User talk:MelanieN

For your perusal.....

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)

Required Notification

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)

Notice

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 ([[User talk:Jackmcbarn|talk([[ 23:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Recent RfCs on US city names

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."

Don't Kill the Fun close review

Hello Melanie. Would you mind reviewing the NAC of the "Don't Kill the Fun" AfD? Wouldn't redirect be more appropriate, similar to your close here? Thanks. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, JJMC, and thanks for your note. Redirect might have been the best outcome, but only one person suggested it, and only at the last minute. They didn't even name the target they wanted it redirected to. So IMO the closer correctly interpreted the discussion as no consensus. Remember, closers are supposed to interpret the consensus and implement the result of the discussion - not to impose what they think would be a good idea. The other option would have been a third relisting, but third relistings are discouraged. Of course, there is nothing to prevent us from boldly redirecting it now! IMO that could be done without reopening the discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 00:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and redirected it to the artist. (The album was deleted at AfD.) The problem with redirecting it outside of AfD is that the creator will likely revert/recreate the article (as he has done for many articles that get deleted/redirected at AfD, most recently So Good (Bratz song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)). — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's his privilege. If he does you may have to renominate it at AfD, this time recommending redirect. With a no-consensus close, there is no rule against an immediate renomination. BTW that template {{R from song}} looks like a great addition to this kind of redirect - and could even be quoted in your nomination if you renominate. --MelanieN (talk) 13:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Melanie. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Request to review the article on AWK Solutions

Hello Melanie

It has been almost 3 months that the article for AWK Solutions was deleted from wikipedia. You then helped me to have the article copied in sandbox, so that it cane be improved and updated with notable references. although it took some time, but i think we do have some good references for this article. I have already updated a few refences and will add more in the day to come.

So i would request you to please review the article and let me know if i can now submit this in wikipedia. URL provided below

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Startupindia/AWK_Solutions

--Startupindia (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Startupindia, and thanks for the note. I'm sorry, but the article is not ready for Wikipedia - not al all. The language is virtually identical to the version that was deleted as a result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AWK Solutions. You have added a few references, but they are either directory listings or press releases. Please look again at WP:CORP. There has to be INDEPENDENT coverage of the company from RELIABLE sources like newspapers etc. Directories and press releases are not independent and do not help the company meet the requirements of WP:CORP. --MelanieN (talk) 23:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Libertarian Convention Results

As a consistent contributor to political topics I am curious as to your thoughts on including the Libertarian Convention results by state for Template:Libertarian Party presidential primaries, 2016 and re-ordering the candidates based on these results. Being that the delegate votes at the convention ultimately decide the winner of the Libertarian primary I believe they should be the results displayed in the template (or at least alongside the votes from the previous state primary ballots which give the official popular vote). I have begun a discussion on the template talk page and would like to have a few users involved in the discussion to come to a good consensus instead of a consensus based on the opinions of only two users (myself being one of them). Appreciate any feedback and if you respond here please give me a ping. Acidskater (talk) 02:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I really don't have an opinion. Thanks for doing this though. --MelanieN (talk) 23:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Trump University

I generally tend to bend over backward to educate new editors, but in this case it's a waste of time and effort to get this IP to cooperate. They're spinning out of control and simply not listening. Moreover although they're already at 4RR the edit warring boards will accomplish nothing since they're using dynamic IP addresses. The simple solution is RPP, which would probably be inevitable anyway due to the recent high level of disruption by other IPs. I requested temporary semi-protection. Cheers. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Trump

I got blocked for a freaking week for removing contested BLP material from that article that still has not been restored. And it won't be. We're not pushing bullshit into the article. Don't care if you're an admin that hates Trump. Get in line. Doc talk 06:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea who blocked you or why. And you are not very good at explaining what you are talking about. After some research, it appears you are probably talking about this addition, which you reverted. Let's take it to the talk page - and let's stay civil, shall we? --MelanieN (talk) 10:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you get what a "firm consensus" is on an article under ARBCOM sanctions. 2 people commented for, and I commented against. 2 days passed, then your "decision".[2] Are you confident that a firm consensus was established before you added that? Please explain how.

I'm sorry if I come off as uncivil - I know you're a good admin and have had good interactions with you in the past. I'm not even a Trump fan, really: but I see how his stuff is being treated differently. It's against the very nature of a "neutral" encyclopedia and it should not be happening. Doc talk 05:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll reply at the article talk page. Let's keep the conversation in one place, please. --MelanieN (talk) 06:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Restored copy Sargon of Akkad (YouTube)

Hello, could you restore a copy of this article in my userspace? Thanks. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 08:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Sure, here it is: User:Mark Schierbecker/Sargon of Akkad (YouTube). Good luck with it. --MelanieN (talk) 13:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Judge Curiel

Just for the record, I am not the one who inserted the part of the Gonzales column about speaking fees for the Clintons. That firm was appointed before trump announced his presidential campaign, and I agree it's generally a good idea to avoid guilt by association stuff. So, I will not object at this time to your removal. We'll see if anyone else does, such as the person who inserted it. Thanks, and I just wanted to make it clear that I am 100% innocent, not guilty, and didn't do it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I never thought (or suggested) it was you. On the contrary, you seem to bend over backward to be fair and impartial, and to respect consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 03:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Melanie, I appreciate that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Melanie, WP:Blockquote says quotes of 40 words or more should be blockquoted. I have no objection if you'd like to cut some of the quote so it is less than 40 words. Maybe paraphrase the rest.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. The last sentence was clearer as a paraphrase anyhow. --MelanieN (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW, we now Wlink twice to NCLR. Per MOS:QUOTE, "As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader."Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Regarding this edit of yours, I was not aware that any discussion anywhere at Wikipedia had concluded that the boycott information should be completely absent from every article at Wikipedia.I have long observed an increasing tendency at Wikipedia for political articles to degenerate into one-sided propaganda based upon the political views of a majority of editors, and then that slant is maintained by sanctions against any editor who has sought NPOV. But maybe you were already well aware of all this.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's discuss it at the talk page. And please WP:AGF and refrain from attributing people's edits to your assumption about their motives. --MelanieN (talk) 13:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

You know exactly what I think of this, so there's no need for me to repeat it elsewhere, and then be accused of being overly-argumentative.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Aaron B. Del Mar recreated as Aaron Del Mar

I don't know what was in the deleted article, but I imagine they were very similar. Can you tell if this is G4?  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  23:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Becky, and thanks for the note. It is actually very different from the previous article and so is not eligible for G4. However, it is not an improvement; in fact it contains far LESS material than the previous article and fewer references, and does not really make any claim of notability. I think it may be eligible for A7, if that's allowed after an AfD (I haven't encountered this situation before). The alternative would be another AfD. Feel free to quote me. --MelanieN (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Sebastian Solano

Hi Melanie, I wonder if you wouldn't mind moving the deleted Sebastian Solano info to a draft for me? I'd like to reuse somem of the research on other toipcs. Thanks! Earflaps (talk) 12:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Sure, Earflaps. Here it is: User:Earflaps/Sebastian Solano. However, I would advise against launching it as an article again. Since it has been AfD-deleted twice, a third creation is likely to be not only deleted but salted. --MelanieN (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I only meant to redirect the deleted page to Committee Entertainment#Sebastian Solano, and maybe add a few more sentences there as a summary. Thanks a bunch! Earflaps (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Borsoka has once again added his edits

User:Borsoka has taken advantage of the protection of the article to enforce his POV and has again added his edits here. Also please note that my edits were well-sourced with highly reliable sources. Both John Man and Peter W. Edbury are reliable scholars that I've added for my edits. Please revert Borsoka's edits as he is breaking the rules to enforce his ill-informed POV. 117.241.118.76 (talk) 21:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The place to work these issues out is at the talk page. And the deciding factor at the talk page is consensus. I see there is a prolonged argument (I wouldn't call it a discussion) at the talk page. And I see that you do not appear to have consensus on your side. If you are sure you are right and they are both wrong, you could take it to WP:Dispute resolution. But you'll need much better arguments that what I see there. --MelanieN (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you read and understand what Consenus is. It's not a process to enforce what remains and what doesn't by matter of agreement and votee of number of individuals, Wikipedia is not a democracy, it's an effort to include legitimate concerns of all editors. 117.241.118.76 (talk) 22:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Question re: deletion

Per your recent deletion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017–18 UEFA Women's Champions League, should the same be done for 2017–18 UEFA Champions League and 2017–18 UEFA Europa League? Hmlarson (talk) 23:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Hmlarson, and thanks for your note. I have no opinion on that; it would depend on the results of an AfD. As administrator I don't personally judge the worthiness of the page; I just evaluate and enforce the consensus at discussion. The discussants at another AfD might or might not come up with the same consensus as they did at this one. --MelanieN (talk) 01:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Request for feedback

Hi, there. You and I have differed concerning edits on an article a couple of years ago, but I respect your opinion. Could you take a look at my edits this evening of the Turner/Doe case and let me know what you think? My feeling is that some editors are trying to retry the case by mischaracterizing the evidence presented in court. I hope my objections and modifications are within Wikipedia guidelines. Activist (talk) 03:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

If you're talking about the minor tweaks you made - to make it clear that this is him talking and not a fact - I don't see anything controversial about them. I was puzzled by your edit summary Remove contentions that the jury did not believe and witnesses contradicted - See talk. Did you mean to actually remove some material? Or just to clarify that it was according to him? --MelanieN (talk) 03:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I meant that the contentions were solely Turner's, and should not be put on a par, remedied I hoped, via the language I tweaked, with the physical and witness evidence and the jury's conclusions. Thanks. Activist (talk) 09:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Activist: But you might want to tweak your latest addition, about the Swedish graduate students. The way you have it now - "Turner was arrested on January 18, 2015, after police arrived and encountered him pinned by two Swedish graduate students, Carl-Fredrik Arndt (sitting atop his legs) and Peter Lars Jonsson (tripping him and holding his arms). Two others, Beau Barnett and Nicholas Sinclair, then aided Arndt and Jonsson." - seems to muddle the time frame. The sentence starts out describing what police found when they arrived, but "tripping him" and "then aided" are describing the earlier actions by the grad students - rather than describing the scene when police arrived. Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 12:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, much! I'll fix it. Activist (talk) 16:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Upon rereading, it needed substantial tweaking and corrections. I think it will work better now. Regarding the DDA's trial statement at the end of the retitled "Incident Details" section: Do you think it should be located below, above the D.A.'s post-sentencing statement? Activist (talk) 19:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting that redundant sentence fragment. As I tried to clean up the section and post changes, I ran into edit conflicts that had me exhaustively redoing it, and I left it in while rushing to finish before I encountered still another. You may agree that when many editors are somewhat contemporaneously involved in a complex story, the changes can get confusing and disjointed as the article grows organically. Activist (talk) 05:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Totally agree. That kind of situation can be really frustrating. All you can do is make small edits one at a time, and hit "save" quickly before someone else beats you to it. And things get by you. Happens all the time. For that matter, I gave up trying to follow the history, who-did-what, and just looked at the final result. --MelanieN (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

There is a discussion

Thanks for your input on the Ed Catmull article. I actually did more than say "go to the talk page". [3]. It's a continuation of an earlier discussion of the material. Also, biased, contentious material in a BLP is one of the few enumerated exceptions to the 3RR. I'd consider saying that the subject "violated the Sherman Act" and that he'd done other unlawful things is quite possibly biased. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, I missed that; your recent comment isn't date stamped so it appears to be part of the 2014 discussion. You may very well be right about this entry, and I guess you could take it to the BLP board - but your best bet would probably be to find some other person to help you with the reverting. BTW I gave a much more severe warning to the other party, and if he resumes it could be grounds for a block. --MelanieN (talk) 03:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• Again, I appreciate the input on it. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• @Niteshift36: One other thought: I took a closer look at the disputed entry. If it was neutrally written - just to say that he gave a deposition in that case - it could be acceptable. But I noticed another problem: the material is copied verbatim from the source, including the parts that are NOT in quotes. If they add it again it could be removed as copyvio, as well as questionable from a BLP standpoint. --MelanieN (talk) 14:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Good to know regarding the copyvio. I'm not too convinced on the inclusion, even if neutral. I just feel that since he wasn't personally sued or there wasn't a court finding that he did anything wrong, including it is really not the way to go. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Kai, Canadian Singer

Hello, I work for the management of Kai (Alessia De Gasperis Brigante), the Canadian singer. Can you please tell me why you would delete her wikipedia page? She is a well known singer with a song on the radio and has just signed with Warner Brothers in the USA. So a Wiki page for her is something essential? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magusmusic (talk • contribs) 17:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Melanie, I got a message about this as well. I've pinged you on my talk page about it, and I'd love to get your opinion about a possible restore to Draft: space. See the thread User talk:C.Fred#hello there. —C.Fred (talk) 18:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Ivory Hours softdelete

I would like to have the page re-instated in order to add additional information to the band's page. They meet criteria #1, #4, and #9 on the music notability list, including the following links which I offer as additional sources to the ones that were already on the page: newswire, Tour info, New Years concert with Canadian band Sloan, CBC Radio 2 Top 20 Write up about CMW, and This Review (if it counts)Admittedly the band is still new to mainstream Canadian music, and they are an independent band, but that shouldn't limit their presence on Wikipedia and I know with time more sources/information will become available to add to the page. Bananarama10101 (talk) 00:58, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

@Bananarama10101: OK, I have restored it, and I placed a note on the talk page to prevent speedy deletion as WP:G4. Good luck with the article. --MelanieN (talk) 14:44, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

A random musing on your wit and wisdom section

If 16.5 feet in the Twilight Zone is a Rod Serling, and half of a large intestine is a 1 semicolon, what is the exchange rate of a pound of Rod Serling (aka the pound Serling) and a full colon? MSJapan (talk) 21:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll be franc: I never had a particular yen to find out. --MelanieN (talk) 21:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Removal at Donald Trump Presidential Campaign 2016

First, thank you for your input in the Talk for this article. Second, I wanted to clarify this edit where you removed some content as unsourced in the article. I see the following sentence in the Huff Post article that's cited: "They are fed up with politicians." Wouldn't this support the statement?CFredkin (talk) 00:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I took out the sentence where HuffPost focused on just one explanation for why business owners feel the way they do - "fed up with politicians" - out of four or five explanations that are given in the lengthy article (including Obamacare, immigration, etc.). It would take a paragraph to explain the "why" based on that HuffPost article. And in any case the important thing in that article is the fact that business owners are his second-biggest donors. The "why" isn't needed. Do we say "why they do it" for every fact we cite? --MelanieN (talk) 00:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

In the next paragraph, we say why the business leaders cited are endorsing Clinton. Similarly, it seems fair to explain why small businesses support Trump.CFredkin (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Something like "they are fed up with politicians and opposed to Obamacare and immigration"? We could source that from the article. There might have been some other reasons that I missed. --MelanieN (talk) 05:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable summary. Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 15:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

blocked sock

I ATTACKED NO ONE I'M TIRED OF WIKIPEDIA EDITORS TELLING ME I HAVE ATTACKED OTHER EDITORS. I DID NOT. I told an editor he made a mistake. Is that an attack? Grow a backbone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.228.159 (talk) 23:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC) Replied on your talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 23:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC) Here's a summary of wikipedia: People say I attack. I didn't I say, I didn't attack, WTF. You say, see, there's your attack! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.228.159 (talk) 00:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC) Funny thing is, most people don't EVER get told they are attacking, or told to stop it. Does it seem like there might be something different about the way you post, since people keep telling you that? --MelanieN (talk) 00:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC) You people just don't like to be told when you are wrong. Are you done yet? I'd love, just once, for a wikipedia editor to say they are wrong. Good god. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.228.159 (talk) 13:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

User: Stnicklaus3

FYI, It appears that most, if not all, of his/her edits have been vandalism.CFredkin (talk) 00:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I added a second warning to their page. My hunch is that they are smart enough to string out their vandalism so that they never do a batch of it at once and get caught. But I'll watch them. --MelanieN (talk) 01:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Posted to discussion board but not sure it materialized. Someone edited other than myself. How do you monitor to have it exclusively to myself. Appreciate it and need no more threatening notices. Stnicklaus3 (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Advice pages

FYI. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• @Kudpung: I don't have a problem with that question. It's good faith and better than some of the other questions there. --MelanieN (talk) 01:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I see it as clear provocation, having nothing to do with the RfA, and possibly even racist. These are the kind of users who possibly do not understand our Anglo-american culture and the special global nature of the English Wikipedia. The sooner we can introduce a 90/500 rule for RfA, the better. Anyway, that's my opinion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

• I'm just shocked. The real reason for the question, if anyone cares. Qweedsa (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with that question, and it could have a perfectly innocuous answer. Perhaps JJE got scared of de-wiki by the SuperProtect scandal, perhaps he prefers to improve his English by working on this Wikipedia, perhaps he likes to work on the Wikipedia that has the most traffic ... throwing around accusations of racism is really not on. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• I haven't even read the situation, but I'm 100% in favor of an at-least 90/500 rule for RfA !votes. Softlavender (talk) 09:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Trump Campaign & the Star of David

Regarding the recent Trump Tweet Star of David kerfuffle, I see that the Wikipedia article on Badges notes (albeit without citation) that Sheriff's badges may have five, six, or seven points. If have no idea if any research has been done on this, but if there's not a blog, there should be. kencf0618 (talk) 03:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Trump campaign edit

I agree, I did not hear Lewandowski say it was supposed to depict the shape of a sheriff's badge- however, you also removed what I added which was correct. In the source I cited, the video shows Lewandowski saying nobody would be talking about it if the money was absent from the background. Ghoul flesh talk 16:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ghoul flesh: I see. We normally cite the transcript or report about a speech, not the actual video (which is a Primary Source). How about this: let's wait and see if that part of his comment gets significantly reported by independent sources. If it becomes noteworthy per coverage by independent sources, we should include it. If not, it is not an important or notable part of his comments, and we should not include it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good. Ghoul flesh talk 19:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ghoul flesh: I actually doubt if it will get picked up, because it was kind of a weird thing to say. The dollar bills were actually the LEAST controversial thing about the image - compared to the star and the legend "Most corrupt candidate ever". --MelanieN (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

That's exactly why I included it, it seemed like a really odd comment. But you're right, if it gains more notability it should be re-added. Ghoul flesh talk 19:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion for freewire

hello, what should I do moving forward on the no consensus vote on my speedy deletion nomination for freewire? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheUSConservative (talk • contribs) 06:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, USConservative, and thanks for your note! I took a look at the article and made some changes. I made it clear the company appears to be out of business. If you want you could renominate it with a stronger argument for deletion; your original argument (lack of recent sources) was not very convincing. You should point out that the company was never notable; that it appears to be out of business; and that there currently is another company, FreeWire Technologies, which could cause confusion. --MelanieN (talk) 15:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Noticeboard post

Greetings, I noticed that you called me out on the Edit Warring Noticeboard for not discussing my edits in Talk before making them. I don't believe Rockypedia discussed his edits before making them either. In fact, I don't believe anyone there, except for you and even you don't do it all the time, has done that. I agree that that would be preferable, but in my experience that rarely happens anywhere on the project. Given that, I'm curious why you chose to call me out on it.CFredkin (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

To point out that the edit he reverted had not been discussed - in other words was potentially controversial which would give him every right to revert it. And also because you were calling HIM out on the Discretionary Sanctions without following them yourself. --MelanieN (talk) 01:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

After reviewing the sequence of edits again, I think I see your point. Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 03:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

To any stalkers who happen to see this

I'm going to be gone for the next 10 days, but I have an ongoing situation at the article Huy Duc. Could I ask some of you to keep an eye on it? The article, created in April 2015, was calm until about a week ago, when the original author (who actually wrote only about one-fifth of the current article) suddenly started trying to delete it. They say they regret writing it, and their argument for deletion seems to be that the guy is pro-communist; they also claimed "factual errors" but did not point any out. They do not understand the systems here but they have tried everything. So far they have tagged it with PROD three times and db-author four times. After the second db-author I sent it to AfD, where it was kept - but they have tried twice more since then. I have posted notes on their talk page but they don't respond. I have warned them they are getting disruptive. I'd appreciate some eyes on the situation while I'm gone. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 03:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC) P.S. I have really tried to be gentle with this person, because I believe they are in good faith and just don't understand how Wikipedia works. Also their English seems to be very limited. --MelanieN (talk) 03:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Asking for your help on Ben Wedeman

The subject is a journalist who often works in the Middle East, a married heterosexual, and his page has been repeatedly vandalized, such as here and here and here. Problem is, incorrect information about Wedeman's sexual orientation can cause him real trouble in the Middle East. I am not an administrator but I'm wondering if you might intervene with some kind of page protection?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Definitely needed. I gave it a week. Thanks for letting me know. --MelanieN (talk) 13:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

John Ducas

Have you seen the edits that were made to the John Ducas article before they were swiftly removed? Is it not noteworthy to add? TacomaBound6 (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I saw them. I would probably have removed them too. They struck me as original research and synthesis. And in a way they are irrelevant; the article doesn't claim that the corporation made any money. But if you want to argue for the inclusion of this information, do it on the article's talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Sock

MelanieN=melania kNavss trump Stop protecting Trump's page from White supremacist/Fascist/Anti-Semitic/Racist/fraud/ponzi-scheme references. It's a conflict of interest issue. Thanks.63.143.196.114 (talk) 16:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC) Pretty sure you can take this to mean you're doing an excellent job in a difficult situation. --NeilN talk to me 16:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC) Yeah, the socks are overflowing the drawer today - and spilling all over the floor. --MelanieN (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Racism?

Greetings, I'd be interested to get your input regarding the reference to this term in the lede at Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not able to follow or participate significantly in discussions right now. Sorry. MelanieN alt (talk) 23:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Seems ...

...like you are on vacation, maybe you can give a quick look on this little stub I've created after a long time. Jim Carter 21:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Looks interesting. My internet access is very limited right now. I will look at it next week. MelanieN alt (talk) 23:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Notifications

Edits using my user were not done by me. Instead of threatening notifications, please advise how I can monitor editing to only be done by myself. Stnicklaus3 (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

You are saying that your account has been compromised - that is, someone else was able to edit under your user name. That is a serious admission and you need to make sure that never happens again. It is up to you to make sure that no one else uses your account; that security happens at your end. You have two choices. One is to fix whatever caused someone else to have access to your account. If someone knows your password, change it. If someone else uses your computer while you are still logged in, restrict access to your computer. If you can't do one of these things, you should report that the account has been compromised and ask to have it blocked. Then create a new user name for yourself, one that you DO have adequate security for. If your account is used again for vandalism, and you again claim that it was not done by you, this account will be blocked permanently as a compromised account. MelanieN alt (talk) 23:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Congrats

Hello M. I hope that you are well. Many many congrats on this!!!! Where does the time go? Best wishes on the next ten :-) MarnetteD|Talk 19:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! You beat me to the 10-year mark by more than a year, so YOU tell ME where the time goes! --MelanieN (talk) 20:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

That would call for original research. C'mon, Melanie! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Couldn't we use this as a source? --MelanieN (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Where does it say that's the "official" site? Please prove the source is reliable. Please show the the source is a recognized expert in this area by providing their full CV and five independent sources attesting to that fact. Is the source [insert unpreferred ethnicity]? If so, they're obviously bias[sic] and can't be used. In fact, trying to use them as a source shows you are incapable of being neutral. Please recuse yourself from this entire area. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, NOW I understand where the time goes. Thanks for the illustration. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 21:23, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

This banter is excellent M and N. I always miss the fun stuff. I hope that you both have an excellent week. MarnetteD|Talk 22:20, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you, Melanie, for the lovely barnstar! Thanks in turn to you for your always-equanimous work - both editorial and administrative. Neutrality^talk 02:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Trump's tax returns

Melanie, I really like the controversy paragraph you added, but I honestly think that this issue is not equivalent to the other listed controversies. I presented my argument on the talk page for the article and hope you and others consider it. I believe that half of the other controversies listed are created to keep people from talking about Trump's problem with his tax returns. I am not sure if I am using these pages correctly, but I see a lot of positive comments for you as an editor. Pmacdee (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Toradora!

Can we just get indef-semi protection on this article? It has been routinely vandalized by IPs for four months now. I know it isn't the best decision but I get the feeling the article is linked to some kind of a 4-chan type of forum somewhere. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm afraid my analysis is that it's not to that point. I usually look first at the protection log: has the article needed increasingly long periods of protection? How soon after the protection expires does it get reinstated (suggesting that vandalism resumed as soon as the protection expired)? What the history shows here is intense bursts of vandalism, treated with a very short period of protection (my two days was actually on the long side), and then many weeks of calm. I know this pattern can be frustrating for the page watchers, and I encourage you to request protection immediately when it starts up again - because of the rapid-fire nature of the vandalism when it occurs, and also to establish a track record to see if indef is ultimately needed. Personally, if it isn't a BLP problem (that's another situation), I impose indefinite protection only if the article has needed months-long periods of protection, with very short intervals before another months-long period is needed. --MelanieN (talk) 00:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	I just wanted to say that I really admire the work you've done on Donald Trump related articles. Not a fun or easy body of articles to edit, I'm sure, but I think you've done a great job! Safehaven86 (talk) 18:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Safehaven86! I don't usually work much on political articles, but I found that to be an area that really needs help to stay verified and neutral. I'm not the only one trying to keep it that way, but I appreciate your comments. --MelanieN (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Apology

I wanted to apologise for exaggerating the explanation for mistake made by the Trump speechwriter: She was not placing full blame on Ms. Trump. I have corrected both the one mistake you found here and another one that you might have missed. Again, on my honour, it was an honest, good faith edit mistake. Is my revision more accurate? Thx.96.59.186.103 (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

No need to apologize; simple difference of opinion or emphasis. Yours was based on what the AP article said so nothing wrong there. But I still think the AP article goes too far in saying the speechwriter placed any blame on Melania; at most it was a misunderstanding between them. If Melania says to a speechwriter, "these are some thoughts I like", she ought to be able to rely on the speechwriter to ask if they are direct quotes, and to make sure they don't get used verbatim. The speechwriter is a professional; Melania isn't; she shouldn't be expected to know these nuances, and I don't think the speechwriter meant to imply that she should have. IMO the speechwriter took all the blame on herself, but that's not how the AP reporter read it. BTW you added that material in a separate place in the article from the speechwriter's apology and statement; don't you think it would go better there? --MelanieN (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

It is possible that I placed this update/clarification in the wrong place, and, if so, you're welcome to move it around as needed. However, I think that I was balanced in my description of "shared blame." Nonetheless, if you think it would be possible to put in language about a misunderstanding (which is the obvious situation), that would be good. Neither the writer (McIver) nor the speaker (Ms. Trump) did anything malicious. But, at the end of the day, there was, clearly, carelessness and human error on both parties, so that should be chronicled. ((Oops - ADDENDUM: - I made a mistake - see below: Both articles needed that one edit about the speech mistake, but only the writer's article needed more detail: So, after reviewing your comment, I still think my edits were good, but I'm open to thoughts if you disagree; see below.))96.59.186.103 (talk) 22:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I added the speech quote in both McIver's article and the speech article (it belonged in both places), but the fact that McIver is (or was?) a Democrat only belongs in McIver's article, as we don't need all that detail in the speech article. All is well, and the edits pass my last review, and, I hope, you concur, but if not, please speak up. :) Thx,96.59.186.103 (talk) 23:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

UPDATE: I need your help here

Dear MalanieN, I need your help, here, since my final edits (which we both seem to think are balanced and OK) are not able to be added to this "semi" protected page. Thank you for your assistance.96.59.186.103 (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

2nd UPDATE: a Holy War edit war has begun: Need help

Viz: this 'diff' - The edit was is just with one other editor, and so it is in the early stages: He or she offered no explanation, so maybe we can talk this out: I need your help, if you would not mind. Thx,96.59.186.103 (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that you have taken the war to the talk page, as you should. Discuss it and let consensus rule. I added my own comments there. You seem to think that I am in agreement with you that the "it's her fault" statement should be in all three articles. I actually don't agree. I was just not going to delete it again after you toned it down. But if it were up to me, I would not include that AP reporter's interpretation of what McIver said anywhere. I would just go with what McIver herself said. --MelanieN (talk) 01:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I am what you might call an "inclusionist," and wish to include all relevant sides and facts, but, yes, it is not the most important thing. Balance and Moderation in all things - INCLUDING balance & moderation.~ (That's a joke, because if sometimes we're "moderate" in using moderation, then sometimes we do go to extremes - both humourous and also, occasionally necessary, but I diverge. Again, thx for your help, even if you had a slightly different view on things. Your contributions seemed positive.96.59.186.103 (talk) 05:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks very much for the help. When two people say it, it goes better --- & perhaps i was too abrupt. DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@DGG: Glad you didn't mind my chiming in. The user seems to have taken both of our comments with good will. I have a particular dislike of insta-tagging - tagging something for deletion just minutes after it was created - so that was why I commented. I later was pointed to Template:uw-hasty which I may use in the future. --MelanieN (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

UWCL

So Linfield are the first team qualified for 2017–18 UEFA Women's Champions League. I'd like to see it restored, but i guess putting it in user space until there are more teams, or the final stadium announced would be ok too. Could you do that? thanks. --Koppapa (talk) 11:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

You got it. It's at User:Koppapa/2017–18 UEFA Women's Champions League. If you want, you could let me know when you are ready to move it to mainspace, so that I can add a note on the talk page certifying that it is significantly different from the deleted article and not subject to WP:G4 speedy deletion. --MelanieN (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Melania Trump speech plagiarism controversy

Hello. I don't know who you are, but do you typically rewrite articles to say the exact opposite of what the source says? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Restoring content

Melanie, Would the same rationale for this be applicable here?CFredkin (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and I have reverted it, citing Discretionary Sanctions. --MelanieN (talk) 20:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 53

Hi, you previously contributed to a deletion discussion for London bus route 391, another similar deletion discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 53 which you may wish to give your input on.

Note: I've placed (or am in the process of placing) this notification on the talk page of anyone who took part in the original deletion discussion, as the most recent similar discussion, regardless of deletion preference, which is allowable under WP:CANVASS. The only exception being if that person has already contributed, or has indicated on their profile that they are inactive.

Thanks for your time. Jeni ^(talk) 10:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Thursday, August 4 San Diego Wiki-Dinner

Join us for an informal San Diego Wiki-Dinner meeting with visiting Wikipedians Rosiestep and Fuzheado, to get to know each other, and to help prepare for WikiConference North America in October 2016! --Pharos (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Probably need to watch

Well, IP 217.28.6.255 is now stalking my work and making POINT-y edits, (since you shut down the edit-warring at Palfrey with page protection, and thank you for that!), and is causing some minor problems for other people also. Here's the ones of mine: [4], [5], and [6]. This account just started editing this month (with one prior edit in March), and I kind of suspect a returned user. I've put two warnings up, I really am not ready to drag this user to the drama boards because they mostly appear to just be kind of thin-skinned, but perhaps you may want to keep an eye on them? Montanabw^(talk) 08:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I see what you mean. They certainly do sound like a returned editor, not a new one. IMO they are not currently disruptive, but worth keeping an eye on. --MelanieN (talk) 14:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Hillary truthful in interview

Melanie, hypothetically would you support adding the following to the email controversy section in Hillary's bio:

In an interview with Fox News in late July, Clinton stated “Director Comey said my answers were truthful, and what I’ve said is consistent with what I have told the American people, that there were decisions discussed and made to classify retroactively certain of the emails.” PolitiFact awarded Clinton four "Pinocchios", its worst rating, for her statement saying "While Comey did say there was no evidence she lied to the FBI, that is not the same as saying she told the truth to the American public."[7][8][9][10]

Would you consider it appropriate to add both Clinton's statement and the interpretation? Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 18:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, CFredlin. I haven't been much involved with the Clinton article and I will let the regular editors there deal with that question. --MelanieN (talk) 22:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

recent edit

Hi Melanie, I saw your edit on the Trump presidential page. It fails to mention that Trump started the interview with Stephanopolous by speaking positively and with empathy about Mr. Khan's loss. It's still a page about a living person, and should tell the whole story, not just an edited version of what really happened that leaves off Trump's opening remarks. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, SW3 5DL. Yes, he did start out by saying Mr. Khan "was emotional" and "seems like a nice guy," and later said "I wish him the best of luck". If that was all he said, there would be no story. It was what he immediately went on to say (his "maybe she wasn't allowed to speak" comment was part of the same sentence) that got all the publicity, and still does. As an encyclopedia, we don't report every word that someone said; we focus on what the Reliable Sources focused on. That's how we decide what to include and what not. For that matter I left out his "Did Hillary Clinton's campaign write that?" comment too, for the same reason. As for "empathy", when he was asked "what would you say to this father?", he replied "I would say, we've had a lot of problems with Islamic terrorism". I wouldn't exactly call that speaking positively and with empathy about Mr. Khan's loss, would you?--MelanieN (talk) 22:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

You're right. I wouldn't call that empathy. I had that wrong. I think it could be paraphrased for weight, however. This isn't something Trump started, like he did with the Judge. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I see that CFredkin has added the sentence you wanted. --MelanieN (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Melanie, I modified the edit here, for weight and copy edit, and I included the statements Trump released according to the Wall Street Journal. I left it as comments from both men and left out the characterizations by the media and made a note on the talk page. Let me know what you think. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Three years ago ...

rescued for San Diego
... you were recipient no. 562 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you again, Gerda! You are pretty precious yourself! --MelanieN (talk) 13:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I was told yesterday to look for another hobby (talk of Gustav Holst), and reverted on Giulio Cesare, today asked to revert my disruptive edits (project classical music), and reverted on Handel's lost Hamburg operas, - so appreciate the support ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Wildfire

Hello! I have recently started a new WikiProject and am trying to recruit new members. The project, WikiProject Wildfire, focuses on articles that relate to wildfires. There is a lot of work that needs to be done. From updating templates, to classifying and improving articles. Any level of commitment is welcome! If you care to just add some input on the founding of the new project, awesome. If you would like to take an active role in editing articles, that is awesome as well! Knowledge of wildfires is NOT a prerequisite for joining the project. In fact, it would be great to have some members of the project who are NOT fire-buffs. That way we make sure that articles aren't just written by and for people in the fire community. If this is something you have any interest in, I would love to have you join the project! Please feel free to join the discussion or leave me a message on my talk page. (Note that you are receiving this message from me because I saw you made multiple edits on a wildfire related page, specifically Old Fire. Not just spamming you at random.) Hope you have a great day! Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Prince Abdi-Iltiré BLPPROD

"Once properly placed, [a BLPPROD] can only be removed if a reliable source is added." This article was unreferenced when tagged (see diff), and Transfermarkt, the only source currently cited in the article, is decidedly not reliable. Most of its content is user-generated, meaning it's considered a self-published source (see this RSN discussion for more details). Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. I didn't notice that the references were added AFTER tagging; in that case, the references must be reliable. And in a brief search I did not find any reliable sources. You are right and I will delete the article. --MelanieN (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment

Melanie, I'm doubtless wrong in thinking this, but it seems to me, and I'm not judging, mind, but ever since I changed your edit to the Khan section, you've followed up several of my talk page comments with what seem to be corrective comments. Like I've fallen short somehow. I feel like I can't get it right for getting it wrong. I don't see you doing that to anyone else. In any event, I meant no offense to your edit. In making my edit, I simply asked myself what would I want to know if I were coming to the article wondering what was going on with Mr. Khan and Mr. Trump. I wanted to know what each man said that caused the media to set the world on fire. Literally, I thought Trump must have said something like we should drown puppies, or something. No offense intended. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I actually didn't even remember that it was you who changed the section. I had no idea that you would take my comments personally, or attribute my later posts to the idea that I somehow had it in for you. I'm sorry if you got that impression. Now I understand why I several times saw you apologize for some perfectly innocent comment. The truth is that half the time I respond to a comment without even noticing who made it; to me it is just a discussion about the content. You comment a lot at those talk pages; naturally I respond; naturally I don't always agree. Nothing personal intended. And please feel free to disagree with me, strongly if you feel strongly. That's what talk pages are for. --MelanieN (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richard Hanna (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

HNBA

Hi Melanie. I was recently looking at the essay WP:Writing for the opponent and it made me think of you. 🙂 I want to include some undisputed factual, reliably-sourced information in Wikipedia, and would be willing to do it virtually however you want. But I don't know how, and would appreciate if you would tell me how.

Two articles at Wikipidia (Gonzalo P. Curiel and Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016) discuss that Curiel was accused of ties to "La Raza" which allegedly opposes Trump, and both of those Wikipedia articles debunk those accusations. However, neither of those Wikipedia articles mention the reliably-sourced fact (reported by the LA Times and CNN) that Curiel is a member of the HNBA which has boycotted Trump.[11] If you would please consider this in as neutral a manner as you can, how can I insert this info somewhere into Wikipedia? I take WP:Preserve seriously, and I cannot remember ever trying to irrevocably banish reliably-sourced factual information from this encyclopedia. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Anythingyouwant. Well, let's see. There are four articles that all deal with this to some extent: the Donald Trump article, the Presidential campaign article, the Curiel article, and the Trump University article. IMO the only place where it might logically be included would be the Curiel article, since it relates to his membership in societies, but I see there are sections in all four articles where it could be mentioned. This has been extensively discussed at several of these articles, and consensus was to leave it out - for several reasons (I'm not going to search the archives). I know that you are aware of this, since you have tried to insert it into multiple articles. You tried to insert it into Trump University back in June, and I told you there was "lengthy discussion at other talk pages" not to include it.[12] Also in June you tried to insert it into the Curiel article [13] and you participated in the discussion at that talk page, following which you reinserted a version of it [14] in what was probably as close as you could come to avoiding a "guilt by association" feel. That section stayed in for several days but was eventually deleted by MastCell as a "cherry-picked factoid". I'm really not going to go through and research the whole timeline, but I can see that you have tried to do this repeatedly and it has always been deleted - and it has been discussed on multiple talk pages without consensus to include it. BTW "reliably sourced factual information" is often excluded, for many reasons: Weight, Relevance, Degree of coverage, Neutrality, etc. Bottom line, I do not feel there is consensus to include this anywhere in Wikipedia. So I won't be helping you write it. Sorry. --MelanieN (talk) 00:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for repeating the chronology that we were both already aware of. Should I characterize your "sorry" as sincere? It has a different ring to it. The reasons you cite (weight, relevance, degree of coverage, neutrality) are reasons to exclude from a particular article. They are not reasons to exclude from the entire encyclopedia forever. I truly am disappointed that you feel entitled to engage in the latter activity. I would be glad to describe the policies and guidelines that forbid that activity, but you don't seem interested.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

So it's your belief that every reliably sourced fact, reported anywhere, with any degree of coverage, must be included in the encyclopedia somewhere? And that there are policies and guidelines that require us to include, somewhere in the encyclopedia, every single fact in the world - regardless of degree of coverage, neutrality, etc - because we mustn't "irrevocably banish it" or "exclude it from the encyclopedia forever"? That is not my understanding of how Wikipedia works. I believe our job as encyclopedists is to create balanced, readable, accurate articles, and to select what to include and what not to include, based on multiple factors but particularly coverage in reliable secondary sources, as interpreted by consensus. And of course subject to re-evaluation if circumstances change, such as wider coverage in the future. --MelanieN (talk) 00:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

It's my understanding that every reliably sourced and undisputed fact, with very few specific exceptions, can be included in the encyclopedia somewhere; if an appropriate article does not currently exist then an appropriate article including that fact is not forbidden. This puts editors in a position of organizing knowledge rather than censoring it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I mentioned you

... here. You don't have to read the whole thing, just search for your username. Please note that I am NOT trying to solicit a positive comment or support. Comment if you wish, or not, and if you do, please give a straight forward assessment of my editing in this topic area, even if it's critical. Thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind...

but I needed to say this somewhere on Wikipedia. I've repeatedly tried to begin the following at the Trump article. I say "tried" because I did 30 rewrites but none were satisfying. I wound up with this and I knew it wouldn't "fly" at the article. I didn't want to get sanctioned from participating...so I thought "where can I say this?" Thanks. Buster Seven Talk 08:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Avocating assasination or the power of unification

Todays Trump quotes are troubling. And the fact that no editor (except for that silly troll) has touched this Second amendment story, leads me to believe that its troubling for alot of us. Where do we start? Is it the “dishonest media” for distorting his words or is it my lying ears that hear a real unmistakable call to action...violent action. I'm reminded of the Sarah Palin article and the March crosshairs on a map "targeting" legislators who voted for Obama's health care bill. Months later, some raving lunatic tried to assassinate Gabby Giffords (one of the legislators in the crosshairs). Where do we start? It is numbing trying to help create a fair and impartial article about this guy..... Buster Seven Talk

Sorry, I've been busy in Real Life and missed your comment - and the whole discussion. I understand your frustration. It looks as if a fair wording was worked out, with commendable cooperation. --MelanieN (talk) 15:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

About the hat

Thank you, MelanieN, for your kind offer to instruct me about how to use the hat to distinguish between the articles Edward William Cornelius Humphrey and Edward Cornelius Humphrey. I'm eager to learn. Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 02:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

OK. First of all, I'm moving your note to the bottom of the page, which is where new talk page messages should always go. Now: A hatnote is a message that goes at the top of the article page. There are various templates you can use. The one you want is explained at WP:SIMILAR. At top of each page you would put {{about|what this article is about|what the other article is about|name of the other article}} Notice that the various parts of the note are separated by a | mark. So at the top of the Edward William Cornelius Humphrey page, you would put {{about|the lawyer and church elder|the physician|Edward Cornelius Humphrey}} which produces a notice that looks like this:

This page is about the lawyer and church elder. For the physician, see Edward Cornelius Humphrey.

For the other article, the first item is what that article is about, then a description of the similar article, then the name of the similar article. Try it, and be sure to use Page Preview until you get it right. Even experienced editors may need three or four tries. By using Page Preview, you destroy the evidence of all the times you didn't get it right! 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 02:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about placing my message in the wrong place. Thank you for your time and the clear instructions. Now I understand why it's called a hatnote. I'll try it tomorrow. I'm on Eastern Standard Time.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 03:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Typo

"This is to warn you that you are in danger of violating the Discretionary Sanctions on the page Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016...." I think you meant the main Trump article (which I've de-watchlisted by the way).Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

You're right, thank you. These articles all blur together after a while... --MelanieN (talk) 05:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

My memories of high school are a blur too. No coincidence.  :)Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• You might want to double check the time stamps on these two edits: [15] [16] ~Awilley (talk) 19:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Awilley, I don't understand your point. What about the time stamps? --MelanieN (talk) 20:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for not being more clear. Both edits are reverts, falling within a 24 hour time period. It looks like you made them on different days, not realizing you were going over the 1RR. ~Awilley (talk) 22:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

OIC. Guess I should trout myself? Or would a self-block be more appropriate? --MelanieN (talk) 23:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Why not revert yourself on one of them? I'll probably re-do whichever one you revert, since I think they were both good edits. That page isn't on my watchlist, but I can still go there and do stuff.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

A trout or self-block would be over the top. It was an accident, and you seem to be one of the few interested in keeping some sort of decorum at the article. A self-revert would be fine, as Anythingyouwant suggested. The important thing for me is that you model the behavior you desire to see in others. ~Awilley (talk) 00:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh god. See, this is why we need to change the language "whether involving the same or different material" in 3RR. Everyone knows Melanie wasn't edit warring. We end up spending more time bickering over who broke "da rulez" on 1RR articles than actually improving those articles. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the discussion, Dr. Fleischman. It was enlightening. I honestly have always thought that 3RR and 1RR referred to doing the SAME revert over and over; that to me is edit warring, that's the kind of behavior I would block for. And I have seen these silly arguments over "you were reverting me!" "no, YOU were reverting ME!" which as Doc says are doing nothing to enhance the encyclopedia. But now I understand, so I will self-revert the POV tag. Thanks for calling this to my attention, Awilley. --MelanieN (talk) 01:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not the type of thing I'd block for either, but there are admins out there who would. I remember one case where an admin had placed a 1RR/week discretionary sanction on an article. A veteran editor with 80,000 edits and a clean block log decided to try and set a good example by making one edit to the article per week. Not one revert, but one edit per week. Anyway, at some point he made two edits spaced 6.5 days apart that could both be seen as "technical reverts" (for removing some amount of text, or the like). Someone reported him (by email) to the admin, who immediately slapped him with a 24 hour block. Anyway, that's the kind of stuff that really makes me mad, and is the kind of adminning I try to avoid...enforcing rules for the sake of rules. That said, the rules do come in handy when it's time to remove someone who is actually being disruptive or who clearly has an axe to grind. ~Awilley (talk) 07:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The even bigger problem is the chilling effect that kind of adminning has on productive editing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

It is a balancing act, all right. Over-aggressive enforcement can turn away a productive editor who made a mistake. On the other hand, problem editors drive away many more productive editors than an occasional overzealous block does. Being the encyclopedia "anyone can edit" brings together both the best and the worst, and one job of administrators is to try to sort them out and keep the project going. Not an easy job, and not all admins approach it the same way. --MelanieN (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not just talking about editors who have been slapped and then leave the project. I'm talking about all of the others who haven't been slapped but are afraid they might be, so they don't touch 1RR pages, as well as the editors who bravely set foot in 1RR pages but who edit much less and more cautiously there for fear of being punished for technical, non-edit warring 1RR violations (myself included). It's true, real edit warriors and POV pushers suppress productive editing as well. But by tweaking 3RR a bit we should be able to mitigate that problem and remove the double whammy of fear of overzealous enforcement of 1RR. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I hear you. Now that I actually understand what the rules are - and learn that I accidentally broke them! - I have started keeping a log of my edits on DS articles, with date and time. I guess that's what everybody has to do if they want to stay within the rules, and it is burdensome. I particularly have trouble remembering that this applies even when there is consensus to do the edit. I do realilze what a mess these articles would be if there weren't strict rules in place. But I would agree with a tweak to the definitions. --MelanieN (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman, that "whether involving the same or different material" clause is used in idiotic ways in attempts to catch an editor out. I'd much rather have it read, ""whether involving the same or different but related material". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate comment

I struck this at your request, but what part of it was inappropriate? I understand we should try to focus on the edit rather than the editor, which I generally do, but breaking that guideline on occasion is hardly a sanctionable offense. I don't see any incivility or personal attacks in there either. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I saw it as kind of grave-dancing. "Goody, goody, he's gone! And let me throw a few insults out the door after him!" Thank you for striking it. --MelanieN (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Well I am glad that editor has moved on, as he was extremely disruptive to my editing. And I'm not aware of any insults in my comment, just verifiable facts. I nevertheless understand the comment was unnecessary and only served to fan the flames, so I regret that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Longstanding content

Hi Melanie. Usually at Wikipedia articles, especially high-profile and controversial Wikipedia articles, it generally requires some degree of consensus to remove content that has been longstanding in the article, so lack of consensus ensures longstanding content remains. Is this now out the window at the Donald Trump article? The discretionary sanctions say "All editors must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit." So, if someone removes longstanding content via a bold edit without any consensus, then lack of consensus requires that longstanding content goes down the drain. Am I reading this right? It seems very destabilizing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the same, and I have seen it pointed out on other pages: this particular wording of the DS gives the advantage to the person removing content. All they have to do to make it "contentious" is to remove it, and it can't be restored without a talk-page consensus. Yet another way in which the DS rules are poorly written. As you can tell from earlier discussion here on this talk page, I am not a fan of the DS and would encourage attempts to tweak them, but it's possible they can only be changed by ArbCom. --MelanieN (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, I do not interpret the DS wording that way. The removal of longstanding content is the edit that can be challenged via reversion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

That's interesting, Neil. I wonder if this has been spelled out in discussion anywhere? Because I have seen it applied that ANY removal of content means that it can't be reinserted without consensus. I like your interpretation better! --MelanieN (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the wording carefully specifies "reinstating any edits that have been challenged" instead of "reinstating any additions that have been challenged" for this very reason. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)