User talk:MelanieN

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

My press[edit]

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

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

ANI Notification (historic)[edit]

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)[edit]

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

Recent RfCs on US city names[edit]

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."

Just so you will know...[edit]

I NEVER, EVER do ethnic humor. I am a victim of it. My humor was more about his doping the people (alotofus) by lying to the FBI. Atsme📞📧 23:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. I guess it can be easy to do things that are MISTAKEN for ethnic humor, and we all accidentally do that sometimes. --MelanieN (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Regarding questions concerning review procedures[edit]

Hi, TonyBalloni suggested in this thread that I reach out to you regarding questions about review procedures before (as is usually true in my case) bumping into the furniture and knocking over the ornaments and generally doing it all wrong. So this is just a note by way of introduction and explanation that if you hear from me in future, it will probably be regarding the above. Many thanks! Face-smile.svg Edaham (talk) 04:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm starting an RfC for the first time. Did I make any mistakes here or could it have been done better? Also is there a way of checking who the RfC has been sent out to by legobot/watchers etc. Edaham (talk) 05:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Edaham, welcome! I will be glad to help you whenever I can, although I think Tony has grossly exaggerated my (ahem) expertise in such matters. About the RfC: It is opened correctly, but I think it would have been better to wait until the previous RfC you started is closed, or possibly to add it as a sub-thread to your original RfC. As Tony said with regard to the proposed move: we usually try to avoid having multiple discussions at the same time on a given subject.
As for "who it has been sent out to," there are no automatic notices sent to individuals regarding an RfC. Interested people may be watching for RfCs in that category. Also, if there have been previous discussions on the same subject, it is OK for you to ping the previous discussants, or to put "you may be interested in" notices on their talk pages. If you do that, be sure to include ALL previous discussants, not just those who felt one way or another, to avoid bias. --MelanieN (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
shall I close the original thread where I made the proposal with a notice to see the RfC below, in that case? Edaham (talk) 01:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, how would you close the original thread? The secondary thread depends on it. If it is "no consensus" to change it as you suggested, that kind of kills the premise of the secondary thread, doesn't it? That's why I moved my comment to the original thread - it's all part of the same thing. But, yes, you could close the first one - after all it has been almost a month, with little participation. That may suggest you are not going to get much interest in the second one either. But you could, if you want, close the first, as "no consensus", and then see what happens with the second, more specific one; that's up to you. And if nobody goes for it, don't feel bad. That happens to a lot of us when we think we have a great idea and it just doesn't seem to grab anyone else. --MelanieN (talk) 01:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Ok. I don't really have the feeling of having had a great idea, so much as having felt uncomfortable after reading one or two BLP related articles which seemed unwarrantedly accusatory. It could well be that I'm over sensitive and my sensibilities are not serving me well in assessing the suitability of the language used. I actually joined and made an account because I was cringing every time I saw bands named after scientific phenomena sticking their names on hat notes of said articles in a way I thought was overly promotional. It turned out nobody cared too much and gently told me to sit down and go back to doing something else. Such could be the case here also - after all, it's not a huge difference is it? Edaham (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)″
Maybe try a simpler approach, rather than trying to get a change in guidelines: if something bothers you at a given article, just fix it. Insert the word "convicted" before "criminal" and see if it sticks. After all, you are a Wikipedia editor now; you don't need permission to make an edit; you can boldly make it, per WP:BRD. If your edit stays, then that one article is improved the way you want it. If someone removes it, discuss at the talk page. If it gets consistently removed, you can take that for consensus that it shouldn't be there. And if a BLP article seems too accusatory in other ways, just fix it. --MelanieN (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
P.S. And in the meantime, just leave your request at WT:BLP alone, watch it, and see what happens. --MelanieN (talk) 14:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Alright! Sounds like a good plan

Organizing off wiki workshops related to wiki-project feminism.[edit]

Regarding this: Wikipedia:Consensus#Pitfalls_and_errors And any other related policies, Can you see any problems or pitfalls with my plan listed here and at meta-wiki (gender gap) (in progress), to introduce and coach new users at Wikipedia-themed workshops aimed at bringing new Chinese users to the English and Chinese projects via locally-based feminist discussion forums and symposiums? Edaham (talk) 04:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Edaham: Wow! That is ambitious and you will need a lot of help and advice. I am not the person who can give it to you. You will need to talk to people who have organized such events (there is probably a Wikiproject that coordinates them but I don't know what it is). You will need to recruit some local partners, and possibly coordinate with the Wikimedia Foundation. About local collaborators, I had a look at Category:Wikipedians in Shanghai, and nobody grabbed me as the kind of high-powered help you will need. But there might be others who have simply not put that tag on their userpage. I suggest you ask User:Rosiestep for advice. She is very well connected and experienced in this kind of thing, and she can tell you if this is a reasonable proposal, who would need to help you with it, and what is needed to make it happen. --MelanieN (talk) 15:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
P.S. Any stalkers care to chime in or advise here? --MelanieN (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
reply to you and/or stalkers: At the moment the only local partners I have are not regular editors, but people who organize feminism related events and forums as well as theater and exhibitions etc. Those events are preexisting and I don't need to arrange spaces and so on or handle tickets or set up. I simply pitched the idea to these contacts and found that they would be willing to allocate time to the workshop. At present I just have to work out content and make sure insofar as possible that myself and attendees do not infringe policy in some fashion.
  • I'm addressing this by limiting the explanatory talk to:
    • A brief summary of the gender gap page followed by a short discussion including:
      • A quick explanation of the source and visual editors
      • 5p
      • Account creation
      • Chinese Wikipedia
    • keeping things technical/instructional and not intentionally pointing people to contentious or controversial stuff
      • providing some source material on (non-politicized/uncontraversial) Chinese culture or person, requiring an article
      • writing up the article in a sandbox as a draft
      • moving it to the mainspace.
I'll run through this process, get some screen shots ready etc. If anything like that's been made before, that would be awesome. Would plan to create something a bit like the Wikipedia adventure, but add points concerning both gender gap and local Chinese site use issues.
Edaham (talk) 16:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Megalibrarygirl also might have thoughts on this. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Edaham my sister lives in Beijing. I can see if she has any suggestions. Thanks for pinging me in, TonyBallioni. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, Tony and Megalibrarygirl. Edaham, I suspect there is already a lot of material available on this kind of project. We just have to find it so you don't have to re-invent the wheel. I'll snoop around and see what I can find about similar projects. --MelanieN (talk) 17:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
@Edaham: OK, here's a site that could be very useful: Wikipedia:How to run an edit-a-thon. The talk page of that article could also be a resource for you to find people. Here's something I found on that talk page: Wikipedia talk:How to run an edit-a-thon#Edit-a-thon Training on the Programs and Events Dashboard. That is from a WikiMedia Foundation person, User:Astinson (WMF), who has created training material and could be very helpful to you in other ways. --MelanieN (talk) 18:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Edaham. In addition to the helpful links which MelanieN pointed you, too, you might be interested in Primer for creating women’s biographies and Writing about women. I know some Chinese Wikipedians but not in Shanghai so I'm going to ask on our social media pages and get back to you on that. When are you thinking of facilitating your workshops? --Rosiestep (talk) 19:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Rosiestep not for at least a month as some of the organizers are either traveling or have other commitments. I have a favor to ask, during these planning stages, it would be great to demonstrate that this idea has gained some traction within Wikipedia, and this thread seems to have done just that. If I direct my friends to view the info here however they may turn up with questions, I'm a bit concerned about the number of alerts the long-suffering MelanieN is going to receive from new users. If she doesn't mind, then that's great. If it would be more appropriate however, could we move/copy this thread to an appropriate project talk page and continue the discussion there? Edaham (talk) 23:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks all for the contacts and info provided above. A list of info I've been given has been placed on my user page I'm going to contact those people and notice boards and go over the info today! Looks great and very informative. Edaham (talk) 23:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict, that's more or less what I was going to suggest!) @Edaham: I have no problem with people using my talk page for this. But it's not a logical place for it, and it's likely to get lost amid the clutter and be unfindable in the future. It might be better for the historical record, and for continuity, if you moved discussion to your own talk page, and let future planning go on there. That would give your project a central location and would keep all the information in your own records where you and others can easily access it. (Of course, the beauty of using my page is that like most admins I have knowledgeable, helpful stalkers. They are welcome to chime in either here or elsewhere.) How about this: why don't you COPY this whole discussion to your talk page, while leaving it here as well - and we can refer future commenters to your place. ("Your place or mine" - did I just say that?) --MelanieN (talk) 23:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 done! Please continue further discussion here for convenience. Thanks for getting things started! Edaham (talk) 00:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


I would like for you to at least consider protecting the Talk:June 2017 Brussels attack talk page. The two editors are just going at it, but especially TheGracefulSlick shows no interest in having any kind of fruitful discussion, but seems very eager to continue the dispute and disruption.[2],[3],[4]. While E.M Gregory actually tries to come to some kind of agreement over what should be done and not. I just think that the protection of the article will end tomorrow and the two are nowhere closer to an agreement than when the protection tag was added. I leave it up to them or you to make some action. BabbaQ (talk) 23:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

BabbaQ: Thanks for your note. Talk pages are rarely protected, and this one is in no such dire need. However, I noticed that an AfD discussion had been was closed improperly and I reopened it. If edit warring resumes when the protection expires, it may be time for some EW warnings. --MelanieN (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
TheGracefulSlick is sadly starting to show signs of Wikistalking as an reaction of recent events, using baiting techniques. This is not my first rodeo so I will not react but I just though I let you know. [5],[6].BabbaQ (talk) 06:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Paul Deb[edit]


Do you reckon this COI situation is worth keeping an eye on? I think there's a chance he might try again. I've left him a COI note, but I'm not sure I handled it too well. Cheers. Adam9007 (talk) 03:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Adam9007: Thanks for the note. I'm not really concerned about a COI, because I concur with PROD, and I think all that stuff about long-ago local issues is UNDUE. I have deleted that whole section, pending a decision on the PROD. --MelanieN (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Roy Moore[edit]

FYI, there's still a paragraph in the lede on the accusations. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I missed that. --MelanieN (talk) 22:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

MelanieN, would you please reduce the protection on Roy Moore and restore this edit? There is very clear consensus to keep this material in the article. Thank you.- MrX 23:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Already done. The only issue still under discussion is whether to put it in the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 23:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, but the article is still locked with a gleaming gold padlock.- MrX 23:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, for another hour or two, while we decide on the talk page whether to put it in the lede or not. I want to get that settled before opening it back up to a possible resumption of edit warring. --MelanieN (talk) 23:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

((_*_) Buttinsky) <-- Use it or lose it to the template police. Atsme📞📧 22:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations[edit]

I think the AFD is clearly going to be a keep. Would you think of withdrawing your nom so it can go ahead and close?Casprings (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

It wouldn't do any good. Withdrawal by the nominator only resuls in a speedy "keep" close when there are no "delete" !votes. In this case there have been multiple delete !votes. So it will have to wait to be closed in the usual way. MelanieN alt (talk) 04:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


??? Just curious... has anyone alerted women-related projects about this? From what I can tell, the bulk of the notifications are going to projects relating to politics, politicians, the state and law. Atsme📞📧 21:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving[edit]

"Thanksgiving Greetings. Wishing You Joy.".jpg Happy Thanksgiving
A little early, but still...

Wishing you a day of celebration, relaxation, and happiness.

If you don't celebrate, pass this on to someone who does! -- WV 01:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing[edit]

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg
Hello, MelanieN.

I noticed you've done some constructive editing recently.
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 09:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: Haha, not sure why you're giving the standard template to an admin.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Sorry. Wasn't aware... She doesn't subscribe to the admin newsletter I guess. Could use the help all the same though ;) — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 09:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks for trying to recruit new reviewers. We certainly do need more. (But I do subscribe to the admin newsletter so apparently that's not a valid screening tool. ) MelanieN alt (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Forgot to ping @Insertcleverphrasehere: MelanieN alt (talk) 16:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holiday Greetings[edit]

Want more yams?
No thanks, I'm stuffed.

Wishing You A Happy Turkey Day!
A Thanksgiving tale...

Two pilgrims go out hunting. One has two blunderbusses (guns).
The second pilgrim queries, “Why two blunderbusses?”
The first pilgrim responds, “I usually miss on the first shot; with two I can shoot again”.
The second pilgrim pauses, then asks, “Why not just take the second one, and only shoot once?”

Atsme📞📧 02:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


This edit of yours is deeply problematic. If you really believe that the BLP subject did not partly deny approaching or dating teenagers, then that edit of yours is fine. But otherwise it runs afoul of WP:BLP. I specifically said in my edit summary that it was a blatant BLP violation. You could have temporarily revised my edit in various ways if there was something substantive about it that you disliked, but instead you reverted to a dishonest or at least very misleading lead, and that problem should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, which is what I did. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Anything, I've been expecting you. The existing language was not a BLP, much less a blatant one, and you do your own credibility no favors by claiming that it was. I reverted it because you were wrong to unilaterally insert your own, brand new, undiscussed language into a section that is under discussion, with heavy participation, at the talk page. Look, there are things in the lede that I don't like, but I have put them up for discussion at the talk page, hoping to achieve a consensus wording, as we are supposed to do. As for acceptable language, I have proposed a new wording at the talk page. See you there. --MelanieN (talk) 04:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't think you really believe that the BLP subject did not partly deny approaching or dating teenagers. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) there's a difference between dating 14-year-olds and dating 19-year-olds that the word "teenager" obscures. Constructive suggstions to avoid that ambiguity are appreciated. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
((_*_) Buttinsky) We don't include unsupported allegations in the lede of a BLP, and we certainly don't include them in the body without in-text attribution. Doing so is a violation of BLP and NPOV. There is no smoking gun - it's he said - she said - and if my memory serves, the guy has filed litigation against his accuser. Atsme📞📧 04:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Actually he has not filed litigation; he has only claimed he is going to, as people in his position commonly do. (See also Trump "I am going to sue every one of these women."[7]) We do include Moore's denials in the lede as well as the article. The argument is exactly how to word his denials most accurately. --MelanieN (talk) 04:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Regardless, it's an allegation and may even be considered a crime if minors were involved and it can be proven. As it stands now, there is no smoking gun, no supporting evidence, nothing but he said, she said in the news. You might want to drop in and see how the NOTNEWS survey is progressing: Village_pump_(policy)#Option 2: WP:NOT#NEWS should be more strongly enforced. The community is supporting stricter enforcement. I've also had in-depth discussions regarding how we handle contentious labels and allegations. Visit my sandbox when you get a chance - I'm in the process of creating an essay that explains why in-text attribution is required in such cases. It will be a travesty if anything happens to Anything over that edit. The material that was included in that BLP is noncompliant and comprises cherrypicked statements that created a BLP coatrack. SYNTH was also used, cherrypicked from 3 different sources in order to create the worst-case scenario in that BLP. Atsme📞📧 06:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Discoveries and Innovation Section on Stanford[edit]

In your summary for the RV of Discoveries and Innovation section you don't address any of the issues I presented. Universities don't found companies, people and alumni do. To credit a university with founding a corporation is absolutely ludicrous - Google was founded by an MSU alum (Larry Page) - Shall we put Google under the MSU Discovery and Innovation section? You are going to start a dangerous precedent with editors and IPs from certain universities wanting to credit their university with founding Facebook, Microsoft, etc. when often corporations are founded by people from a variety of institutions. More importantly, I repeat, universities don't found private companies. Academia, in principle, kind of totally goes against that. As for academic discoveries, these belong in the research section found on most university pages. I can't see how your revert edit (given your entirely vague summary) is anything but an indulgence of your institutional pride. Pdyusmep (talk) 16:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

As I noted in my summary - I am more than willing to have a list of Stanford alumni and their respective start-ups/achievements, but it's frankly gauche to frame it in context of a university. Pdyusmep (talk) 16:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, User:Pdyusmep, and thanks for your note - although we really should discuss this at the Stanford talk page rather than my user talk page. Maybe we should copy this discussion there, but I'll answer you here for now.

The Stanford article's "Discoveries and innovation" section has a "see also" note whose purpose is to show that many other university articles have the same kind of section - suggesting that there is Wikipedia consensus to include such sections. Most of the discoveries and innovations listed in that section are not just things discovered somewhere sometime by alumni; they were actually done at Stanford or begun as Stanford projects. For example, you mentioned Google: good example. Actually Google got its start as a research project by two Stanford grad students while they were working on a Stanford project, and Google's search engine originally ran on Stanford servers.

The Stanford article's section also includes a "Businesses and entrepreneurship" section listing companies founded by students, professors, or alums. You said "More importantly, I repeat, universities don't found private companies. Academia, in principle, kind of totally goes against that. " Actually, that is a total misconception on your part. If you read the intro to that section it makes clear that Stanford University itself has a strong bent toward encouraging its students and faculty to start private companies - a tradition going back to Hewlett-Packard, whose founding was strongly assisted and mentored by engineering professor Frederick Terman, later the university's provost, to the point of initially giving them free office space on University land. Varian Associates was another early Stanford-spawned tech company. Such entrepreneurial encouragement on the part of the University led directly to the creation of Silicon Valley. The university continues to encourage its students - undergrads as well as grad students - to start companies. These are important and well-sourced facts about the University, part of its identity, and worthy of inclusion in its article.

I hope this demonstrates that there is a strong rationale for this section at the Stanford article, as well as consensus to include such a section at major research university articles generally. If you still think it should be removed, please start a discussion at the talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I don't think any of the examples provided demonstrate a rationale for connecting an academic institution to a private company. Firstly, Academia in principle does not mix with the private sector. This line is blurred in practice, but regardless a separation is still maintained between the academic institution and the private company with the alumnus or affiliate as the intermediary (note the alumnus ≠ the institution). "Actually Google got its start as a research project by two Stanford grad students...". Facebook was started in a Harvard dorm room by Harvard students on a Harvard server; shall we credit Harvard with starting Facebook? Same goes for Microsoft. Jeff Bezos' interest in Space Exploration began while he was a member/president of the Space Exploration Club at Princeton; shall we credit Princeton for BlueOrigin? Warren Buffet states he follows a single investing philosophy he extracted from Columbia Business School; shall we credit CBS for his billions and the success of Berkshire Hathaway? You've merely demonstrated that Stanford alumni and others with some affiliation to the university have founded these companies in their spare time. All major universities encourage their students to be entrepreneurial. I apologize for any offense, but your rationale amounts to the type of discourse which follows: "I go to Harvard and we have John F. Kennedy", "I go to Penn and we have Elon Musk". As if achievements and identity of the individual are one with the alma mater. This is reductionist and simply stupid thinking. As for Wikipedia consensus - all of these sections have been created by a single user - Minimumbias. Pdyusmep (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been copied to Talk:Stanford University so I will continue discussion there. --MelanieN (talk) 03:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)--MelanieN (talk) 03:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Friendly Reminder: Regarding User Account "Pdyusmep" above[edit]

Hi MelanieN. I'd like to point out why account User:Pdyusmep gets so deeply involved with Stanford's page, and please be cautious of this account. And sorry for the trouble.

1) First of all, some brief history. Based on my preliminary review, account User:Pdyusmep is highly likely the resurgence of the blocked account User:RabidMelon, which was affiliated with Columbia University and controlled over 10 socket puppets. Account User:RabidMelon had been blocked indefinitely earlier this year (2017) by administrator "Bbb23", and what's more it was first blocked in 2010 (but was somehow unblocked in 2011). However, few months ago several New-York-based IP addresses such as User_talk: appeared in Wikipedia, displaying almost identical editing behavior and language as that of User:RabidMelon. But the IP was again blocked for disruptive editing by administrator "Drmies". Now it comes this account User:Pdyusmep.

All these accounts and IP addresses are contributing/protecting the page of Columbia University [8], even though account User:Pdyusmep now pretends to be a Harvard graduate student (the User Page is just set up today). These accounts show protectionism of Columbia University Wiki-page and uses double standards while viewing other universities. Their standard tricks include Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, threatening, bluffing, disrupting, and consistent reverting of other editors' revisions. They appear offensive/aggressive, using insulting words sometimes, when talking to other editors whom he/she does not agree, for recent instances: User talk:Pdyusmep (see section "Your COIN comments"), User_talk:Ber31 (see section "Regarding IP ''"), and on your own Talk page.

2) Secondly, one of the socket puppets of User:RabidMelon was User:PrincetonNeuroscientist, who was protecting fiercely Columbia's Nobel laureate count when I first started to restructure the page List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_university_affiliation. Several unqualified affiliates were excluded from Columbia's count. From then on, User:RabidMelon together with its socket puppet accounts, including today's User:Pdyusmep, had been following my editing, making unreasonable reverting and reporting me from time to time Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Suspicion_Surrounding_Minimumbias - of course, nobody really supports him/her, but he/she would continue to argue with other editors.

Now, since I have edited Stanford's page, establishing categories for "Discoveries and Innovation" and adding in information for companies (I've done it for other schools including Carnegie Mellon University, MIT, UC Berkeley and UIUC), account User:Pdyusmep simply follows me and begins to revert my edits. He/she could use whatever argument he/she thinks of to argue with you. Sorry for the trouble. Minimumbias (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, in case this is useful for the investigation, account "Pdyusmep" and the highly likely socket puppet IP has engaged in editing war with several editors in Columbia's page [9]. In addition, he/she has removed everything from his/her User Page and Talk Page. Minimumbias (talk) 09:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
A harmless version of a sockpuppet. Most of them are uglier than this.
Thanks, I added it. But WP:SPI is badly backed up. --MelanieN (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, Minimumbias, you called it exactly right and he is blocked. I'm glad you mentioned PrincetonNeuroscientist, I could never have pieced together the evidence without that. --MelanieN (talk) 02:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
BTW it's sockpuppet, not socket puppet. The image is: you put a sock on your hand, use it as a puppet, and pretend it is you talking. Kinda like this. --MelanieN (talk) 02:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Haha, my bad, it's indeed sockpuppet. Thank your very much for your help. Minimumbias (talk) 02:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
"Haha" also goes to the picture of sockpuppet you set to the right - that's very funny lol. Minimumbias (talk) 03:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


I reopened your nom at AfD. Atsme📞📧 03:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Refname in Roy Moore[edit]

What did you do to fix that? When I looked at it, it was displaying an error. That's why I changed it to the actual link. Txantimedia (talk) 20:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I restored the original refname because it was cited under that name later in the article. When you removed the refname, those later citations were orphaned and showed as errors. I don't know what error you saw, but sometimes those error messages can take three or four tries to fix. (Let me try this; page preview; no, that didn't do it, how about this; page preview; etc. Thank goodness for page preview!) --MelanieN (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


Question - knowing a blocked, possibly site banned sock made the following edits, why were only 2 of his edits reverted? You can simply review the edit history for the diffs.
  • (cur | prev) 17:24, November 27, 2017‎ MelanieN (talk | contribs)‎ . . (49,373 bytes) (-71)‎ . . (→‎See also: remove: BLP violations) (thank)
  • (cur | prev) 17:22, November 27, 2017‎ 2600:1017:b415:1e0c:21c7:c02b:3c0a:767f (talk)‎ . . (49,444 bytes) (+23)‎ . . (→‎See also)
  • (cur | prev) 17:21, November 27, 2017‎ 2600:1017:b415:1e0c:21c7:c02b:3c0a:767f (talk)‎ . . (49,421 bytes) (+48)‎ . . (Add see also)
  • (cur | prev) 17:19, November 27, 2017‎ 2600:1017:b415:1e0c:21c7:c02b:3c0a:767f (talk)‎ . . (49,373 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Sp) (undo)
  • (cur | prev) 17:19, November 27, 2017‎ 2600:1017:b415:1e0c:21c7:c02b:3c0a:767f (talk)‎ . . (49,373 bytes) (+176)‎ . . (C/e) (undo)
  • (cur | prev) 17:15, November 27, 2017‎ 2600:1017:b415:1e0c:21c7:c02b:3c0a:767f (talk)‎ . . (49,197 bytes) (+1,347)‎ . . (Revert vandalism Undid revision 812444754 by Heat fan1 (talk)a) (undo)
This is the same vandal/sock that has been chiding me on my TP. Atsme📞📧 23:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

If you are talking about 2600:1017:B415:1E0C:21C7:C02B:3C0A:767F, that address is not blocked, and I have no information about any other addresses they may have used. I reverted and revdeled two edits that were BLP violations, and warned them on their talk page. The rest of their edits at that article appeared to be more or less constructive. If some other admin is aware of this as a sock of a blocked user, they should take the appropriate actions. --MelanieN (talk) 00:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks. Atsme📞📧 00:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Turns out to be an old friend. Disguised himself too well this time. And just for the record, he is not site banned. Just blocked, in all of his many incarnations. --MelanieN (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, MelanieN. Atsme📞📧 03:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Need an unbiased opinion regarding Book of Abraham youtube video[edit]

Hi Melanie,

I am involved in a discussion over the content of a youtube video in that above article at Talk:Book_of_Abraham regarding the inclusion of an excellent video which details and describes the background of the book of abraham and the Joseph Smith Papyrus. Another editor who identifies as LDS has made some statements that certain "anti-mormon websites" are not considered WP:RS and are not allowed in the article. Unfortunately, that type of censorship seems to fly in the face of Wikipedia's rules. I think it would be good for an independent impartial party to review the content and let me know if the other editors views are in fact accurate as far as WP policies about inclusion of youtube content. Thanks in advance for any assistance you can provide. I have not posted a straw poll for inclusion of the video since I may not be correct in a my assumptions. Thanks in advance. Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, October, thanks for the note. I will caution that I really haven't done any work on religion-based articles, so I looked at this purely from an editorial point of view. I did not listen to the whole video, just the beginning, but from that and reading the discussion between you and the other person I think the answer is pretty clear based on Wikipedia principles. I'll post at the article's talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

List of Largest Stars[edit]

Hey, thanks for protecting the page first of all. I'm wondering if we are going to need a range block on that IP, should the disruption continue after the protection is lifted. Also, I love the fact that the blocked account said they were 14, yet this is their niece? Me thinks we are getting trolled. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Certainly smells like a troll. I would suggest that someone knowledgeable go through the edits of the second one. Many of those edits have not been reverted, and I don't know enough about the subject to know if they should be. As for a range block, if they resume you should ask someone who does range blocks (I don't). IMO it hasn't gotten to that point yet. Anyhow, look at it this way: this person can be blocked on sight because of their admission that it's a shared account ("Joey" and his "niece"). 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Much obliged Melanie! RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
And with a recent edit to my talk page, I'm thinking it might be needed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Sounds like it's needed. Lucky you. See item #1 on my list of Things I've learned at Wikipedia. I find NinjaRobotPirate very helpful with rangeblocks. Or see Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to make range blocks. --MelanieN (talk) 18:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I already reached out to a CU to make sure there isn't a ton of collateral damage first. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Good thinking. Is there a known master, so we could establish an SPI archive? Or just always IPv6s? --MelanieN (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
User:JoeyPknowsalotaboutthat is the master and the IPv6 range has been blocked for a month FYI. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Well done! --MelanieN (talk) 16:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


Hi. I saw this: [10], and I hate it too, because it's so easy to click by accident. I put

/*---remove ordinary rollback link - prevent accidental click - prefer TW---*/
.mw-rollback-link {display:none !important;}

in my user css years ago to hide the links, and I've never regretted it. Twinkle offers a much better option, with friendly edit summaries. I guess the only time it might be an issue is if you want to use one of the "nuke" or "mass rollback" scripts, which rely on those links being present, but it's easy enough to temporarily remove from user css in that case. Apologies if you already knew all this. -- Begoon 10:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, Begoon. I had it removed years ago. But when I became an admin it got restored, as part of the admin toolkit. I don't know if that can be removed, or if I just need to be more careful. In this case I have a new mouse and it doesn't always do what I want so that is how this happened. With any other button you can always cancel the accidental click; what I hate about Rollback is that there is no chance to undo it. I'll probably just live with it. This was the first time in more than a year that I rolled back someone and had to apologize. --MelanieN (talk) 15:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Balance & consistency - missing in WP?[edit]

Inappropriate and challenged. We've touched on this topic in the past but it appears partisanship raised its ugly head when that POV paragraph was added to the lede. Yet, similar information added to Rachel Maddow, a primetime competitor of Hannity's, is quickly reverted. There are plenty of RS that have written rather extensively about Maddow's conspiracy theories, [11], [12], not unlike what's being alleged about Hannity in these media wars to win the lion's share of their bait & click propaganda, so maybe you can explain why what's good for the goose is not good for the gander? The partisanship is just plain wrong. Atsme📞📧 20:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

How is this not canvassing? You've linked to the thread on Jimbo's talk page and now... this? (talk) 21:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
And I'm probably going to initiate a CU investigation if MelanieN doesn't do it first based on your patterns and comments. Atsme📞📧 22:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey[edit]

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Madani Channel[edit]

This TV station is one of the most popular religious channel and deserves stand-alone article. It would be safe if you remove the restrictions, to let users contribute. Thanks. Störm (talk)</spanU> 18:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, Störm. I see that the deletion discussion that resulted in the redirect was two years ago and was poorly attended. So I will lift the restriction on the redirect and you can see if you can expand it to an article that will survive scrutiny. It will have to be expanded, not just recreated as it was - because if it isn't different and improved from the previous version that was AfD'd, WP:G4 would apply. Are you prepared to make those additions and changes now? Or should I wait until you assemble new material and new sources before I unlock it? --MelanieN (talk) 19:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
It's tough to find sources. Maybe wait some time. Will come back when I will be ready. Störm (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
OK, just let me know. Looking at the article as it was before it was redirected, it had only one reference that wasn't a primary reference to the channel itself or the parent - and it's now a dead link. We're going to need some significant coverage from independent sources to revive the article. --MelanieN (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Personal attack?[edit]


I saw this, which is an encoded message with profanity and appears to contain some kind of threat (I'm not sure how much I can reveal here on a talk page...). Would such a thing constitute a personal attack? Should I remove it? Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Adam! Thanks for the note. Looks like User:Iridescent took care of both the talk page and the sandbox. --MelanieN (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
It's not the first time I've seen an encoded message of that sort either ("that sort" being the code, not the type of message. The last one was perfectly innocent and innocuous.). I was talking to Oshwah about it not that long ago. I hope the two accounts are not related. Adam9007 (talk) 19:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, MelanieN. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Dare I visit?[edit]

I guess it might be wise for me to ease up at that article, you can only do so much with 0RR, and I could easily get topic-banned. Plus the die is probably cast, and that BLP will only get crazier. I do have lots of non-Wikipedia work to do, and so will try to step away from the keyboard to do it. Have fun, Melanie, and don’t forget that the press secretary speaks for the president.  :) Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Visit any time, Anything. Yes, the press secretary speaks for the president. But not everything she says is lede-worthy. --MelanieN (talk) 15:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Augustus Sol Invictus[edit]

Hi Melanie. I remember, some time ago, you had advised me to contact you in case there is a BLP problem, and we have such a case at Augustus Sol Invictus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I have opened a talkpage discussion, but two new accounts and an IP are adding UNDUE/SYNTH BLP violations into the article. I have also informed BLPN and RfPP. Thank you. Dr. K. 15:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Ok Melanie. Since you fully protected the article, I gather that after reading my talkpage discussion at Augustus Sol Invictus, you determined that I was edit-warring against the new accounts and the IP. I think that determination is incorrect, since the blatant SYNTH/UNDUE edit is an obvious BLP violation. Obviously, this is not the result I was seeking when I took your past advice to get assistance from you on BLP matters when needed. I have no canine in this article, but I also do not enjoy being called an edit-warrior and my removal of blatant BLP violations being characterised as a content dispute. I am unwatching the article and will never edit it again. Dr. K. 15:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
    • User:Dr.K, please don't be offended that I cited edit warring. That is one of the standard reasons for instituting full protection, which was necessary here because semi-protection would not have been effective (the two registered accounts are auto-confirmed; one is a longstanding editor, the other is a brand new special purpose account). Please see the message I put on the talk page and you will understand. --MelanieN (talk) 15:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
@Dr.K.: repinging since I messed up your username. --MelanieN (talk) 15:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi Melanie. Sorry, but I thought "content dispute" is shorthand for "no BLP violations". My respect for you as a content-conscious admin and quality-content-producing editor is high. That's why, at first glance, I was disappointed to see that there was no mention of BLP violations in the protection edit-summary. In any case, since you explained this to me, I am ok with your rationale. Also your comments at the talkpage of the article, show the usual level of policy expertise I have come to associate with you. Thank you for your support. Take care. Dr. K. 15:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


Right after you added PP, 3 consecutive reverts were made [13], [14], and [15]. Since they were done consecutively, is that considered 1 revert? What about the material that was added meeting consensus? If my memory serves, didn't we discuss not using certain terminology like "sexual assault"? Atsme📞📧 15:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Atsme! Yes, the three edits without any intervening edits by other people would be considered a single edit. I don't recall a discussion about "sexual assault" but that would certainly be a valid issue to bring up on the talk page. If you find a previous discussion, link to it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Seraphim System[edit]

could probably use some protection, while your here, from an LTA, using transients and throwaway accounts. It's been getting shat on all day... hope you're well. ----->SerialNumber54129...speculates 15:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

No kidding. Thanks for the alert. If you see anybody else getting targeted, I'll be online for another hour or two. --MelanieN (talk) 15:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz, Galobtter, and Serial Number 54129: Thanks for your help. I'll be logging off soon so I have protected my page. I have an idea about what could be done about this rampage and will share it elsewhere. --MelanieN (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

DS consensus[edit]

I reverted this edit (16:08, December 11, 2017) from Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations as UNDUE. My edit was reverted before (17:58, December 11, 2017) reasonable time to obtain consensus had expired. The article is subject to 1RR + consensus before restoring. No consensus had been reached per Wikipedia:Consensus - the reverting editor took it upon himself to conclude a consensus had been reached when it had not. I don't want to take this to AE but will if necessary. I just want our policies to be respected so will you please look into this? I thank you kindly in advance. Atsme📞📧 00:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Whether you’re correct or not, I’d just like to point out that readers are probably comatose by the time any of them get that deep into the article. The lead, however, is another matter entirely. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
O_O <---comatose me. I won't argue the point you made - it's a good one - my concern is more technical in that our PAGs should be honored. I've seen two editors get TB for violating DS on that same article so what's fair is fair. The same sanctions should apply to all across the board. I don't show favoritism to my kids, either - and I love them both the same. Atsme📞📧 00:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Atsme and Anything. The question is whether to include it in the lede, right? It is already in the article text and unchallenged there? OK. Without weighing in on the merits (or not) of putting it in the lede, I would have to agree with the restoration of it, based on an apparent consensus at the talk page to include it. If a clear local majority of people seem to agree in a discussion, it can be and often is implemented, at least temporarily. There is no requirement to wait some particular length of time to act on the result of a discussion. In fact it's quite common to implement what appears to be a quickly developed consensus, even as the discussion is ongoing. The action can always be reverted later if the tenor of the discussion changes to the opposite consensus over the next few days. In other words, when something has been challenged/removed and is under discussion, that doesn't automatically impose some kind of week-long moratorium before it can be restored. That would give one person a kind of veto power over the content of the article, which is not the intent of the consensus rule. --MelanieN (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The question (and reversion here) is on whether to include it in the article body. I find this utterly controversial, as half-a-dozen other Senators and multiple lower-level Alabama politicians are included in that section. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake. Several of the people on the talk page referred to having it in the lede so I misread the diff. My analysis remains the same: it was OK to implement the quick consensus at the talk page. With the understanding that it could be removed later if consensus later goes the other way. --MelanieN (talk) 01:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Then there are clearly a few editors who need to have their TB removed if that truly is the case. Atsme📞📧 01:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

RPP follow up[edit]

Hi, per your request I am following up with about protection for United States Naval Academy. Since your decline, there has been another vandalism edit. I'm sure there are more to follow, and I'm just looking for a little more time/protection. Thanks - theWOLFchild 05:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: Thanks for the note. Normally two vandalism edits in two days are not enough for semi-protection. I have watchlisted the article and will continue to keep an eye on it. But I suspect the burst of vandalism earlier this month was related to the Army-Navy game - and is not likely to recur until next year's game. --MelanieN (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for keeping an eye on it. Cheers - theWOLFchild 16:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
@Thewolfchild: On a hunch I checked the editing history of United States Military Academy. You guessed it - there was also a burst of vandalism there the first week of December. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Protection of D. P. Yadav[edit]

The BLP violations I reported at RPP here have been repeated. Would you please take a look at the page history and reconsider whether a further period of protection would be appropriate. With thanks: Noyster (talk), 15:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Noyster: Thanks for the note. As above, two vandalism edits in two days are not enough for semi-protection. But given the long history of such edits, I have given it pending changes protection. Hope this helps. --MelanieN (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


Mel - years ago I heard about people being able to ping from different locations - didn't quite understand how that worked but common sense told me they send a message to a server somewhere, and that server relays it. Since becoming the target of the idiot IP, I researched how in the hell they could keep changing IP addresses. One option would be that it's someone who travels, like an airline attendant for example, and then I remembered a friend on Bonaire telling me how I could get HBO on the island using HBO-go. There are providers who provide such a service and it's called VPN. There's a cost for it, but I think it's nominal. I also think there may be a way to block VPN servers (an admin told me VPN was a no-no and could result in a site ban but that seems highly unlikely considering they haven't been able to find who the VPN subscriber is or what VPN service they're using). There may still be a way, but it will require help from WMF. As this IP issue grows, the project may very well need to consider confirmed registered users only. At this point, I don't know the simplest road to resolution but if the US government can track such people down, my grandkids can probably figure out how to do it, too. ^_^ Just saying.... Atsme📞📧 20:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

You're asking the wrong person; I am not very techie. Maybe a stalker will chime in with more information. I don't know if VPNs are much of a problem here. I do know that WP:Open proxies, i.e., anonymizing systems, are blocked on sight. As for changing IP addresses, that's easy to do, for example by using a public library and changing which computer you use. And some IP addresses are dynamic rather than fixed. Those long IP addresses - IPv6 - seem to keep changing even if the user doesn't do anything to change it. That sometimes happens with traditional IPs too. But they usually stay within the same range so that's what I looked at with that recent question at ANI. Sometimes when there has been repeated disruption from the same general range of IPs they can do a WP:Range block but that's kind of a last resort. Yes, I'm sure your grandkids know a lot more about this than I do. --MelanieN (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
To be "not very techie" you're far more techie than I. You're one smart cookie so thank you for explaining in further detail. I'm guessing that IPv6 refers to the ones that begin with 2600:100+ numbers and the like which are cell phones or iPads that use cellular towers, right? TMI for me anyway...not where I want to focus my energy. Thanks for explaining. Atsme📞📧 21:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
@Atsme: You and Melanie are correct about IPv6 addresses. If your IP troll behaves like this one, you may be the latest target of the infamous Kingshowman. Quacks loudly but usually goes away after a few days of flamboyant tirades. WP:DENY is the wisest advice for such cases. If he gets truly egregiously annoying, file an WP:SPI (see his archives for fun and editing patterns). — JFG talk 11:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


How does one go about asking a CU to check an IP addy to see if it's a disguised regular? Do I look up what editors have CU rights and simply make a request based on suspicious conduct, and do you have to also provide who you might think it is or can they figure that out on their own? Thank you in advance. Atsme📞📧 01:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Instructions are at WP:SPI. If the CU request is warranted, someone with the appropriate rights will pick it up. Do give as much circumstantial socking evidence as you can. Good luck! — JFG talk 01:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Note: It won't be accepted without a reasonable suspicion. WP:DUCKTEST O3000 (talk) 01:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Checkuser will not match a registered userid with an IP. SPECIFICO talk 02:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Thanks to all...Atsme📞📧 02:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, don't forget even sockpuppets and banned users sometimes have good ideas. 🧟 SPECIFICO talk 02:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in, all. Atsme, it's true that checkusers will not publicly connect an IP with a registered user, for privacy reasons, although they will sometimes take private action. And checkusers will not go on a fishing expedition to see if an IP matches some unspecified registered user. If you have a strong suspicion who it is, and good evidence (showing diffs of one compared to similar or near-identical diffs for the other), you can file a sockpuppet request at SPI (instructions are at the bottom of the page under a "show" button); you would file it under the name of the suspected sockmaster. Or you can ask a checkuser to look into it privately. But as I said, you need good evidence - actual comparable diffs, not just "they seem to have similar opinions" or "they edit the same articles" or "this doesn't seem to be a new user". --MelanieN (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy vacation!![edit]

Christmas tree worm, (Spirobranchus gigantic)

Atsme📞📧 12:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Time To Spread A Little
Happy Holiday Cheer!!
I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree
in the spirit of the season.

What's especially nice about
this digitized version:
*it doesn't need water
*won't catch fire
*and batteries aren't required.
Have a Happy Holiday season

and a prosperous New Year!!

🍸🎁 🎉

A barnstar for you[edit]

Snow flake.svg Holiday barnstar
You deserve a holiday barnstar, but this snowflake was as close as I could come. And best holiday wishes to you. Thank you for making Wikipedia a better place. 7&6=thirteen () 17:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

"tis the season...."[edit]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message
Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year[edit]

Rockefeller Center christmas tree cropped.jpg Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas and a happy, healthy and prosperous New Year 2018!
Thank you for all the hard work and effort you put into Wikipedia. God bless! Onel5969 TT me 02:22, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas![edit]


Hi Melanie. No fancy template, but just wishing you happy holidays and all the best for 2018 😎 Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:16, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays[edit]

Snow flake (Unsplash).jpg Happy Holidays
From Stave one of Dickens A Christmas Carol

Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail. Mind! I don’t mean to say that I know, of my own knowledge, what there is particularly dead about a door-nail. I might have been inclined, myself, to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of ironmongery in the trade. But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it, or the Country’s done for. You will therefore permit me to repeat, emphatically, that Marley was as dead as a door-nail.

So you see even Charles was looking for a reliable source :-) Thank you for your contributions to the 'pedia. ~ MarnetteD|Talk 23:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas![edit]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

A cup of tea for you![edit]

Meissen-teacup pinkrose01.jpg A cup of tea to warm your Holiday season. Hope you are having a lovely time on vacation. Always nice to see your edits. Cheers. CookieMonster755 22:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, MelanieN![edit]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Support. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:10, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Just a quick hello[edit]

Hello friend. Hope your vacation is going well. Haven’t interacted with you much lately, which is sad, but I wanted to wish you a happy new year. If you are ever on the correct coast, please let me know :) TonyBallioni (talk) 07:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note and the good wishes, Tony. I'm still on vacation and on what you would probably consider the correct coast (i.e., the temperature hasn't risen above 27 the entire week). But I will be back where it is in the 70s in a few days and will try to resume my neglected duties here when I can. There's always a lot of Real Life stuff to catch up with after being away. I hope you have a happy new year as well! MelanieN alt (talk) 13:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
P. S. OK, I lied. It isn't in the 70s in San Diego. It's only in the high 60s. I'll take it. 0;-D MelanieN alt (talk) 14:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Tara Aghdashloo[edit]

Takinson (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Hi Melanie, Hope you're doing great and Happy New Year! I noticed you deleted my sister's page Tara Aghdashloo. I think given the fact she's an active journalist with a long list of publications and a solid following in Iran (117k Instagram followers), she deserves to have a presence on Wikipedia. Please let me know if you need more references and resources to revive the page. I think her page is greatly missed on Wikipedia as a female influencer in Iran. Regards, - TA

Hello, TA, and thanks for the note. The page was deleted after a community discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tara Aghdashloo. At the time, the consensus was that although she has written published articles and has many followers, she does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for an article. Those criteria require that other publications have written ABOUT her, not just that she writes and has followers. You can see the requirements at WP:GNG and WP:42. That discussion was two years ago. Has she become more celebrated in the time since then? Has there been coverage ABOUT her? In a search of the English language Wikipedia all I found was links that do not qualify as independent or rebliable, such as Facebook, Vimeo, LinkedIn, and her own Instagram and Twitter feeds. I found a little bit of coverage about her wedding, but not in what we consider reliable sources; it was at sites like boxnewsbox and TheManorHouseBride, not in regular journalistic publications. Are there any references that you would be able to add showing that she and her career have been written ABOUT by independent, reliable sources? One other thing: if you are thinking of re-creating an article about your sister, you should read WP:COI. It is best not to write about people and things that we have a close connection to. --MelanieN (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
P.S. Is Aydin Aghdashloo her father? If she does not qualify for an article of her own, it might be possible to mention her under a "family" section at the article about him. Let's talk about that. --MelanieN (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi Melanie, thanks so much for your detailed response. I appreciate you taking the time to do this on your time off. I understand the Wikipedia article qualification criteria and I do believe Tara Aghdashloo meets the requirements as she's been written ABOUT by numerous reliable and trusted sources. I also want to mention that although Tara has been a professional journalist during career, she's a practicing multidisciplinary artist active mainly as a filmmaker. She is also a curator (she ran an art gallery in east London for three years and continues to curate international exhibitions). Finally, Tara Aghdashloo is a published poet and contributes to the Persian music industry as a lyricist. On a side note, The fact that her wedding received so much attention is mainly due to her high profile status as an Iranian artist. I'm going to list some of the articles about Tara Aghdashloo below:
  1. This is the latest, long interview with her about her life and career on Cultural Curator (English)
  2. Interview about her work and style (English) :
  3. High profile exhibition, Tara's retrospective of Cristina Rodrigues in Portugal (English)
  4. Interview and ambassador of style (English) :
  5. A report about one of the exhibitions she curated at her gallery (English) :
  6. Tara giving an interview about copy rights with (English)
  7. Interview with Tara about freedom of expression in poetry (Persian):
  8. Featured and interviewed by Now Toronto (English) :
  9. An interview with Tara and with her then partner who she wrote a successful album with, King Raam (English) :
  10. VOA interview when her poetry book was published (Persian):
  11. Famed poet Reza Baraheni's review on Tara's poetry collection when published (Persian):
  12. Listed as one of 2010's best dressed Iranians on PBS (English) :
  13. Featured on Modern Times Theatre company in Toronto (English) :
  14. Tara as herself in video in audiovisual portrait by Estrella Sandra (English) :
  15. A review of Tara Aghdashloo poetry reading in Toronto in Shahrvand newspaper (Persian):
  16. Tara Aghdashloo hosting the Art Gallery of Ontario's annual party as Marchesa Casati (English):


  1. Tara Aghdashloo was a guest lecturer at the MA of journalism class at Ryerson in 2010 to speak about citizen journalism
  2. Tara has a verified Twitter account, and has been the subject of hacking, fake reports, and fake accounts posing as her pervasively, which is why having a Wikipedia can ensure there isn't misinformation out there.
  3. She's been interviewed on Manoto TV network and BBC Persian numerous times.

Finally, I can provide more details on any aspects of her multifaceted career as you please. Best, - TA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Takinson (talkcontribs) 20:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Invictus redux[edit]

Hi Melanie. I just noticed this edit from 24 December. I removed it, as well as some other negative BLP. This may cause renewed edit-warring, so I am just letting you know. Happy New Year by the way. Dr. K. 18:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I have the article on my watchlist, but please continue to notify me if there are problematic posts. --MelanieN (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Will do, Melanie. Thanks again. Dr. K. 18:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Question regarding AfD Closure[edit]

Hi Melanie. I was curious as to why the result of WP:Articles_for_deletion/Terry_J._Powell was not correctly attributed to my !vote/discussion on the matter. I realize this is a minor thing in the grand scheme. Thank you for your time. Ventric (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Ventric, and thanks for your note. This was closed 2 1/2 years ago. The consensus to delete was unanimous, so the closure as "delete" was obvious and no closing comment was needed. Your !vote/discussion was basically agreeing with the nominator. What did you think should have been done differently? And what brings it up now? --MelanieN (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Civility at the Russian talk page[edit]

MelanieN, I don't mean to bother you, and I know we haven't necessarily seen eye-to-eye in the past (over the same issue I'm raising below). But really, I don't think it's so unreasonable to ask that comments on the talk page 1) making specific article content critiques, and 2) created by someone who is not a known troll, be preserved and archived after regular timelines, in ordinary fashion. As far as I can tell your comments support that reasonable position. But I'm unhappy about the incredibly uncivil reaction I'm getting for making what seem to me to be fairly similar points. -Darouet (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Good Germans[edit]

Hi. FYI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales[edit]

Quick question: why do editors who believe Wikipedia has a liberal bias write comments on the Jimbo Wales talk page to complain about the supposed bias? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Because if they do it on article talk pages, they get hatted? --MelanieN (talk) 04:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Snerk. --NeilN talk to me 04:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Jessica Jacobs vandal is back[edit]

This person has an obsession with the late Ms. Jacobs and also keeps introducing Americanisms such as "graduated" (Australians say "leave" or "finish" school) and "mom" instead of "mum". They've been at it for years. Can you do something please? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. It looks as if the problem IPs have been identified as socks and have been range-blocked. Thanks, User:NeilN! Let’s see if that solves the problem. The article is already under Pending Changes protection. --MelanieN (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
P.S. I noticed that the PC protection was about to expire, so I extended it for another year. --MelanieN (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Murder of Michelle Garvey[edit]

Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC) I'd like to add this to the article, but i feel you could do a better job. This report from KHOU indicates that there were signs of sexual assault (i assume that means she was raped) and although Michelle was clothed, she was missing things like her bra and her shoes.

Thanks for the note, Paul, but I'm going to take a pass on this one. The article looks fairly well developed as is and it's not really my kind of subject. I'm sure you can do a good job of expanding it as appropriate. --MelanieN (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Queer sandbox page[edit]


This could be nothing, but I smell something fishy about this. It looks like some sort of admittance of sock puppetry, but I can't be sure. Not entirely sure what to make of this, so I'm hoping you or an experienced talk page stalker can help. Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Adam. I agree it is strange but probably harmless. I don't offhand see any obvious reason to delete it. It is obviously a test edit, but test edits are OK in user pages and sandboxes. That is the only edit made by that user and I doubt they will be back so it will probably age off eventually. --MelanieN (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, it's just that they said they have 3 accounts and that "some" are "suspended" (blocked?). That looks somewhat suspicious. Also, I'm not sure if the shouting is unintentional. Adam9007 (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, since they haven't done any editing except to create that one sandbox entry, I would say it is kind of moot whether that is a sock account or not: they haven't used the account to make edits deceptively. If they were to start editing the encyclopedia, then we would need to look into it. As for the shouting and the general incoherence of that post - it's not part of the encyclopedia so it's not really bothering anyone. If any stalker thinks some kind of action is needed, please feel free, but I'm inclined to leave it alone as long as the account doesn't do anything else. --MelanieN (talk) 01:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

AfD closes[edit]

Just a reminder that AfD discussions should normally run for a full 7 days unless one of the early close criteria is met - if you feel an early close is justified please indicate which one applies in your closing statement. Thanks. --Michig (talk) 10:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Michig. So if something was listed on the 7th, I can't close it on the 14th? The link called "closing" took me to the 7th, so I have tended to assume that means they actually are closing. But I see that in some cases the discussions, although listed for 7 days, had not run a full 168 hours. I hadn't realized (or had forgotten) I need to be that much of a clock-watcher, but I will be more careful in the future. --MelanieN (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)