that does not provide clickable links for your name, like my signature and the signatures of other people you see here. You'll notice that a bot identified your note here as "unsigned" and added the full signature. If you would sign by typing four tildes, ~~~~ , or by clicking on the "signature" icon that appears at the top of the writing page in many versions of Wikipedia, that would automatically produce a datestamp and a signature which is fuller and more useful to others. Just a suggestion, it's your choice. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't know how to resolve this situation. When I click on the "Sign your posts" icon at the top of the window, two dashes and four tildes appear; the bottom icon inserts four tildes without dashes. What to do? Kent Dominic 17:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kent Dominic (talk • contribs)

Here's my go at doing it manually: Kent Dominic 17:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kent Dominic (talk • contribs)

And the bot still thinks it's unsigned. Either of the results you describe - two dashes and four tildes, or four tildes without dashes - should result in the automatically generated signature. What happens if you go ahead and hit "publish changes" with either of those in place at the end of your note? Here's my two dashes and four tildes: -- MelanieN (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Old dog. New trick. More thanks @Wugapodes:! --Kent Dominic·(talk) 06:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Corona-Terror

I assume this has something to do with the article Shahid Khaqan Abbasi which I semi-protected. I have nothing to say about that article except that it was being vandalized and needed protection. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Copied from Ehsan Sehgal talk page.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ehsan_Sehgal ---- 3 times notable, as deletion discussions 4th time not notable - edit history shows defamation, allegations, hoax, and legal consequences - You are native, for acknowledging what is happening, sources tell the secrets. They consider none of the sources is reliable. Check the truth and reliability to find the ill motives For Wikipedia, saved links - Business recorder news = https://archive.vn/hs255 Dawn = https://archive.vn/pcS2V B.Rec - national news = https://archive.vn/dQkfP Daily Roshni- = https://archive.vn/AMSu5 Kashmir Monitor = https://archive.vn/BMD3W Geo Urdu = http://archive.is/UIBzL Ehsan Sehgal Aik shuks - Express = https://archive.vn/x8dlW Nawaiwaqt = https://archive.vn/2noF3 Pak Chronecle = https://archive.vn/Fo4XH Express India Diplomate = https://archive.vn/FYLDj Jang books Sehgal= https://archive.vn/PNVBx Jang News Sehgal = https://archive.vn/Fc4dS Quote ABS News TV = https://archive.vn/O2eb6 Jang Feb Songs News = https://archive.vn/w8JJA Pak Chronicle - Dutch Fiction = https://archive.vn/pFRn0 Jang, Book Flight of Vision = https://archive.vn/P27JH https://pakchronicle.com/2019/04/24/a-pakistani-dutch-writer-ehsan-sehgal-publishes-three-books/?fbclid=IwAR3Xm7I1Ne2XBZsJbkzWuLS5SgDQekgYScVX5AM9XmvG4JjNklGt1qbz8M4 http://fp.brecorder.com/2012/11/201211281262062/ https://archive.is/qcbx7 https://www.dawn.com/news/1325879 https://jang.com.pk/news/569695 1 - https://www.express.pk/story/1558422/1/ ---[this is a new source] 2 - https://www.facebook.com/sehgalreviews/photos/a.785724781798551/785729828464713/?type=3&theater 3 - https://www.facebook.com/sehgalreviews/photos/a.785724781798551/785723945131968/?type=3&theater 4 - https://www.facebook.com/sehgalreviews/photos/a.785724781798551/785723748465321/?type=3&theater 5 - https://www.facebook.com/sehgalreviews/photos/a.785724781798551/785723685131994/?type=3&theater 6 - https://www.facebook.com/sehgalreviews/photos/a.785724781798551/785723508465345/?type=3&theater 7 - https://www.facebook.com/sehgalreviews/photos/a.785724781798551/785723401798689/?type=3&theater 8 - https://www.facebook.com/sehgalreviews/photos/a.785724781798551/785722931798736/?type=3&theater 9 - https://www.facebook.com/sehgalreviews/photos/a.785724781798551/785722828465413/?type=3&theater 10 - https://www.facebook.com/sehgalreviews/photos/a.785724781798551/785722678465428/?type=3&theater 11 - https://archive.md/X7LlN 1 - https://www.express.pk/story/1945491/268/ 2 - https://www.nawaiwaqt.com.pk/18-Jan-2020/1107135 Adding one more from this article's history for myself. Nole (chat·edits) 04:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C00:1604:BB00:8569:C425:3836:BE7D (talk) 08:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

'Plonker'

Hi,

I saw the 'Twat' drama at ANI and just had to ask; would that also happen if one was to use that word? Would one be one to use that word here? You know me; one of these days I'll use it innocently and it'll be taken amiss, just like 'Twat' was in that incident. Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

"Twat" would certainly be taken amiss if it was used in any way to refer to or address a female. I'm not familiar with its usage in any other sense, but apparently it is sometimes used in the UK as a generic insult. I think you would be wise to avoid using it at Wikipedia. I am not familiar with the word "plonker" so you'll have to ask someone else about that. It is certainly true that certain words sometimes have a different "shock value" between our two countries. As the saying goes, we are two nations divided by a common language. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

apparently it is sometimes used in the UK as a generic insult It is. As a Brit, I can't recall ever hearing/seeing the word 'Twat' used to refer to a woman's genitals (don't get me wrong; I'm sure that usage exists, perhaps even in the UK), but have seen and heard it used as a synonym for 'idiot' countless times, and therefore have no doubt whatsoever that that's what Davey2010 meant by it. Have you read our article on the subject? The word 'plonker' is a British slang word that also means 'idiot' (as in stupid), but can also mean a man's penis (see what I'm getting at here?) If someone called me a plonker, my mind would jump straight to the 'idiot' meaning, and the other one probably wouldn't even occur to me. I can speak only for myself however. Adam9007 (talk) 23:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I would have had no doubt that's what Davey meant by it either, except that he said he expected to get blocked for saying it. As for what you should say or not say, all I can advise is that at an international encyclopedia we need to be sensitive of other cultures. For example, we should not make a disrespectful joke about Allah even though it wouldn't bother us, or use the n-word even if it is acceptable in our own culture. We need to keep in mind that for words like "gay" or "queer," a new more common meaning has replaced the original one. And so on. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

P.S. that article about "twat" is totally inadequate. It needs to have an American point of view added. I will work on that when I have time. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

In Canada's view, Americans oversexualize "twat", "pussy", "dick", "knob" and "asshole", but Brits overtrivialize "the C-word" and have too many ball words, not enough Z-words. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that insight. But what are Z-words? (You can whisper if you want. No one else will hear.) -- MelanieN (talk) 04:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Fantasize, fetishize, formalize, moisturize, materialize and maize. They say fantasise, fetishise, formalise, wet, form and corn. Barbarians! InedibleHulk (talk) 08:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah, yes, now I realize what you mean. Do they also oversexualise and overtrivialise? -- MelanieN (talk) 14:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

If you didn't know, contrary to popular belief, ize/ization spellings (as long as it's from Greek -izo) are not Americanisms, and are in fact perfectly acceptable in British English. Adam9007 (talk) 15:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I see. So -ize is acceptable, particularly in academic and scientific writing, "in contrast to the predominant use of -ise endings in current British English." (Quote marks so that I don't plagiarize.) BTW "-ize" is not an Americanism; I'm sure our Canadian friends would object to that characterization. (Hope you don't mind a little teasing from a friend.) -- MelanieN (talk) 15:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Here on Wikipedia, Oxford spelling is actually treated as a separate Engvar ({{British English Oxford spelling}}). I don't think it was until after World War 2 that ise/isation spellings became common, but I could be wrong. Adam9007 (talk) 15:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

English is kind of a crazy language, isn't it? So many variations! "An Englishman's way of speaking absolutely classifies him. The moment he talks, he makes some other Englishman despise him." --Henry Higgins -- MelanieN (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

What vexes me is that ignorance seems to be so overwhelmingly dominant, I sometimes feel like I'm fighting a losing battle in being correct. Only the other day over on Fandom, I made some corrections (not Oxford spelling; it was another less-well known rule regarding spelling), only to be reverted on the grounds that it was American English (even though it wasn't and isn't!) The particular Wiki I'm talking about has a rule that says you must use British English for everything at all times, no ifs, no buts. I actually had to explain the rule to them. Adam9007 (talk) 16:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

And what's funny about that is that according to its Wikipedia article, Fandom is based in the United States! To me the problem is not which of many acceptable variants of English someone uses; it's the apparent loss of any attempt to use any kind of normal grammar or spelling in places like Twitter and the internet. I don't know about the UK, but in the US in recent decades they have pretty much stopped even trying to teach grammar in school. That's because the teachers don't know it either. And that was before the internet came along to utterly destroy any semblance of "correct English". -- MelanieN (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

"Fandom" became necessary in the States after "fanaticism" became "a cloud which threatens democracy and freedom". You don't want to be put on a watchlist for religiously following a feminine vampire slayer or friendly rainbow pony. Some bronies and scoobies wind up on the FBI's radar, of course, but for the normal domestic reasons. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Educated people here frequently complain about incorrect spelling and grammar too. I actually felt anxious making those corrections on Fandom, even though I knew for a fact I was right. Like I said; it feels like I'm fighting a losing battle. The Apostrophe Protection Society has already admitted defeat, so what hope do the rest of us have? Adam9007 (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

"Apostrophe Protection Society," I love it! (Or should I say "Its about time"? 0;-D ) You and I are alike in that we understand correct usage and strive to practice it in our daily lives. The difference between us is that you try to correct it when you see someone make a mistake. Whereas I just roll my eyes and keep my mouth shut when I hear someone supposedly well educated say "John and me want to wish you a happy birthday" or "between you and I". As for the apostrophe, that became a lost cause when the autocorrect on our phones began inserting an apostrophe into "its" whether or not it belonged. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

we understand correct usage and strive to practice it in our daily lives Funny you should say that; my corrections on that Fandom Wiki were to do with one of the words you used there (I'm not sure how much I can say without inadvertently outing myself. Also, I swear I've seen someone there whose name I recognise here, and I'm pretty sure they're the same person). Adam9007 (talk) 18:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I recently "corrected" Battle Cat, leading me to "recognise" you as not just a barbarian, but the rightful hare to the Eternian throne. That's right! Canadians spell it "hare"! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Hare to the throne? That's funny - Americans spell heir "air"! -- MelanieN (talk) 04:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Glad you smelled what I was cooking there, Sorceress! I mean, uh, Melanie. Was conflicted about how subtle to hint it, not sure Brits "get" Looney Tunes. Aware of it, probably, but not like us New World maroons, with our maize syrup cereal and neverending commercial breaks "woven into the fiber", as they say. Good times, those toons. America should totally elect a popular cartoon character in 2024, I saw it almost work on a British show I'm 99.99% confident absolutely no Americans saw once before. But yeah, that's a problem for another thread, we need to work together and save Oxford from its own ravages of time! How'dyall spell "ber*erk" out there, boy? Can I call you "boy" if I'm 38 and white? Probably should've asked the second thing first, "huh"? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Is there another way to spell berserk? And no, you can't call me "boy" if I'm a girl. As for the Canadians, IMO one of your best contributions to the language is "eh?" My grandfather was Canadian and I associate that expression fondly with him. Speaking of "How'dyall", IMO "you all" is one of America's best contributions to the language. Pronounced and sometimes spelled y'all, of course. I am not a southerner but I use it all the time. A great improvement over "you guys" which is the principal alternative. (Or "you lot" which I believe our Brit friends would say.) I don't, however, go as far as my southern friends, who say "Shall we come over to y'all's house?" -- MelanieN (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Renowned Americans Berzerk (video game) and John Nord say there's another way. And yeah, no. California girls aren't "out there", just "like, far out". I was trying to address Adam there, but not as He-Man. He's not Oxford, but relatively close. I don't say "y'all" in real life, sometimes "yous all mother...s" if I'm drunk. Elegant Northern drunk, not sloppy Southern squashed, mind you. White Southern gentleman probably should never call even tanned free folk "boy". Bad "optics", auditorily. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Pretty much nobody should ever call a grown man "boy". Of any color, but especially of the tan variety. Them's fighting words, and rightly so. That word was used to oppress people of the "wrong" color for more than a century. As for "berserk": during the 1960s when there was all kinds of activism, peacenik and Free Speech and Leave Vietnam Now and such, going on at the college campuses, the headquarters of a lot of it was at the University of California, Berkeley - giving the town the nickname "Berserkeley" which is still sometimes attached to it. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Aye, more than a century in American history. But Canada is Ahead by a Century and Britain has civic institutions that predate Robin Hood. That's why I was trying to ask the yob, the lad, the non-Prince Tongan Barbarian. I already know how Hollywood roles roll, I "stole" your country's satellite feeds for decades to amuse the poor up in "The Real CA".

I appreciate your concerns, though, so will bite my tongue unless I know the fellow editor can't legally sip gin in his own neighbourhood/neighborhood/hood. I mean, regardless/irregardless of current bar/pub/shithole occupancy restrictions. Can't rightly call a tannish young male contributor "man" if he's twelve, now can I, esteemed chica brother? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The fellow editor has not chosen to reveal their age, or their skin tone, or for that matter their gender, although their name is suggestive. If one wishes to talk to someone, that's what ping is for. Anyhow we have probably run this thread into the ground without any help from them. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. @Adam9007: Throw us down the rope, you suggestive intriguing such-and-such! We're either getting out of this hole or tying a bow on this trying, ropes are flexible. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I've lost track here - what is it you want Adam to say? -- MelanieN (talk) 14:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

How he spells "berzerk" and whether he minds "boy", in a non-sexual, non-racial and non-familial sense ("he" since his page does tell age and gender). No pressure, though, and no penalty for not saying, or saying something else. This being a virtual pit, I could just feed my blob a licorice jellybean, turn it into a ladder and take off, eh? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

You're right, he does. Trouting myself for not checking. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't do it, bud, to err is human! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't mind. I get to eat the trout afterward. Preferably with almonds and lemon juice. And a nice white wine. Hey, you made me hungry! -- MelanieN (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind a big crunchy lemon in a bowl o' brown meself, m'lanie, perchance some fish flakes sprinkled on top, chased down like a fox with only the finest moose juice. Mmmm...virtual indigestion! How about we "go Dutch", but nice and innocent-like? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Ummm, fish flakes? Really? Maybe I’ll bring chips and salsa instead. But I will definitely go for some of that moose juice. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, a doctor who plays a toady on TV said they're good for what ails the Americas. It was either flakes, tank cleaner or scales, better to eat something and not need it than need it and don't. Anyway, I have an overcooked pinecone burning a hole in my pocket, curbside pickup regret, you ever tried organic boreal pouchmeal, User:Adam9007? Alternatively, wanna chaperone a business dinner? Something tells me "a girl is sketched" by my table norms and customs. Women, eh! Always eavesdropping after the ping, amirite? Seriously though, Moosehead and Keith's are literally worlds apart and who here's seen Toad Patrol? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Huh? I've no idea what you're talking about.... Adam9007 (talk) 03:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, sorry to bother you. Thanks for a wonderful dinner, Mrs. N. Time for this boy to fly! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Thirty-fifth government of Israel

Hi, you recently ECP'ed Thirty-fifth government of Israel and I'm just wondering why. The page has no content that is under ARBPIA. If there was vandalism on the page, and I do see that there was some vandalism, then shouldn't the page be either IP protected or just temporarily protected? Isn't ECP protection just for those under ARBCOM sanctions? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I also removed the ARBPIA template from the talk page because I don't think it applies to the article because nothing in that article is under ARBPIA, it's about the 35th government of Israel and doesn't mention the IP conflict at all. We shouldn't be restricting editors if not needed. If needed, we can restrict IP addresses and then work our way up the restrictions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I did it because the sanction says "broadly interpreted," but I am open to the idea that it doesn't really apply to this article, at least not at this time. The article did and likely still does need protection, but I will reduce it to time-limited semi-protection and remove it from the ARBPIA list. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN, Thanks, I think the article is fine as is. It probably won't get too many views now that it's off the main page and it has a few watchers. If it does have vandals, I assume it'll be generic vandalism, not IP related. But it can always be escalated if necessary. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I gave it 10 days semi-protection. Thanks for the input. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Chuck Grassley

Hi, I noticed on Chuck Grassley that when you semi-protected the page, in the edit summary you indicated that you intended to make the protection indefinite but in practice you only made it one year. Is there an error? If so, can you change the protection to indefinite? Sutfeld (talk) 06:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, and you are right. The article had been under indefinite PC protection, which was proving to be inadequate, and I intended to replace it with indefinite semi-protection. I must have mis-clicked somehow. I will fix it. Good catch. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

In defense of Activist

MelanieN, I saw that you put a warning on Activist's talk page here [[17]] (time stamp 3:32, 21 May). I think Activist restored the material here [[18]] (time stamp 17:06, 20 May) before you posted to the talk page here [[19]] (time stamp 19:06, 20 May). Their other related restoration was here [[20]] and is also before your talk page comment. From what I can see it doesn't appear that they ignored your comment. I appreciate you offering a voice of reason on the talk page (even if some of that reason was to tell me to cool it). Contrary to what Activist has said, I'm very open to discussing the edits but I also think that many of these have been problematic. Is there a place where this could be raised as an issue? I thought about ANI but honestly, I think they are acting in good faith and I don't think ANI is the correct venue for "help a good faith editor get a better understanding of WEIGHT and respect BRD even when they don't agree. Anyway, this is my long way of saying I think your warning on their talk page was in error. Springee (talk) 04:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. I misread the time stamps. I will modify my comment. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Springee: Your final link here - the one labeled as 20 - is not to the Rick Bright article. It is to Alex Skarlatos. For some reason you seem to keep linking those two. But your point remains and it was generous of you to come to Activist's defense here. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks MelanieN. I mentioned the Alek Skarlatos edit in part because it was a recent revert and I wanted to clarify that it was also prior to the warning. The other issue is that I think it reflects the general type of edit that Activist was making that I think is problematic. Again, I think they are trying to edit in good faith and not all of their edits are problematic. The Rick Bright edit was just one example of quite a few similar edits they have made. For what it's worth I think they would probably do some good work if they took a few suggestions to heart. Springee (talk) 03:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Could you offer a suggestion as to how best handle this? I'm sure my initial approach with Activist didn't help but this sort of edit on an article that was on my watch list was what got my attention in the first place. Here we have virtually the same text added to three article. [[21]], [[22]], [[23]]. It's not clear the material is really DUE in any of the three articles. In the two candidate articles only a summary of their performance or impact to their campaign seems worth mentioning. In the case of the Kansas race most of the article is stats and the like yet here we have a section of prose that reads like it was taken from a story. As others have said the writing style seems to intended to elicit an emotional response rather than just inform. What makes this hard is the behavior spans many articles. I don't quite feel like ANI is the correct place because I think it was all added in good faith. This is more like a case where you would want someone to hold the editor's hand to help them understand how to write in an impartial tone and what is DUE and not. Anyway, if I comment I'm sure I will get more accusations of hounding etc. That said, I really would like to clean some of this up. Do you have any suggestions as to how to go about doing it (it being getting eyes on this to help stop this sort of poor editing going forward and/or cleaning things up). Thanks. Springee (talk) 18:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Kushner coronavirus response

Do you want to take a stab at rewriting content in the lead to Kushner's bio about K's role in the Trump adm's coronavirus response? My version was removed[24] and I can't restore it in the absence of consensus. This is the section of the article that covers his role in the coronavirus response.[25] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Robert O'Brien

Hi, Could you revisit your idea of retitling Robert_C._O'Brien_(attorney) to "Robert C. O'Brien" without a disambiguator? Could also use an independent weigh-in on discussion in [[26]] about "Attendance at segregated college in South Africa." Stope (talk) 02:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Stope, and thanks for the note. Interesting question. By “revisit” you mean to take another look into making the title be “Robert C. O’Brien” without disambiguation? I agree that (lawyer) is a completely inadequate description of his career or notability, although it may have been OK back in 2008 when the article was created. IMO there are two possible changes: either come up with a better disambiguator, or declare him to be the WP:Primary topic for Robert C. O’Brien while the author keeps the DAB as (author). With of course a hatnote at the primary article pointing to the author. I see that several people favored the Primary Topic approach at the time, but IMO such a bold move needs a little more transparency. I will post a Requested Move discussion and see if it flies. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Alert

Zee world has been vandalized Tbiw (talk) 08:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me? It had been vandalized over the past couple of days, so I gave it a week's semi-protection. It hasn't been edited since.

If you are referring to the removal of your one edit there,[27] which you made last week, it was correctly removed. Your edit wasn't vandalism, but neither was removing it; it wasn't proper content for the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay that means I am safe. Thanks Tbiw (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

But the world is still a dangerous place, so don't forget to bring a towel. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, a person should always know where their towel is.. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

So Towel Day began on May 25, 2001, and "Crippled Summer" debuted on April 28, 2010, and something came to Zee World on May 28, 2020. That must mean...oh my g*wd. A new day shall pass at midnight on April 25, 2031! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

As an aside that isn't worth its weight in section, I had the police called on me for a fake bill once, but only because I eventually called the cashier's bluff (it was all the money I had, had to try). One cop showed up a few minutes later and laid some brutal truth on me about how my money was gone forever and if I wanted my junk food, I'd need to replenish my funds the old-fashioned way. So I kicked his ass and stole his wallet! OK, fine, I went away pouting to the least-threatening loanshark I know. But I learned a valuable lesson about how counterfeit money makes victims of us all sometimes, and the only way to stop the cycle is to educate small businesses on why they should accept all twenties, regardless of colour, shape or the face on the obverse. We would all be so much richer for it if cashiers, strippers and tellers would stop being so judgmental all the time, sheesh! Anyway, tell that vague legitimate organization you worked for that I can get them their tenner back tenfold if they leave but one toonie beneath the third "O" of the Hollywood sign at midnight on November 1, 2048. Don't worry, I'm good for it! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, at least you weren't arrested. That in itself says something considering the current situation. As for your suggestion re fake money: strippers would probably agree - after all it would break the mood if they stopped to examine the legitimacy of bills tucked into their wherever. But tellers would never agree. They are SUPPOSED to tell, aren't they? 0;-D And if I had a toonie I'd keep it. Much prettier than boring American money. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Really breaks the mood when loonies and toonies rain down on the strippers, though. Even if carefully deposited one at a time into the seemingly correct slot, hell hath no fury like it. Tellers can also be tight-lipped; I once politely inquired about how much money was in the vault and when might be a good time to verify the balance, next thing I remember, I'm in Arizona wearing a pink nightgown and there's $25 worth of silver in my "secret hiding spot". Cost me twice as much just to extract it! State jail doctors are the real highway robbers, even if my account is highly dubious. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I suppose HistoryBuff14 might want to consider my testimony more than you do. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		you have made some wikipedia article proctected from vandalism. Thanks and continue this great work of yours. This my appreciation to you effort . Thank you Tbiw (talk) 20:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar. There has been a lot of need for protection lately. :-( -- MelanieN (talk) 20:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK for The Central Park Five (opera)

On 2 June 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Central Park Five (opera), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Pulitzer Prize–winning opera The Central Park Five includes a role for Donald Trump? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Central Park Five (opera). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, The Central Park Five (opera)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Talk:List of George Floyd protests does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Love of Corey (talk) 03:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

LOL! You're kidding, right? Yes, I am familiar with the concept of edit summaries. 0;-D I pretty much always use them when editing articles. I usually don't at talk pages. Call it a quirk. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

(ec) @Love of Corey: If this is intended to be humorous, please include a smiley or something.

• MelanieN is not only a very experienced editor, but an admin to boot. I don't think she needs any help understanding the importance of edit summaries, or how to create them.
• Edit summaries are far less important in talk spaces, and often omitted there by many editors.
• Apparently you're one of those many editors. Of your four edits to that page, none of them had an edit summary. Call me puzzled. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Aww, come on, Mandruss, I got a kick out of it. But, Love of Corey, I see that you have just spammed canned messages like this onto the talk pages of 15 or 20 experienced users. Here, for example, you decided to post this helpful advice to someone who has been here for 10 years and has 100,000 edits. You might want to be a little more selective in who you post canned advice to; see Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. Also, in most of those advice-edits your edit summary was an unhelpful “new section”. Maybe you should take your own advice? -- MelanieN (talk) 04:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

DYK for 2020 dismissal of inspectors general

On 5 June 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2020 dismissal of inspectors general, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that U.S. president Donald Trump dismissed five inspectors general in the space of six weeks? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2020 dismissal of inspectors general. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, 2020 dismissal of inspectors general), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—valereee (talk) 12:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

RE: Up (2009 film)

I'm done with this discussion. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
He’s caught on balloons he floats to the ground WokeHuke (talk) 09:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC) Well, WokeHuke, I am the wrong person to talk to about this. You would need to go to the article's talk page and try to convince people. However, you might find it hard to prove your case, since you would need to find a Reliable Source saying that Muntz didn't die. You can't just put in your own opinion. And pretty much all the sources [28] [29] agree that he fell to his death in the movie. I saw a reference to a video game [30] where he is shown alive; maybe that's what confused you. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC) @WokeHuke: messed up the ping. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC) He is caught on balloons and would therefore float down, there is no source or proof of him dying, but I would cede “falls to the ground” instead of “falls to his death” since neither can be proven WokeHuke (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC) @MelanieN WokeHuke (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC) I will make just one more comment about your theory that he would "float down", and then I am done with this: how many helium balloons is enough to float a grown man? One wouldn't do it. Two? Four? Ten? Think about the balloon sellers you see in the park, holding 40 or 50 helium balloons: do they float? In the scene from the movie labeled as "Muntz's death scene"[31], is he floating? Or is he falling? Here's the bottom line: You must stop insisting on this. You haven't convinced anyone, and you haven't found any proof. You need to let it go. See my warning on your talk page. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC) Did you not see Russell floating on balloons in an earlier scene? Like I said there weren’t enough to hold him up indefinitely, but there would be enough to slow his fall, I’m right on this WokeHuke (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration has been requested and your conduct here will be reviewed WokeHuke (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Good luck with that, WokeHuke. In any case, I'm seeing no such thing having been submitted. In any case, such a request would be to your detriment, I challenge. Regardless of any of that, you should tone down the aspersions ([32]), because that is not on. El_C 21:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I made no aspersions, and the arbitration request has been submitted WokeHuke (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I see no such request having been submitted, still. You accused Melanie of acting in an uncivil manner, without any evidence whatsoever, which is an aspersion. El_C 22:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, El C, but let it go. He was outright insulting in his note to another user, and that may wind up getting added to his ledger, but I have no problem with what he has said to me. I am more concerned with the large amount of other people's time he is wasting here with his repetitious arguments. That is why I closed this "discussion". -- MelanieN (talk) 22:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry if I overstepped, Melanie. Note, however, that further disruption from WokeHuke is highly likely to result in sanctions. El_C 22:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

No problem; I just figure as long as we reply to him, he keeps on insisting, so let's not "feed" him by replying. I agree with you. I already warned him that he will be blocked from the article if he does it at the article again. If he continues to agitate about it in other places he is likely to be blocked, period. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

We can sometimes be too tolerant of trolls or loons around here, worried that they're simply good faith newbies. This isn't a good faith newbie, they're a crackpot of some kind. Blocked indef. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Like. El_C 22:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Move protection

I wanted to move protect the article Hong Kong national security law but I couldn't figure out how to do it. The article is due to appear on the main page as a DYK on 13/6 and it is desirable that it is stable. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You need to tick the box with "unlock further protection options"...I have move protected for a week. Lectonar (talk) 07:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

George Floyd

Melanie, would you consider closing the discussion at Talk:George_Floyd#Adding_Criminal_History_Section_to_Article after a reasonable time has elapsed to gain full discussion and consensus. It is a contentious topic, and at this point, probably needs an uninvolved admin to oversee the discussion as it is very contentious with a lot of editors who are passionate about including the content on both sides of the debate. Thanks in advance. Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but I think I may have expressed an opinion on that subject myself at some point - although probably not in the current discussion. I'll take a look later when I have time; I don't right now. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Octoberwoodland, I see that I participated in an RfC discussion on the same subject at Talk:Killing of George Floyd, and even proposed a wording to be used. So I don't think I can consider myself uninvolved. Maybe I will come to the George Floyd article, which I have not been following, and contribute to the discussion, but I should probably not close it. Sorry. You might ask User:Neutrality, I don't think they have been part of that discussion. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I have done some edits on Floyd protest-related matters (although not that particular RfC), so I don't think I'm the best person to close this discussion. Neutrality^talk 00:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Renato Peixe

Hi,

I think this needs some input from someone who's good at explaining things. There is an editor who has chosen to edit war over a BLPPROD tag, engage in Wikipedia:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behaviour (explained to him on his talk page, but he continues to simply insist that he is right and I'm wrong without actually explaining why), and I daresay that this edit summary is dangerously close to a personal attack. I think this'll just end in tears if an admin doesn't intervene. Adam9007 (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I posted a note on their talk page. I see that another user has also taken up the cause. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, Horcoff is the article's creator and has added a couple of sources, which should put that particular matter to rest. But there's still the issue of the other editor's civility. Adam9007 (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

A little thing like "get a dictionary" is pretty mild as Wikipedia comments go. And Horcoff already responded "No need to be rude." My advice: ignore it. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I wish I could; it's not exactly a secret that few things vex me more than an ignorant editor(s) reading the riot act to me. I shouldn't let it get to me, but every time something like it happens I'm worried that other ignorant editors will join in. Also annoying is WP:3RR queering my pitch in such situations. Adam9007 (talk) 03:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editor

Hi,

I thought about taking this to ANI, but I'm not sure it's urgent enough. MarqReg has been edit-warring on McKenzie method, and following a discussion at Talk:McKenzie_method#Redaction_section_"Effectiveness", resorted to making personal attacks. I warned him, but this led to more nonsense, and I frankly have no idea what they're talking about here (I didn't realise I had the power to remove revisions from a page's history....). But this definitely needs looking into by someone uninvolved, if you'd be willing to? Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 23:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

"That was easy!"

Hi, Adam9007! Sorry for the delay, I haven't been online much the last couple of days. I'll try to take a look at this situation later today. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I see the account has already been blocked. Adam9007 (talk) 15:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, that settles that then! As the Staples office supply company says, "That was easy!" -- MelanieN (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Topic ban

Quick question for you or any talk page stalker: is there an easy way to see if a specific editor has been topic-banned from any page? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:19, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I wish I knew; I've had trouble finding that kind of information myself. They should have been notified on their talk page, so you could try searching the talk page archives for "topic ban". -- MelanieN (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Seems like something that should be in the 'block log' (because it's a block of sorts). Maybe someone can implement that change. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Bans are different from blocks. Both should be in the talk page history. A "partial block" would be in the person's block log but a topic ban wouldn't. Keep in mind that a topic ban might have been imposed before the "partial block" option was implemented. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If the TBan is from a particular page, the user would likely be blocked from editing that page. Adam9007 (talk) 20:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans: If the topic ban is an AE discretionary sanction, it would be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log (by year and topic/case). Neutrality^talk 21:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2020

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

Administrator changes

Malcolmxl5

John • TheCoffee • Tim!

Creffett → GeneralNotability

DeltaQuad → AmandaNP

CheckUser changes

Bbb23

Interface administrator changes

TonyBallioni

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is in progress to remove the T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) speedy deletion criterion.

Technical news

• Protection templates on mainspace pages are now automatically added by User:MusikBot II (BRFA).

Arbitration

• Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold an RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. The RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC and is open to comments from the community.
• The Medicine case was closed, with a remedy authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

"Nijiro Tokuda" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Nijiro Tokuda. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 7#Nijiro Tokuda until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Newshunter12 (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Christa Membrandt deletion?

I do not understand how is Christa Membrandt (Christa Maatjens) a hoax? She was a known painter and feminist conceptual artist from Dordrecht and who had official membership in art organizations there. Her name was coined from Membrane and Rembrandt references in her work, but she is far from fictional. Please re-install her page.(talk) 06:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zblace (talk • contribs)

(talk page stalker)@Zblace: I'm another administrator and I can see the deleted text, but to be honest I don't think there's anything salvageable from there, and a quick search for news sources (such as an obituary in de Volkskrant or similar) doesn't turn up anything. Could you provide some sources of information that prove this is a worthwhile subject for this encyclopedia? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, Zblace. I did do a Google search before deleting the article,[33] [34] and I found nothing but Wikipedia mirrors. In other words, this Wikipedia article was the only information about her I could find on the internet. We do need confirmation from reliable sources in order to have an article about her. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I am no expert on her work but she is known artist and we collaborated in community project back in 2009-2010 - http://recycle-x.patchingzone.net/ her professional references are also locally stored in Dutch (I can not speak)

https://www.kunstveiling.nl/items/etschrista-maatjens/57649 https://beeldbank.regionaalarchiefdordrecht.nl/search/detail/id/6277FD2DA74611E7A56C00163E535DC5/showbrowse https://beeldbank.regionaalarchiefdordrecht.nl/search/detail/id/0C57614AB8185AD8FBB50630D40BA7D9/showbrowse Zblace (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks. That shows that there are in fact some paintings by her. That's not enough for an article - we would need written information about her, an actual biography. But if you want to try to create an article, with sources, you could do so here: Draft:Christa Membrandt. Or I could recreate the article for you in your own userspace: User:Zblace/Christa Membrandt - that's called userfying - and you could try to expand and source it. Because that is a not in the main encyclopedia, it will not be speedy-deleted; that will give you time to see if you can create a proper biography of her, with sources. When you think you have enough for an article and before you move it to mainspace, please see WP:NARTIST. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind offer (I am aware of bio writing practices), but I think I only started that article many years ago and most of the contributions came from others (Dutch speakers), so I am not the best person to do this well... If you permanently deleted edit history of page and saved only the content but not the meta info it is not so useful. :-/ Can you get it all info and meta data on revisions and contributors? Zblace (talk) 17:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, if I restore it the history will be restored too. I will restore it to draft space. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, it's at Draft:Christa Membrandt. I restored the talk page too. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Please see the important comments at User talk:Vexations. They believe that the biographical information in this draft is actually about someone else. All the more reason why there will have to be good written sources before this can become an article. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for giving access to this version. As you can see well article was only started by me as I wanted to do this towards an anniversary of a death of an artist I knew. Most of the content of was not edited by me. I will try to contact some people that knew of her work better and speak Dutch. Zblace (talk) 05:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: kan Nederlands spreken. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and I saw that one of those links says one of her etchings was sold for ten Euros? That does not point toward notability--and neither does the fact that the only hits we get are from a deep search. The RKD entry exists, I imagine, because some of her works ended up in the Kunstuitleen, but again, that only proves that they exist. Drmies (talk) 12:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Have no ideas of her student/early etching work *(maybe it was with many copies), I know her as painter and inter-media artist. She exhibited in Hungary year before her death (there are multiple videos from opening, but in Hungarian) and I know she did important work on the topic of cancer (she was survivor) and that was shown internationally. Pictura.NL should have more info on her as former member, but I am not sure if it is online. Zblace (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Zblace, but unfortunately your personal knowledge of her doesn't give us anything we can use in the article - per WP:OR. We can only used published sources.

Drmies, thanks for checking out the links; did you look at this one, which appears to be an obituary? Of the various links, that seems to be the only substantive one actually ABOUT her. Anything usable there? I think I see a reference to the Hungarian exhibit that Zblace mentions, and some commentary about how she integrated her art with her cancer experience. That could be added to the article, but it probably wouldn't help get it into mainspace; one source is not enough for notability. Well, we can't PROD it because it is a draft, and I don't see any speedy criterion it falls under, so I guess we just have to leave it until it becomes an abandoned draft. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

There is some more info in WikiData entry https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q18347496 and here is the reference to last solo exhibition https://mamusociety.wordpress.com/2013/06/26/artsurvival/ Zblace (talk) 04:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Zblace, instead of putting these things here on my talk page, you might want to add them to the draft. Having more facts and more references in the draft is the only thing that will save the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

From what I know of EN Wikipedia, Wordpress and similar blogging platforms can not be counted as sources - no? Zblace (talk) 05:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

You can't use Wikidata, just as you can't use Wikipedia, as a source - but you can look at what the Wikidata entry cites as sources and possibly use them. The Wordpress thing looks more like a web page than a blog; I wouldn't cite it for factual information about her, since it's self-published, but I think it could be used as evidence for the Art = Survival exhibit - location, dates, etc. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Eduard Enslin

I have worked on the draft of Eduard Enslin which will link from this species account Tenthredo mioceras. Will you now move it to Eduard Enslin. I really am most grateful for your help.This one foxed me.PS Another wikipedian always tidies my texts. Very best regards and thanks again Notafly (talk) 16:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Notafly. I am not a new article reviewer so I would prefer you submit the article through the regular review process. I have added a tag to the article to make that possible. But first, a suggestion: see if you can make in-line reference citations to some of the facts in the article, such as his birth and death dates - rather than simply listing the references at the bottom without indicating what they show. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I fixed the in-line references adding GDN for the dates.The other references give the same info except for the very detailed research gate paper I see there is a seven week wait and I doubt many other changes will be required.I would be indebted to you to make the move now partly because of the other language versions and authority control.Very few of my many entomologist biographies have caused problems and the readers are mostly entomologists as I am myself.Many have been translated. If any changes the reviewer requires seem necessary I will make them.Once again many thanks and best regards Notafly (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, I moved the locations of the reference citations a little, so that they are with what they support, and I think it is probably OK. I will go ahead and move it to mainspace. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, done. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Marvellous.Many thanks and best regards Sincerely Notafly (talk) 22:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

SchreiberBike has now copyedited this article and it is much improved.best regardsNotafly (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Good, thanks for letting me know. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

PP for Little Saint James, U.S. Virgin Islands

You protected this page a few days ago, but a bot just removed the template. I think it would be good to keep protection on here as it is a repeat target for POV drive-by additions and subtractions. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, HouseOfChange. I gave it short term semi-protection, 4 days, because of that recent spurt of vandalism. There is a recurrent pattern of vandalism at that article, often including BLP violations, but not frequent enough to justify semi-protection. So I have given it Pending Change protection for 6 months. If there gets to be another burst of repeated vandalism, so bad that PC protection can't keep up with it, let me know. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Hey, MelanieN. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! ~SS49~ {talk} 08:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Have some cake 🍰 on me! --qedk (t 愛 c) 09:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Upgrade protection of Lake Piru

Thanks for protecting Lake Piru, but I noticed you only semi-protected it, which doesn't solve the problem. I requested full protection because the cycle of adding and removing is also being done by longstanding, i.e. autoconfirmed, editors. The issue has continued after the protection, as the history shows, so can you implement the full protection now. Kingsif (talk) 01:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Kingsif, and thanks for the note. I deliberately left the article open for editing by autoconfirmed editors. The question of whether to say something about Naya Rivera is an editorial decision; it's not something for an administrator to impose. It should be decided by the users at the article, and if there is disagreement it should be discussed at the talk page - where up to now there has been no discussion. The most recent addition - the only edit on the subject since I added protection - is well sourced, neutral, and still in the article; I don't see any removal of it or edit warring over it. The edit warring was largely being done by IPs, so that part of it has stopped. There was also a problem over the past few days with IPs adding copyrighted material about other drownings, but that was stopped by semi-protection and has now been repaired by Diannaa. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

RFPP and backlog

Hi, with regard to this edit, what is your definition of a backlog? I think the bot is programmed for 15 unanswered requests. Personally I look at the time as well as the number but there are currently 16 requests going back over 18 hours unanswered which seems like a backlog in my opinion. I completely get that it is subjective and utterly not a big deal but I was wondering where you see the definition being? Either way, I've used {{noadminbacklog}} rather than removing it entirely as it can upset the bot. Cheers, Woody (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the note and the eduction, Woody. I can see I should just leave that tag alone. But I am aware that the bot is often very wrong about how many "unanswered requests" there are. In this case, I now see that the bot went from reporting 18 unanswered requests, to 2, and back to 18 in the space of half an hour! The first thing I always look at before patrolling RFPP is the page history, to see there is another admin actively patrolling; if there is, I go away and do something else. In that case I looked at the history and saw this edit summary by the bot, saying two pending requests. I didn't notice that the backlog tag had been restored by you, and I figured the bot was just messed up - noting as well that there was another admin (you) actively patrolling. (Now there are three.) But I'll just ignore that template from now on. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I completely understand about the bot, I'm often confused about it's definition of "pending requests". I noticed the 18 to 2 discrepancy when I was working through them: It was caused by someone changing the section header (the bot then couldn't see that section). I didn't want to go contradict you and restore the tag so I added the "no admin backlog" one but the bot restored it anyway when the section header was fixed. Either way, the backlog got sorted in the end (until the next time...) Cheers, Woody (talk) 18:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

india

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mohun_Bagan_A.C.#Merge_proposal

some users still in edit war please ban and if wont unlock, remove players section from mohun bagan page, club made new website atkmb for football section so is wiki page, two same squads cant play for both (mb is multisports without football sub page)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-League

here please remove mohun bagan from teams, maps and coaches — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.1.31.202 (talk) 18:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

ANI

Just a quick note to say that while I pinged you at an ANI discussion, I know I didn't officially notify you on your page. You were not a subject of the discussion, and I assumed that the ping would be enough for you to determine whether or not you wished to comment. If I erred in not leaving a notice, I apologize. Grandpallama (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

No problem; you were under no obligation to notify me. I appreciated the ping. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Submission

Please help me to submit my articles Draft:Muhammad Shafi'u Abdullahi and Draft:Aminu Ladan Sherehu Sadeeqzaria (talk) 11:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, Sadeeqzaria. I see that someone has added the necessary template to your drafts. You can now submit the drafts for review. A regular page reviewer will either publish them, or tell you what needs to be done to improve them. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

POV & Sally Hemings

w/r/t the TJ paternity issue & Sally Hemings, I respectfully ask you to review this and reflect. https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/

Sbelknap (talk) 17:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Sbelknap, and thanks for the link to the essay about whether Wikipedia is biased. I see that in the very first paragraph he dismisses the practice of “avoiding false balance” as an “utterly bankrupt canard” which is “directly contradictory to the original neutrality policy.” He apparently he believes that all viewpoints, whether supported by a mountain of evidence or proposed by a few crackpots, should get equal treatment in a “neutral” encyclopedia. That would certainly be "false balance", but he argues that is what we should do and we are wrong to "avoid" it. Sorry, but no encyclopedia could follow that logic and maintain its credibility. But I kept reading. I got to the second paragraph, which says the Obama article is unfair because, among other reasons, it does not report on “the developing “Obamagate story in which Obama was personally involved in surveilling Donald Trump”. "Obamagate" has been the catchall title for various accusations against Obama, but if the author is referring to this, there was never any evidence for the claim of such surveillance and it has been repeatedly debunked. So I realized this writer was not someone whose arguments should be taken seriously. I later found the author complaining that it’s “bias” if Christians’ religious beliefs are not asserted as true in Wikipedia’s voice, and that articles which are “biased in favor of science” should still be regarded as biased. He is free to say and believe all of this; it’s his blog, after all; but his opinions are not going to change Wikipedia’s commitment to fact. So, regarding the Sally Hemings article: Some people do deny that Jefferson was the father. Their disagreement is mentioned in the article, as it should be, and sources are provided for readers to seek out more information, but their minority arguments are not laid out in detail. The article gives its main treatment to the evidence and the suitably hedged conclusion which most scholars have accepted. That’s balance. That’s neutrality. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Are you aware who Larry Sanger is? In your response to his blog post, you engage in mind reading. After reading your comment, I wondered if I had mistakenly linked to the wrong essay, so I followed that link, read it again, and the apparent disparity between your summary and the actual article was stunning. Sanger's view is much more nuanced than your summary. Perhaps read it again with a more open mind and less mind-reading? Sbelknap (talk) 20:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. He apparently disagreed with Wikipedia’s founding principle of “neutral point of view” from the get-go, he left after barely a year, and he has been criticizing Wikipedia ever since. He says Wikipedia is “broken beyond repair” and frequently unreliable. I gather, from his Wikiedia article, his issue was that he wanted a formal review process of content with more reliance on “experts”. But that doesn’t seem to be his complaint in the current essay; in this article he’s mostly complaining that we do not give enough coverage, in Wikipedia’s voice, to what appear to be his political views. He’s entitled to his opinion and philosophy, and he is welcome to apply it at all the other ‘pedias he has worked on. IMO the situation here is well summed up by this quote: “The problem with Wikipedia is that it only works in practice. In theory, it can never work.”[35] Anyhow, thanks for the link, I read it, and it does not change my belief that we have the right balance at the Sally Hemings article. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editor in Asexuality

Hi,

I don't know if you've been watching my talk page, but there's an editor (AceRebel) who's been disruptive on Asexuality (including edit warring over a maintenance tag that was challenged). (S)he's insisting (without really explaining how) that the article is biased and "affiliated with AVEN", and therefore deserves to be demoted from GA status. Trying to get exactly what (s)he meant on Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Asexuality/1 was like getting blood out of a stone; (s)he kept engaging in WP:IDHT behaviour. (S)he then reverted a legitimate closure of the GAR. (S)he has also read the riot act to myself and a few other editors (Crossroads, and now the GAR closer -sche), accusing us of being disruptive. I don't know is (s)he has an agenda, or if it's just plain incompetence. I'm not sure if this is ANI worthy yet (but it's certainly heading that way), but it definitely needs looking at by an admin who knows what they're doing. Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 01:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Dear Adam9007, firstly my pronoun is They. If I'm disruptive then you should follow Wikipedia policies on disruptive editors to report me. At this moment you did none of the steps. According to examples of disruptive editing my actions do not constitute any disruptive editing yet. In fact instead of engaging in productive discussion with me you with apparently your friends who at this point apparently conspiring against me to prevent me challenging apparently biased content you created. Also, to divert attention from your own conspiracy, you trying to accuse me of conspiracy (in conspiracy there should be at least two people, BTW), to discredit me and stop challenging your biased and disruptive editing. You also do not allow time for me to respond to your statements and provide explanations (I'm alive person, I need to eat, sleep, work etc). Before I would be able to do so, we had to agree on other words definition I was using to get to the point, as your behavior was misleading claiming that what I'm saying is not correct. Therefore, I was forced by you to agree on definitions of the words I was using. You should give me a time. I was about to put my explanation, but -sche closed the reassessment breaching the rules of Good article Community reassessment. There is no rule of "speedy closer", which -sche claimed. Also, -sche is editor who is involved with topic of asexuality in general at least here. Therefore, IMO, they are involved editor. Also, according to Good article Community reassessment rules, reassessment could be closed When the discussion has concluded. Has discussion concluded? No. It's not even started yet, because of your misleading behavior and my attempts to stop it as I was looking to make sure we are "on the same page" with you on the definitions of words I was using in my rationale. In addition I have explained my agenda at the end of the rationale, therefore Adam9007 you are clearly misleading here. Also, you accusing me of "plain incompetence", but yourself have no any competence with Wikipedia policies on disruptive editors, which makes your accusation questionable. This being said, dear MelanieN if you will be looking for my additional response to allegations, or asking me for additional comments, I would like to invite you to give me 24 hours to respond if any responses needed or if you will be looking to punish me with block or ban before doing so, as at this point I'm pretty busy with other very important things too. Thank you. AceRebel talk 03:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)