User talk:MelanieN

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


Contents

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]

DJ Klypson[edit]

Hi, you deleted the "DJ Klypso" page I created, but it seemed pretty well cited and he's pretty notable in the music industry. Can you give some insight as to what else would be needed to get his page back live again and up? He's working on numerous projects for television and film as well. I'm not sure if I need to start over but I can if you suggest. Thanks!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazer921 (talkcontribs) 01:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Lazer921, and thanks for your note. I deleted it because of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Klypso. The discussion there explains what people thought was lacking for him to have an article. But here's what I will do: I will restore the article to your private userspace (in Wikipedia lingo, I will WP:USERFY it). There it will be safe from deletion while you work on it and improve it. When you think you have it sufficiently improved that it will now meet the requirements at WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG, let me know. If I think it is sufficiently different/improved from the original version, I will put a note on the article's talk page saying so; otherwise it would probably be tagged for speedy deletion per WP:G4 as soon as you move it into article space. Be aware that even though it would not get speedy-deleted with my note attached, it could still be deleted via another AfD discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I have restored the article. You can find it at User:Lazer921/DJ Klypso. One problem I noticed immediately is the reference sources. I don't think any of them are Reliable Sources as Wikipedia defines it. Most blogs do not qualify as Reliable Sources, and neither does most YouTube material. See WP:Reliable source examples. You will need to find more mainstream sources if the article is to be kept. See what you can do, and good luck! --MelanieN (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you so so much! Will work on getting it with revisions up to standard now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazer921 (talkcontribs) 20:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I revised the article to pare it down significantly to just his accomplishments and basic facts. I can always beef it back up as he does more interviews with distinguished media and we can scour online. Right now I have Billboard.com, LA Times, IBI Times and Wire as sources. Thank you so much for all your help and happy holidays! !xx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazer921 (talkcontribs) 20:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi MelanieN! I wanted to check in on this to see if it would be eligible to put back to live status with the edits and citations. I do know he's also working on more projects this year which will yield further content and sourcing. Thank you again!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazer921 (talkcontribs) 23:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@Lazer921: Well, you can try. The article is pretty minimal; that's because he has almost no coverage in independent sources. The article now has a passing mention in the LA Times, a passing mention at the International Business Times, and a photo credit at a non-notable site. We really need SIGNIFICANT coverage, not passing mentions. Being one out of of 20 producers on a Grammy-nominated album is not going to get him very far either. So there is a significant chance it would get deleted again, for not meeting the criteria at WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. Maybe you should wait until he gets some more coverage about those additional projects before trying to restore it.
As you know it was previously deleted per this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Klypso. If you do decide to restore it, let me know and I will put a note on it saying it is significantly different from the original deleted version; that will at least prevent it from being speedy-deleted per G4. --MelanieN (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Fidel Castro[edit]

If you remember can you ping me on 4 December so I can restore the semi-protection. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. And many thanks for the full protection (although I was kind of looking forward to some of those folks making a fourth revert and getting blocked). --MelanieN (talk) 22:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
CambridgeBayWeather, the full-protection has expired, and it looks like the article still does need semi-protection. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 17:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Lucky there was a blizzard or I would have gone home. I gave it a year to see what happens. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Only in your part of the woods (and from someone with your username) could you say "Lucky there was a blizzard"! 0;-D Thanks for the protection. --MelanieN (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Dispute Notification[edit]

I have filed a dispute on the article of Fidel Castro. I do this because it is recommended "If you begin a discussion of another user on a common notice board, it is expected that you will notify the subject user by posting a message on their talk page". Do not report me as vandal. This is the only instance in which I will write something here. If this is not the way to do it, let me know how it is done. Jhaydn2016 (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice, Jhaydn2016, and for stating the issue clearly and expounding your views concisely at the dispute board. I hope this leads to a peaceful and friendly resolution of the issue. --MelanieN (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Manson article[edit]

Great, that's what I needed to know. I'll do some pruning! this name is also in use 22:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

SmartBear Software submission[edit]

Hi Melanie,

I'm contacting you about the SmartBear Software Wikipedia page that was deleted last year. I wrote up a completely new page for SmartBear Software with valid links and factual information that I'd like to submit. Please let me know if this is up to standard, or if anything needs to be added or changed. I'm very open to your edits and suggestions and am looking forward to hearing from you.

(I'm deleting actual article; will move it to Eugene's userspace)

Thanks for your time,

Eugene450 (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Yikes, not on my talk page! Thanks for your note, Eugene450, and yes, I am the right person to talk to. But I'll move your proposed article to your private userspace, where we can discuss it. I'll move it to User:Eugene450/SmartBear Software. And let's discuss it on your talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Whoops! Sorry about that. Okay, sounds good. Thanks.

Eugene450 (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

quick note[edit]

Just in case I might be coming off a bit strong, it's mostly because I'm still irked at how horrible the original version of that article was and how much flaunting of Wikipedia policies and guidelines it contained, not so much with your comments or changes (though I do disagree with some of them).Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Then leave it "horrible". It's more likely to get deleted that way. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah but that's poisoning the well. The AfD should be based on the best version of the article possible. The fact that even the best version possible is still very weak makes the argument for deletion stronger.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I was using "horrible" ironically. Your idea of what is the "best version possible" seems to differ from that of some other people. In any case, it really is disruptive to an AfD discussion to have the article keep changing during the discussion. I do understand your point, and I appreciate your restraint. --MelanieN (talk) 15:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

UFC 206 protection[edit]

I noticed that the semi-protection of UFC 206 will expire on the night of the event. Can you please extend the semi-protection? I don't want a repeat of UFC 205, where semi-protection expired during the night it was held, and ClueBot NG reverted vandalism like 30 times that evening. —MRD2014 (talkcontribs) 23:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert. I extended it through the 13th. I had intended to get past the event but apparently didn't quite make it. --MelanieN (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Face-smile.svgMRD2014 (talkcontribs) 23:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

Hi, how are you? I need help on Abyssinian people article, in regards to the user Duqsene who keeps on deleting sourced contents that were added after consensus was achieved following a long discussion.[2] Even after being informed to make edits per WP:BRD and wait for consusensus user seems not interested to comply with that. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 11:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Another admin has protected the article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. But the page protection is on the undiscussed edit. Can you please roll it to the version the article has been for several months. Then, within 7 days we work out the issues once the editor opens a section in the article's talkpage to explain the issues & proposals so that other editors who have been building and maintaining the article for many years also have their say on it. Thank you — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I hear you. But the person to ask is the person who protected the article. --MelanieN (talk) 02:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguating pages vs. set-index articles[edit]

Hi! Because of this edit, I just wanted to update you on the differences between dab pages and set-index articles. The Anthroponymy Project has been taking over the pages that list surnames, given names, or both. Those pages are being changed into set-index articles and, though they can often look very similar to disambiguation pages, they are not the same. The way to tell at a glance is to check the bottom of the page; there will usually be a template there that identifies which kind of page it is.

Redirects that have "(disambiguation)" in the title are supposed to target disambiguation pages only. As more and more dab pages get transferred to set-index articles, there will be more and more of this type of redirect left over. They need to be deleted (as soon as any links to them are resolved, of course). I've been working on these for the Disambiguation Project, and gradually weeding them out. You'll most likely come across more of my CSD G6s for these. I hope you'll help with the housekeeping. :-) — Gorthian (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Wow, coulda fooled me! (and did) Ok, sorry for acting out of ignorance. I had not heard of this distinction. As you say, it looked like a DAB page to me. Thanks for the education. --MelanieN (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Did you already?[edit]

Hi Melanie,
Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Community wishlist poll

Getting the tools we need

ONLY TWO DAYS LEFT TO VOTE

  • Improve the tools for reviewing new pages: Vote here.
  • Reduce the reviewer workload : Vote here

For NPP: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

explanation of rules[edit]

"You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article, must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page."

This is some text that you copied to my talk page regarding the Trump article.

Does that mean that an editor must never make a "reinstate" ever? That's how it seems to read. If so, both you and I must never edit the word "politician" in the Trump article in our entire lifetime. That is draconian but I am willing to abide by that if that is the agreed upon interpretation of rules.

In fact, that would be a good reason never to edit that article again, which is what I was tentatively planning on. So boring an article, if you ask me.

I am discussing this not to argue but to understand some of the finer points of Wikipedia. Usernamen1 (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I was puzzled by the "must not reinstate" wording, myself so I asked about it. The key is "must not reinstate 'without consensus." (I will take another look at the discussion on the talk page since you feel that "politician" does not have consensus.) If you reinstate to restore the consensus, that is allowed. If you reinstate just to restore your preferred version, that is not allowed. Also: If you add something, and someone removes it, that makes it challenged, i.e. contentious, and you shouldn't re-add it. If you REMOVE longstanding content from that article, that removal is an "edit" within the meaning of this rule, and if someone reinstates the longstanding wording, you must not revert (remove it again) without consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

New violation of sanctions?[edit]

Since you were one of the users involved in bringing this AE [3] wouldn't this [4] [5] be considered yet another blatant 1RR violation by this same user TheTimesAreAChanging? If so, I can't believe it is no less than a mere few hours 'AFTER' the AE thread was closed. Again, check out the diffs here. [6] [7]. He was given a "last warning" by admins in that AE and one LAST chance to turn-around his behavior. Seems like a clear-cut violation at this point. Let me know if I'm missing something here. If not, action needs to be taken. This is getting ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.29.28.117 (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Pinging User:Dennis Brown as the admin who closed the discussion and issued the "final warning". I am not offering an opinion at this time. --MelanieN (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Anything happening after the closing has to be in a new discussion if you think it merits it. They already are pounding it out on my talk page, which might be the same thing, and seem to have figured it out. As for my closing, anything left open that long isn't going to get a sanction. Some admin would already have pulled the trigger if they felt it was clear, but they didn't. I closed with the strongest warning I could muster. That's just how it goes sometimes. Dennis Brown - 00:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Dennis. Your closure seemed to suggest you were going to be the one standing over him with a hammer, but apparently that was a misimpression. I won't bother you again. --MelanieN (talk) 00:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I just logged on, been working all day, and I see other admin have gotten involved. I try not to step on toes once another admin has injected themselves into the situation. Not an absolute bar of course. But I simply didn't see it until I posted here. If you see the discussion on my page, they noticed he wasn't reverting so much as rewording and moving info. Everyone is so hair trigger when it comes to Clinton and Trump articles, it requires looking very carefully to keep from using the ban hammer when it isn't deserved. It's why I'm glad I don't edit them. Dennis Brown - 02:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Information icon Hello, MelanieN. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article Donald Trump, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

  • avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
  • instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
  • when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
  • avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
  • exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. This only applies if you are Melania kNauss. If not then please delete/revert/undo. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

LOL! No, I am not Melania Trump. But thanks for the note. It's always nice to start out the day with a laugh. --MelanieN (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
Thank you, thank you for your ongoing tireless efforts to keep the content on the pages relating to Donald Trump less problematic than the subject himself often seems to be. John Carter (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, John. There are a lot of problematic areas on Wikipedia, and I should probably do more at more of them. --MelanieN (talk) 20:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) No, no, Melanie! There are no "should"s, it's supposed to be a hobby! Only edit what you like to edit! Well, unless you actually are Melania Trump, see above. In such a case, perhaps you "should" diversify. Bishonen | talk 23:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC).
Thanks for the reassurance. I really wasn't planning to anyhow. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

List of consensuses[edit]

See "Current/recent consensuses" near the top of Talk:2016 Orlando nightclub shooting. I feel this technique was useful at that article and should be used more widely at articles like Donald Trump. The only thing I would change would be to use a numbered list instead of bullets; then, a revert can simply say "see current consensuses on the talk page, #6". The list itself would be subject to dispute and discussion, and the existence of an item in the list would show agreement that the content in fact has consensus. If there is enough consensus to make an edit and have it stand, there is enough to add an entry to the list. By formalizing things, the technique adds weight to true assertions of consensus and pretty much eliminates it for false ones, and it provides links that make the supporting discussions easily accessible. ―Mandruss  20:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, I hadn't heard of doing that. Looks like it would be very helpful. I don't know if if we could do it at Talk:Donald Trump, though, because I notice that all of those links are to formal, officially closed RfCs. Most of the discussions at the Trump talk page never do become formal RfCs - just an informal discussion where we finally seem to get a rough consensus. And the ones that do become RfCs never seem to get closed (see the current photo discussion). Actually I'm afraid that trying to formalize the consensus like that would only cause another eruption of disagreement. I'll keep the idea in mind, though. --MelanieN (talk) 20:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
all of those links are to formal, officially closed RfCs - Hmmm, not sure how you drew that conclusion, I followed the first 6 or 7 and didn't find an RfC. ―Mandruss  21:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
the ones that do become RfCs never seem to get closed (see the current photo discussion) - That one turned 30 today and was just de-listed. I wouldn't have expected it to be closed before now. I think it will need an uninvolved closer - does that happen automagically in this situation, or should I request one at ANRFC? ―Mandruss  21:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
You'd probably need to request one. Although the consensus probably is "do nothing until an official portrait comes out", which is the same effect as having the RfC drag on for another month. At the link you gave, I checked a random three or four and they all were RfCs. But I'll look again. It certainly could be useful to say "this has been decided, see #6" - since the same things do come up over and over. Of course, there is nothing to prevent YOU from starting such a list and putting various "consensus" decisions into it. Do you want to take a look and see what "consensus decisions" we already have in the bag? We could discuss it here for now, this is pretty public and I have a lot of watchers. --MelanieN (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC) --MelanieN (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
P.S. Yes, they are mostly RfCs, especially the more recent ones. Interestingly, it's the same person who always closes the RfCs. He does not appear to be involved in the discussions. --MelanieN (talk) 22:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, here are a few that we could mention. --MelanieN (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Photo: wait for official presidential photo [8]
  • "False" in lede (previous ended Sept 12) [9]
New current RfC: [10]
  • Include "Politician" in lede sentence [11]
  • Mention popular vote in lede but without numbers (ended Dec. 4) [12]

Probably not this one because there was an extensive discussion but no real resolution:

  • Climate change: was discussed here until Dec. 2: [13]

Hooray, you got quick action on the photo RfC and a good strong neutral close! --MelanieN (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

And I see you have started the consensus list at the article, that's good! --MelanieN (talk) 04:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I've listed two consensuses, but I don't want to be seen as trying to WP:OWN that list even though additions are subject to dispute. Feel free to add one or two yourself. "False in the lede" might not be a good choice while the RfC is open, despite the fact that there is an existing consensus. The optimal time to add an entry will be very soon after the consensus is reached and implemented. The link can point to the talk page section until archive, and then it can be updated to point to the archived section. Obviously someone will need to keep up with that, but it should help that the link text will go red upon archive (that is, I think that happens for piped links). ―Mandruss  02:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Piped redlink test. Yep. ―Mandruss  02:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
You added the one that is firmly tied to an RfC. That's a good, unquestionable way to start. We can add the others as they get RfC-qualified. Apparently Usernamen is going to continue to fight the "politician" consensus so that is not ready to be added. --MelanieN (talk) 03:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Let me tell you what is on my mind[edit]

The Trump article will require users who edit to devote significant time and energy given that Trump is such a hated man. I am unable to do so. However, leaving in the middle of something undone is not a good trait.

Although I made suggestions to reorganize the article, such comments were in its infancy. However, I have made numerous comments about the first sentence of the article.

Therefore, it is my plan to see that the first sentence is properly discussed among users and there be a consensus, if possible. After that, I plan to take a substantial hiatus from that article but you can continue to participate. Let's work together to try to get a consensus for that first sentence. Usernamen1 (talk) 05:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Ivan Rohov[edit]

Could you please look at Ivan Rohov, someone has changed the name, while the original Ivan Gorokhov is the correct name per the sources. I can't move it back, since there is now a page with that name (the redirect). Thanks. Onel5969 TT me 12:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Donald_Trump#Options proposal #4, alternative re-wording[edit]

MelanieN, since you created the RfC perhaps you can advise on how best to accomplish this. Proposal #4 is about inserting an additional sentence:

  • Same as proposed new wording #3, but with an additional sentence --
  • "Partly as a result, and partly due to his existing status as a celebrity, Trump received more media coverage than any other candidate."[8][9][10]

This phrasing was criticized by User:Jo-Jo_Eumerus, as possibly being a misrepresentation/misleading, because when paired with #3 they believed it sounded as if the wide coverage sentence was being used to explain away the large number of falsehoods found by the fact-checkers. After some discussion on avoiding that pitall, we arrived at this alternative phrasing that we both liked:

  • "Along with his existing status as a celebrity, such statements resulted in Trump receiving more media coverage than any other candidate."[8][9][10]

Should I just mention this alternative wording as a #4_B proposal, dated to indicate it is 'new' as of a certain point in time? There is also the difficulty, that although I personally prefer to pair #3 + #4_B, the preference for Jo-Jo Eumerus is to stick with the September-consensus wording of #1, but insert #4_B after it. (The wording of the RfC currently says that #4 is the "same as proposed new wording #3 but with additional sentence" which is not what Jo-Jo Eumerus would want.)

There are only a few people voting specifically on #4, including three besides myself and Jo-Jo Eumerus, but I don't want to screw up the RfC by altering the list of options this far in. Suggestions please? 47.222.203.135 (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I added it as an alternate wording (4B) to option 4, so as to keep the general idea of 4. I won't be around much today but I think that should be clear enough. --MelanieN (talk) 17:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump lead sentence[edit]

Dear MelanieN, I don't think this edit of yours, while benign, is appropriate to be applied during the ongoing RfC about this lead sentence that you started yourself. I respectfully suggest a self-revert. — JFG talk 23:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Somebody added "television personality" during the RfC; I let it go since it did have earlier consensus. All I did with this edit was to restore the pre-RfC order of the words. In any case, it makes NO sense to put "politician" in the middle of the sentence, as I assume was done (possibly accidentally) by whoever added "TV personality". Politician needs to be either first or last, and pre-RfC it was first, so that's where I put it. --MelanieN (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
IIRC the pre-RfC version was rather "businessman, politician and President-Elect". Certainly the person adding TV personality should not have left politician hanging in the middle. What about writing "businessman, television personality and politician" at this stage, keeping things in biographical order? My personal hunch is that "politician" is implied by President-Elect, however that's for the RfC to decide. (And it's a bit improper that we are having this discussion here in private, but well, I was only reacting to your edit from my watchlist and didn't want to create drama in the public discussion…) — JFG talk 21:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Oh wait, we don't even have a formal RfC on this, just a "normal" discussion branching out into 25 directions… Sorry for the confusion, too many RfCs going on Face-smile.svg. I guess the current sentence is fine. — JFG talk 21:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

MelanieN, like it or not, you seem to be the President of the Donald Trump talk page. Therefore, I am bringing these personal thoughts to you. In the end, I believe that a non-redundant lede first paragraph will read:

Donald John Trump (US Listeni/ˈdɒnəld dʒɒn trʌmp/; born June 14, 1946) is the 45th President of the United States. He is an American politician, businessman, and television personality. He took the oath of office for the Presidency on January 20, 2017.

That is not my preferred language but I believe it satisfies some of the criteria for some of the Wikipedia editors as well as not being redundant. The 2 sentence structure avoids redundancy of "politician" and "President" in the same sentence particularly since defining him as a politician is just because of the Presidency.

I would like this issue to be resolved so that I may get back to the business of Wikipedia editing of other non-political articles. I usually try not to leave things undone, which is why I am seeing this problem to a conclusion. I also believe the 2 sentence structure is not only a solution to redundancy but adds rationale for inclusion of the word "politician", which is favored by you and some others. Thank you for listening to my thoughts. Usernamen1 (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Your proposed opening sentence won't work, Usernamen1, as Donald Trump is not the President of the United States. Barack Obama is. By contrast, you make a claim with both wit and virtue in it when you call Melanie the President of the Donald Trump talk page! Bishonen | talk 21:15, 18 December 2016 (UTC).
Thank you, thank you all. I will be giving my acceptance speech later. And my supporters will try to suppress the fact that I lost the popular vote. 0;-D
Usernamen, thanks for the thought, but none of the other presidential pages have an opening paragraph like this. While we are not obligated to follow the structure of other similar articles, I have to think there must be a lot of consensus behind the fact that they are ALL done in the "politician and President" or "politician who was President" format. --MelanieN (talk) 21:27, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
That is yet another reason why Donald Trump is such a different person that everyone else, ha ha! In other articles, use of the word "politician" and "President" in the same sentence is not redundant because the person derived his (not yet her for the US) long standing as a politician from being 18 years as President, Senator and Illinois state senator (B. Obama) or 14 years as President and Governor (G. W. Bush). So this is my thought to try to achieve the best prose for the 1st paragraph. It is also my attempt to refocus efforts on prose and leave the choice of editorial contents for those who wish to remain in the Trump article for the long haul, in effect, bringing my Trump work to an honourable conclusion. Usernamen1 (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
He is not totally unique; he is like Eisenhower who had never been political in any way before running for president but is still called "politician" in his article. I see that you did propose a two-sentence approach at the DT talk page, a few days ago, but it didn't gain much traction - possibly because you had already introduced several dozen other alternatives. But then today you revived it, so let's see if it attracts any consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

User talk:86.163.60.117[edit]

Revdel needed. Grossly insulting, degrading, etc. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen () 16:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Remedied. 7&6=thirteen () 16:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
OK, thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 16:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The Moon is made of green cheese[edit]

Needs WP:PP. Persistent vandalism. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen () 02:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. The recent problem editor has already been blocked, but I see there is a low level of persistent vandalism at that article. I gave it PC protection, let's see if that helps. It doesn't seem like an article that needs frequent editing in any case! --MelanieN (talk) 02:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
I am (mainly) its creator. And it just sits there. Gets a surprising number of views and an occasional drive-by vandalizing. 7&6=thirteen () 01:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
The PC protection should help guard against the occasional vandalism. It's a valuable article, but I guess people don't find much that needs adding or changing - hence lots of views but few legitimate edits. I guess you can take credit for the fact that nobody seems to think it needs copy editing. MelanieN alt (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
P.S. Looking back a year or two, I see that the vandalism, although not frequent, often comes in bursts. Such bursts can be handled by either a block of the vandal or a temporary imposition of semi-protection. MelanieN alt (talk) 00:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

1987 in Germany[edit]

Edit warring by an IP. Needs WP:PP. 7&6=thirteen () 01:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

This is not just an IP. This is an IPsock of globally locked user Europefan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · edit filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Already reported at WP:AIV. PP won't do any good, unless you're going to protect all of the 19?? in Germany articles. General Ization Talk 01:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


Revdel needed[edit]

At least for the edit summaries. ‎Koreans in Mongolia, You & I (Cut Off Your Hands album) and Talk:Shit Particularly This. 7&6=thirteen () 16:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

All done (I think...) by me as Melanie's on holiday. Peridon (talk) 17:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Peridon. (Since I am traveling I don't have access to my tools.) Hope you have a wonderful Christmas (or other holiday of your choice). MelanieN alt (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Same to you. I usually celebrate whatever those around me are celebrating (especially if they're buying...). Peridon (talk) 22:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to get your opinion[edit]

Hello MelanieN,

I was wondering if you have a free moment or two, could your read over the section about Charlie Zeleny on the COI noticeboard? There have been a few strange things happening lately there especially since the re-appearance of one editor fives years to the da,y to try and save a group of copyrighted images that he added some 5 years ago. I believe that maybe 3 or all 4 of the accounts are being possibly operated by the same person. That person may or not be the article subject Zeleny himself. I was told initially that the editors and ips could not be checked against DrumDocZ since he had not posted since 2011. Well, he has suddenly shown back up after five years to the day, less than 24 hours before all the images were to be deleted. Based on geolocate the two ips listed are from the same general metropolitan area as where the actual Zeleny was raised, lives, and works. I thank you if you can give an outsider uninvolved take on the situation. Thanks! Pauciloquence (talk) 08:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I might have broken your page. Not sure how to fix. Pauciloquence (talk) 08:38, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Pauciloquence. It looks as if the conflict of interest issue has been well explored at the COI noticeboard, and I have nothing to add there. Voceditenore in particular has done excellent work connecting the IPs and the DocZ account to this article. The IP is making the usual argument "I'm not him, I'm just a fan" and we have to accept that to avoid being accused of WP:OUTING. But now that the DrumDocZ user has come back to life and posted, you CAN ask for an evaluation if they are the same user as the others. That would be done at the SPI noticeboards, and it isn't easy. First read Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Guide to filing cases. Then open the collapsed "How to open an investigation" section at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations and follow the instructions. These notices have to be done in a certain way, with very little wordiness and clear diffs. If you find that too hard to do, I can file the request for you if you want, but I might not be able to do it for a day or two. --MelanieN (talk) 16:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

In view of[edit]

Seeing you on, wondering,

and the discussion at

there seemed to be consensus not to block/ bite... but I really wonder whether there is any ground to leave room for doubt..

just a thought... happy christmas !! JarrahTree 07:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


Shinola (shoe polish)[edit]

WP:PP needed. 7&6=thirteen () 20:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Page protection should not be applied in order to protect edits against a consensus on the sourcing of material. Removal of material that cannot be properly sourced is quality control, not vandalism. 24.7.14.87 (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Done. I see that the previous semi-protection expired just a couple of days ago and the problems immediately resumed. --MelanieN (talk) 21:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Yep. WP:Edit warring. Warned him, but he is the gift that keeps on giving. 7&6=thirteen () 21:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed[edit]

"WTF?", indeed. Please see my response to you at AN3. -- WV 23:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Re:December 2016[edit]

Hello, one of the Polish websites reports that after being sworn father Ivanka president that will take place on 20 January 2017, the current wife of her father was to be the first lady of the United States, but because of the situation in the family, Ivanka Trump will take over temporarily the role of hostess of the White home.

Are you in writing about this website? I greet the Polish and a Happy New Year :) TharonXX (talk) 19:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC).

The Polish website is reporting a rumor. There has been no such announcement. Melania Trump will be first lady. Ivanka may serve temporarily as hostess, while Melania stays in New York so that their son can finish school. Happy New Year to you too! --MelanieN (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
My understanding is that it will be until the end of the current school-year (aka from January 2017 until May-or-June 2017) that Melania will be remaining in NYC, but that after that she will move to DC and find Barron a new school to attend. Ivanka and Jared already have moved to DC, is also my understanding. Whether one or both of them are given use of the office-space in the whitehouse, that would otherwise be occupied by Melania, is a factoid that remains to be seen (cf 1967 nepotism laws). Both are on the transition team, and both are meeting with various cabinet-interviewees and informal economic CEO-advisors and foreign dignitaries, so I expect this situation will generate plenty of well-sourced material. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 07:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

opinion[edit]

I see you made comments on ANI about Jennepicfoundation.

This reminds me of the article, Kim Carson, heavily edited by users Kimcarson and Sheri21st (Sheri is Kim Carson's other name). Is Kim Carson even notable?

Opinion from you sought. Thank you. Usernamen1 (talk) 04:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to be out of town for a few days. I can check it out when I get back, or feel free to ask someone else. --MelanieN (talk) 06:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Editor of the Week seeking nominations (and a new facilitator)[edit]

The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

In addition, the WikiProject is seeking a new facilitator/coordinator to handle the logistics of the award. Please contact L235 if you are interested in helping with the logistics of running the award in any capacity. Remove your name from here to unsubscribe from further EotW-related messages. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


happy new year  :-)[edit]

Rainbow trout transparent.png Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

MelanieN, you are no beginner, so I am cutting to the chase and giving you the old-fashioned trout, straight up.

  • "just because comments are sourced [does not mean we cannot delete them from wikipedia if we personally consider them trivial to the point of nonsensical]"[16][17]
  • "notable"[18]
  • "notable"[19]

Methinks the reason that our mutual acquaintance, the ostentatious aficionado of title-case and overlinking, Drbogdan, who has been on wikipedia for eleven years and counting, was giving you the definition of WP:N, was perhaps to hint that elsewhere in the vast mass of WP:PAG there is a bit called WP:NOTEWORTHY which directly contradicts what you were saying. Whether some factoid is noteworthy -- aka fit to be mentioned in mainspace somewhere -- is defined by whether that factoid was found in a reliable source, not defined by whether individual wikipedians believe it to be true, or think it is encyclopedic, or whatever the case might be. (Topics can be unencyclopedic, but content of articles about encyclopedic-topic ought to neutrally mirror the sources.)

Notability does not determine article content, only sourcing does, and although consensus can cause tagging of unsourced material, and then deletion of unsourced material, and then deletion in of material that is sourced to unreliable or non-independent entities, that is not the case here. The stuff about Trump's film-faves and politician-prefs, is very well-sourced (at least some of it). So the question really *is* about WP:DUE, and thus *is* about whether we ought to keep it in the BLP-article, or move it to a subsidiary-article where the (well-sourced) material would be more appropriately organized/presented. There are extremely rare cases where even reliably-sourced neutrally-summarized material that meets all the usual policies, is still in fact deleted, but those should only be IAR scenarios and similar.

As a heuristic rule of thumb, any time you have wikipedians trying to argue for deleting well-sourced material -- as opposed to MOVING that well-sourced material to a more appropriate place on wikipedia -- then something is severely wrong. Having seen your editing history for some time, I am under no misapprehension that you personally are pushing a POV, or trying to cherrypick sources, or otherwise doing something naughty via deletion of well-sourced material. But I have seen exactly that, in the past, with other wikipedians that were quite obviously trying to slant what mainspace said, by deleting reliably-sourced material because it did not agree with the POV they wanted mainspace to push onto the readership. Again, I don't think that is happening here: you are legitimately aghast that fave-film 'in pop culture' trivia, might be polluting a series of articles about the presidency of a nuclear superpower. But let the sourcing be your guide -- how many RS do we have about candidates and their film-idiosyncrasies? By contrast, how many about their favorite ice-cream flavors? The former is a significant literature... not as wide as the opinion-polling literature base (but not as shallow either!), and not as deep as the books by historians (but usually broader than most deadtree-historians are willing and able). The latter, the ice-cream thing, is never anything but passing mention.

So, because it can be abused by people doing very naughty things indeed, in my wikibook™ the deletion of well-sourced material without a VERY solid policy-backed reason (to include IAR) is itself naughty. It should not be treated as normal/typical, or as a good/okay idea. When other people see you doing it, MelanieN, they will follow your lead. Edit summaries of "rv irrelevant" and also "rv trivia" and the old chestnut "rv non-encyclopedic" are sometimes necessary and sometimes on-point, just like "rvv" albeit not as often. That said, the sources aren't something we can be cavalier about; if they cover something that we personally consider crap, that does not make what the sources say crap, that just means wikipedia reflects what the sources say, and therefore for the sake of neutrality when it DOES really matter to the mission of building a neutral encyclopedia (e.g. sourcing about Trump's policy-positions on 'building the wall' and his explanations for how 'mexico will pay for it') it is utterly crucial methinks, that the groundwork has been properly laid in past discussions. If the sources fit, you must acquit.

I will also speak briefly, one last aside about what I presume Drbogdan intends, since I share that characteristic; constantly linking to wikipedia policy-pages, is intended to be a way of educating future visitors to the talkpage (or to the talkpage archives), some of whom will undoubtedly be actual beginners that have never heard of WP:BITE. So I pretty much habitually use bluelinks to policy-pages, not as a way of being insulting/sarcastic/whatever to the person I'm replying unto at that moment (they tend to be another long-time wikipedian with no need for the allcaps), but as a way to leave a trail of policy-backed-breadcrumbs for some lurker that is thinking about hitting edit, but has not yet dared to WP:BEBOLD. The man drives a Ferrari, and has a purple-squiggle-homepage-background-image, and was a forensic biochemist for the BATF. Please forgive him for his Xanadu-esque "Textual" Style -- methinks he's just trying to educate omnidirectionally. As for my own style, it also grates on some folks, but it is difficult to satisfy the eye of every beholder, both the observed ones and those which may currently be unobserved.

On that note, wishing you a happy & joyous new year, please indulge in some air-steamed or pan-fried or whatever you prefer seafood delicacy, and see you when you return from your vacation 47.222.203.135 (talk) 09:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for the trout. However, I am inclined to return it, with a nice almond-butter sauce. If you and your logged-in friend are actually saying (as you both appear to be) that everything that has ever been reported by any Reliable Source must be included somewhere in this international encyclopedia, then I think you deserve the trout more than I do. WP:RS is NOT the only criterion for inclusion. There are other criteria such as WP:NOTEWORTHY, which you were kind enough to link to here (and yes, I did say "notable" at the talk page when I meant "noteworthy", but I was following the lead of Drbogdan). Here is what WP:NOTEWORTHY says: "Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." WP:DUEWEIGHT is irrelevant here because this is not a matter of conflicting viewpoints that might affect WP:NEUTRALITY. More relevant, and also found at WP:NEUTRALITY, is the principle of WP:BALASP: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." In other words: We don't have to include everything, even if it is verifiable and impartial. We can and must exercise judgment, as encyclopedists, about what information is worth including here. Some things are simply not important enough to include in any existing article about the subject. Maybe, as someone suggested at the talk page, in an article called Donald Trump's opinions about historical and fictional characters. Or more broadly, Donald Trump's likes and dislikes. However, I doubt if such an article would survive AfD, no matter how many reliable sources were appended to support the various items - because people would simply not accept this kind of trivia as an encyclopedic topic. Anyhow, happy new year to you too, and see you at the talk page. MelanieN (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
The trout was for saying notable, and then going back and boldfacing it, when you obviously could not mean WP:N, which is a silly mistake, whether or not some other wikipedian may also have made the mistake  ;-)
Now, although I'm virtually allergic to virtual almonds and thus prefer my seafood a la carte, it is also possible that *I* am making a silly mistake of my own, and if so you are of course free to give me a strong helping of trout, or the more subtle reminder. Or just tell me, though that is a bit boring. You are close to what I mean to say: "everything that has ever been reported by any RS must (eventually) be included somewhere" but more importantly for our mutual sanity must NOT be deleted-in-every-article by mere !votes unless IAR or a similarly-crucial policy applies, is reasonably close to my personal stance. Just like IAR can be abused in the wrong hands, and thus ought be used sparingly, deletion of (as opposed to moving-to-another-article-of) any reliably-sourced material is very susceptible to abuse in the wrong hands, and thus ought be used sparingly. But to be clear, the extended discussion above, about my own idiosyncratic reasons and interpretations of the bit of policy which does apply, the WP:NOTEWORTHY thing (which most-unhelpfully references a lot of subtle policies like due weight and balanced-according-to-RS and 'other content policies'), was not part of the trout. It was just a followup, though it was intended to, if not necessarily convince you, at least prompt you to think about the question a bit. I will dump the remainder of my reply, the followup to the followup if you will, over on my own usertalkpage... if you care to keep chatting I am most happy to do so, but having already filled your screen once this year, I will bid you adieu :-) 47.222.203.135 (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Reversion Hires.png The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
To the Eradicator-in-Chief. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen () 18:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the barnstar. Keep those alerts coming! --MelanieN (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Off topic[edit]

Thanks for the comment here. It probably should have been ignored completely from the start. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Melanie, can you rev delete some IP edits on the Donald Trump talk page? I would have asked sooner but I just remembered you're an admin. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC) here and [20] and here and here. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Got 3 more from another article talk page: here and here and here. Thanks, Melanie. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I deleted one edit -- but it still should be revdeled. I don't have an opinion on inclusion of the fundraiser in this article. But, the edit I deleted was out of bounds. Thanks. Objective3000 (talk) 02:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. Discussion of the fundraiser is valid, but the allegations being made by the IP were not. I deleted the whole section and revdel'ed it. --MelanieN (talk) 03:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Melanie, I noticed on two of the revdels on my contributions here that the edit summaries seem to indicate they were in the Lede/&Election section on Donald Trump, but the edits look intact on the DT talk page. The edits I'm asking about are at 23:20 3 January and 22:54 3 January. I don't think the IP was in that section. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Right. Your edits are still there on the talk page, but your diff isn't visible in the history. It didn't matter what section it was, or whether or not the IP was involved in the diff. I had to revdel EVERY edit that was made while the offensive material was still live on the page. On the page for a diff, the entire talk page displays below the "what was changed" at the top. That meant that the offensive material was visible on every page until it finally got deleted. Clear as mud? --MelanieN (talk) 05:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes. Got it. Thanks. Also, thanks for blocking the other IP. I forgot about him. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
@SW3 5DL: I don't know what that other IP did (before starting a rampage of simple vandalism) but it must have been pretty bad. Their first edit on that page is not just revdel'ed, it is oversighted - so that even I can't see it. I'm surprised that whoever oversighted it didn't also block them. --MelanieN (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
@MelanieN:, you know that's interesting because a few years ago, I emailed the oversight for another BLP vio and they did the edits but didn't block the vandal. I wondered about that and then asked an admin about it and that admin blocked the guy. Yes, that IP was really on a tear. He was inserting all sorts of truly bad comments. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

RfA[edit]

I've added my co-nom below yours and the RfA is ready to go. If you have a moment , please transclude it - I have to go out. BTW: Happy New Year! Chris, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Are you about?[edit]

@MelanieN: Are you about? The IP is back. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

A little more information would help. Back where? --MelanieN (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
If you mean this [21]: it's probably the same person since that kind of IP address changes often. But so far they haven't done anything wrong. Keep an eye on them, and if they start violating BLP, delete it and tell me. --MelanieN (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but aren't they avoiding a block? Also, notice that they use ( preceding the signature. Remember who I mentioned to you? He does the same thing. It's the same fellow. And he commented on the talk page today. Isn't it the editor being blocked? SW3 5DL (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  • (2A00:23C4:638C:4500:F875:52D7:9F51:17C9 (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC))
  • (2A00:23C4:638C:4500:B0FC:5CF6:3969:12F5 (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC))
Both appear to track to London. But, that's not absolutely reliable. Objective3000 (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
They are different addresses. One is blocked for BLP violations. The new one has made only two contributions, both so far harmless. Blocks don't transfer from one IP to another even if we think it is probably the same person. And since that type of address changes spontaneously, it is not socking - i.e., using multiple IDs in an attempt to deceive - for them to post under the new address. --MelanieN (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Using ( is not part of the IP address. One has to do that deliberately, and the signed in editor there, does the same in his signature. True, he's not made BLP violations. But he's using multiple accounts on the same page. My understanding is that we're not to do that. They're all 3 on the same page, under the same topic. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
There is a strong feeling of WP:DUCK but I am not willing to block the new ones on that basis. Maybe one of my talk page stalkers is. Background: we are talking about a lot of BLP-violating edits that were made on the Trump talk page yesterday, causing me to revdel a bunch of edits and block the user ‪2a00:23c4:638c:4500:f875:52d7:9f51:17c9‬ for 2 weeks . The new IP is posting in the same section with many of the same mannerisms. I'm not sure we can even file an SPI investigation, because who do we list as the sockmaster? --MelanieN (talk) 23:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
P.S. I should add that I am very, very conservative (not to say, chicken) about blocking, so my hesitation shouldn't be used as a reason not to block these new users, if someone feels so inclined. In fact I should probably ask for a second opinion. --MelanieN (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
@Bbb23: It looks like you are around: what can you tell us about this kind of situation? This is the thread of concern: Talk:Donald Trump#Support for Provisional IRA? --MelanieN (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

{ec} I'd list this fellow, (AndyTyner (talk) as the sock master as he's the fellow who got the ball rolling on the entire topic. And he also uses the quirkly ( in his signature as do the IP's using their mobiles. (AndyTyner (talk) 10:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)) Notice how he does the same in the signature as the IPs. This ( is not needed and nobody else does it on WP, do they? SW3 5DL (talk) 23:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll give it a try. --MelanieN (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
OK, I filed it. We'll see what happens. Meanwhile keep an eye on things and let me know if there are any problems. --MelanieN (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Looks good. Should I mention it to the checkuser? SW3 5DL (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
If you have been consulting someone about this, yes, do tell them about the SPI. In fact I requested CU at the SPI report. --MelanieN (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I'll email him now. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I asked if he will confirm Andy Tyner is in London and gave him the link to the SPI. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
You should realize that the checkuser is NOT going to tell you if either of these IP addesses belongs to AndyTyner. They never publicly connect a registered account to an IP address. --MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I would guess 90% positive. But, I don't like WP:DUCK. I consider this as the same as the misguided concept that "if there's smoke there's fire". I respect Melanie's conservative approach to admin blocks without a noticeboard, much as noticeboards are incredibly slow, inefficient and annoying. But, anyone that is problematic will soon prove themselves as problematic in the future, and receive an eventual block. Objective3000 (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Objective. That was my feeling too: as soon as they become a problem, let 'em have it, but don't block them just on conjecture. Not that WP:DUCK is worthless; sometimes it is enough to establish a sock. But I wasn't willing to apply it in this case. --MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Aaaannnnddd... we have a winner! Turns out they are a long-term-abuse editor known as HarveyCarter. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HarveyCarter/Archive and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/HarveyCarter. Nice work nailing this guy, SW3 5DL! --MelanieN (talk) 01:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but you know it was your hammer that got the nail in. Good job. What a history. I'll mention it to the Checkuser. Yes, I know he can't geolocate. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Woof. That's some history. I always though Elvis was part of the IRA.:) Objective3000 (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

You might want to remove the comments here about his identifying signature quirk, in the chance he reads this page. Objective3000 (talk) 12:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I also mentioned it at the SPI report; he is more likely to see it there, and that can't be edited once it is closed. I have quietly made note of a couple of other distinguishing characteristics and will keep them in mind. But I may not see him again; he seems to favor Europe articles. BTW the good thing about going through the SPI process instead of simply duck-blocking him: the SPI process identified several other sock accounts as well as this one. --MelanieN (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that was most helpful. How did they identify him as this other fellow? Is there an automatic look see by a checkuser at SPI? SW3 5DL (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
It was a checkuser search and a checkuser block, yes. Very useful for finding "sleeper" accounts as well as for identifying sockmasters. --MelanieN (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you[edit]

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
For MelanieN. You are hereby awarded this Admin's Barnstar for carrying out a yeoman's work on the speedy revdels as well as facilitating the sorting of the sock responsible for the mess. Well done. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, SW3. It was definitely a team effort. --MelanieN (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Why did you remove the page on Billy Ruane?[edit]

I worked on that for hours, was trying to contrubute something new with good information which is the goal of wikipeida.. it's my assumption you have no conenction to the subject matter AND DIDN'T TAKE MUCH TIME TO READ WHAT WAS WRITTEN.. I was trying to catch up and had 9 cited sources, and you swooped in and seem to have delted the work done and not justified why.. seems like the people who came in and played god instead of contributing OR DIALOGUING are lost in the details of wikipedia instead of the point, which is to share information.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YesI'msure (talkcontribs) 19:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 01:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump[edit]

@MelanieN: I am bothered by that comment. I feel you could have equally conveyed meaning by simply showing the diff and reminding of me what I'd said. I don't think a parental tone is necessary. It comes across as a dressing down, which I don't feel is warranted. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry you were bothered, and I admit my comments did have a "parental tone". (Please realize I was speaking as one editor to another, and did not have my "admin hat" on.) I am just out the door and will reply in more detail later. --MelanieN (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. I have hardly been home all day, and during the brief times I did have at the computer, I weighed in at the Talk:Donald Trump discussion since it was moving so fast. But to respond to your comment: On thinking it over, I was wrong to post my criticism of you at the article talk page; I should have taken it to your talk page. I apologize for that. However, I did mean what I said. Your repeated insistence on including something that nobody else had supported was almost on the verge of becoming disruptive. And I notice something similar in today's discussion, where you chose your own version as one of the two RfC choices, even though I hadn't see anyone else express support for it, or for your odd wording "the fourth elected with fewer votes nationwide." "Consensus building" is what JFG, Mandruss, and Anythingyouwant have been doing: listening to what people say, and trying to distill the various viewpoints expressed into a well worded summary. --MelanieN (talk) 02:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh my goodness, that's not at all what's been happening there. If you go back and read everything in the "How About This" section, you will see where I went out of my way to accommodate, not to mention pinging all of you with changes and suggestions. As for this being my version, well, hardly. I changed it multiple times and did my best to make it grammatically correct while attempting to accommodate all the others as much as possible. I changed my own edit in the talkquote multiple times instead of creating a new one each time, and that might be why you don't see all the iterations. This really will benefit from fresh eyes and inviting the larger community to comment brings fresh ideas and solutions. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN:, Also can you do a page protection on Ireland-United States relations? We've got another IP inserting the Canary Wharf bit again. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I was offline. Another admin has taken care of it. --MelanieN (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Trump revdel[edit]

Not sure your revdel on Talk:Donald Trump erased everything as your last diff (redacation) is still visible. Objective3000 (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I had to make a null edit before I could redact that one. You can't revdel the last edit on a page. My revdel was only partial, the information is still available in some places if you know where to look. --MelanieN (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi MelanieN, Apologies for the interruption. Would it be possible for you to assess if recent edits at 2016 United States election interference by Russia also require RD2? Thanks in advance. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 02:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look. --MelanieN (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
@Ryk72: Thanks, got it. Good job with the deletion and partial restoration. If you see it anywhere else, let me know. The fact that there re allegations is not a problem, just the specifics. --MelanieN (talk) 03:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi MelanieN, I have just redacted something that might also need to be revdeleted. Regards, - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 10:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

TPO q[edit]

One editor has told me that the rules preclude the removal of the five instances of potty humor by anyone but the respective posters. Do you agree? ―Mandruss  17:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Make that four, I'll remove my own. ―Mandruss  17:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think removing it is called for. Hatting is probably more appropriate. Of course, you are free to remove your own. --MelanieN (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
The reason I suggested they might be removed was not because of the potty humor, but because they essentially suggested part of the allegations. Pretty obscure though, which is why I only hatted. Objective3000 (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Year In... articles[edit]

Hi. There's an editor who has created a mass of articles along the lines of 2003 in Croatian television. Not a single reference. Now, I've been marking them as reviewed, since we seem to have these types of articles, like 1990 in American television, and most of them are unsourced as they are list articles. But when I went to check on the editor's talk page, I noticed you had left this comment, almost 2 years ago. Since that time, the article has had 2 small edits to it. Should I simply continue to mark them as reviewed, and tagging them as unsourced, or take a different tack? Onel5969 TT me 22:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

You know, I'm really not that familiar with this type of article. I see that I did decline speedy, back when I was a brand-spanking-new admin, just because I hate it when people tag speedy-tag an article within minutes of its creation. And you are right, the article was hardly touched afterward and is barely a stub - which is also true of the few other "xxxx in Dutch television" articles. I checked to see if those red links in the grid represent articles that were deleted, but no; they were just never created. The existence of the grid implies that articles for the missing years are allowed and expected. This type of article is rarely looked at (0-5 views per day) and is obviously unmaintained, but clearly somebody thinks they are worth doing, and we do allow stubs. Apparently my (ignorant) instinct to decline the speedy tag was correct. My inclination would be to review and tag as you are doing, unless there is basically no content at all. That's just off the top of my head - maybe a talk page stalker would have more to add? --MelanieN (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. That was my inclination, and my practice, that if there was no content, just empty sections, I requested it be deleted, but as long as there is some content, even redlinks, I was going to let it stand. Onel5969 TT me 23:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

"She's a Trump supporter, I think"[edit]

Ha! "[Melanie] is a Trump supporter, I think"![22] You realize what an unintentional accolade that is? Better than a barnstar. You should put it on your userpage with floral wreaths round it. When people can't tell what politician or what ideology you're supporting, you're certainly doing something right. Bishonen | talk 23:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC).

I had the same thought. There are people who think I'm a flaming liberal and people who think I'm a Trump supporter. I guess that means I'm doing something right. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
And when I frame it and hang it on my wall, I should include Bastun's reply to my saying nobody knows who I support: "...er, yeah, sure." --MelanieN (talk) 00:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I think I get it - he thinks I was revdel'ing stuff the other day for political reasons, like maybe it made Trump look bad or something. Of course, he can't see what I revdel'ed so he doesn't know what it really was. --MelanieN (talk) 00:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Same user had a very similar reaction when I pushed for omission of Jane Doe at Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations. I was clearly a Trump apologist. Also, my reason for starting the RfC was clearly to keep the content out until after the election, since it was likely the RfC would run for the whole 30 days. Not only a Trump apologist, but a shrewd manipulator of the system as well. ―Mandruss  00:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot, Melanie, you were involved in the ANI that resulted from that, so this isn't news to you. ―Mandruss  01:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I do remember that accusation; I don't really remember an associated ANI. It's too bad that we have gotten to the point in this country that everything a person does, everything, is viewed by other people through a partisan filter, or ascribed to partisan motives. At least you, as a regular user, are ENTITLED to use RfC to promote your nefarious ends. If I had used my admin tools for political purposes, I would expect to be reported to the admin police. --MelanieN (talk) 01:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm, I'm not sure you detected what I thought was obvious sarcasm. I didn't really do anything for political purposes. If I had wanted to, it wouldn't have been that but rather the opposite of that. ―Mandruss  04:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
(That was the ANI that was closed in Swahili.) ―Mandruss  04:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Of course I got it - and for my part I thought it would be obvious that "promote your nefarious ends" was sarcasm. Darn the internet anyhow. Right, now I do remember it. --MelanieN (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
You know, I'm probably a Trump supporter too, because I have indefblocked many newly created accounts with names that abuse Trump — the actual account names, I mean — I won't give examples — admittedly a few that abuse Clinton, too, but there don't seem to be as many of those created. So statistically I must be a Trump apologist. And using my admin tools to manipulate the encyclopedia in his favor. Bishonen | talk 15:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC).
Sounds like you're manipulating the encyclopedia in favor of BOTH of them. What are you, some kind of one-worlder? (and for any onlookers, please realize that this whole thread is sarcastic - so that we don't have to keep pointing it out.) --MelanieN (talk) 16:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Your reversion of my edit[edit]

Yesterday, you reverted this edit to Donald Trump. I certainly understand your reasoning, and I'm not going to edit war over it, but I think a strong case could be made that the opinions of Trump's handpicked cabinet members, especially one that has been as controversial and outspoken as Sessions, is relevant to his political positions. He presumably chose his cabinet members to enact his own positions in their respective departments. The WordsmithTalk to me 15:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Wordsmith. I think it could very well be included in the "Political positions of Donald Trump" article. I just thought it was out of place in his biography. --MelanieN (talk) 15:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
You're probably right. I'll see if the content fits over there. The WordsmithTalk to me 15:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

U.S. politics[edit]

Hi, thanks for your work. As an administrator is it that you don't operate within the scope of U.S. politics? Do you consider yourself WP:involved in that topic. I often see you editing and using your administration tools within that topic? Govindaharihari (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, and your kind words at the AfD. I often edit on US politics articles so I consider myself INVOLVED in most of that area. I do NOT use my admin tools, except in extreme cases - like revdel'ing material that should not be visible, or blocking vandals. --MelanieN (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:ARBPIA sanction breach.[edit]

by Towns Hill. Notified of DS here; previously blocked here; now created article Pashtun Atrocities against Kashmiris. Which is pretty fundamentally concerned with the subject, as well as being extremely POV. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 14:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Fortuna, but I am not familiar enough with that area of DS to deal with it. Ask someone who deals with this kind of thing regularly. --MelanieN (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
No worries MN; me too! All the best, O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 14:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump[edit]

Hi,

You've been heavily involved with Donald Trump-related stuff, so I thought I'd ask you this. Is this revdel worthy, or is it just a sick joke? Adam9007 (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Adam. I don't think it needs revdel, just deletion - which you have done. But do feel free to let me know when you have a concern like this. --MelanieN (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Here's another one. I'm pretty sure he's never been impeached. Revdel material or bog standard vandalism? Adam9007 (talk) 03:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Standard vandalism. It helped that you reverted it literally the next minute! --MelanieN (talk) 04:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I reverted it because he edited someone else's comment. I noticed the BLP violation afterwards. Now I come to think of it, I've seen a lot of Donald Trump-related vandalism lately. But I suppose that's to be expected? Adam9007 (talk) 04:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately yes. But there are a lot of people watching that page, and the article itself is extended-confirmed protected. (For a couple of days there it was full-protected, which helped a lot during our crazy season here.) --MelanieN (talk) 04:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations[edit]

It seems that we must both be doing something right :/ GABgab 02:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm actually kind of sorry to see somebody melt down like this. But I am a firm believer in the essay about how to deal with disruptive people and especially socks: WP:RBI. --MelanieN (talk) 05:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Wondering if you could help[edit]

I saw edit as inappropriate and I cannot undo it. Am I doing something wrong? PackMecEng (talk) 03:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Pack, and thanks for the note. You do realize that edit is not at the English Wikipedia, en.wiki; it is at Wikimedia Commons. I'm not that familiar with Commons myself, but I don't know any reason why you couldn't edit there. If you tried to use UNDO and it didn't work, it is probably because there have been other intervening edits and the edit can only be undone manually. But here's what I would advise: that inappropriate edit has been seen, and ignored, by half a dozen regular editors there. They must not regard it as that big a problem, and I would suggest you forget it. Removing other editors' comments is forbidden in most circumstances. This one might be an exception but it isn't worth sticking your neck out for. --MelanieN (talk) 05:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Ah okay makes sense, fair enough. Thanks for the help! PackMecEng (talk) 13:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

It's been two years, today.[edit]

Wikipe-tan mopping.svg
Wishing MelanieN a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 16:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Chris and the birthday committee! How sweet of to remember my adminiversary! --MelanieN (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary[edit]

Wikipedia Administrator.svg Wishing MelanieN a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Draft proposal for moratorium[edit]

PROPOSED:

A 6-month moratorium on the infobox image. The current infobox image, File:Donald Trump official portrait.jpg, will not be modified or replaced until at least 22 July 2017. If modfications to the image (e.g. cropping or touch-up) are desired for another project, it should be cloned to a new image for that purpose. At some point before that date, we may decide to extend the moratorium for another period of duration to be determined then.

During the moratorium period, new threads about the infobox photo should be collapsed immediately with a link to the consensuses list, preferably indicating the relevant item number, which will include a link to this consensus. If a thread receives replies before it can be collapsed, it should be collapsed anyway. Use {{Cot}} and {{Cob}}, not {{Atop}} and {{Abot}}.

Mandruss  03:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Looks good to me. --MelanieN (talk) 03:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
@Mandruss: As a disinterested observer, would an exception if, and only if, the "official" portrait changes be too much? Would it open up wormcans? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 04:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
@Ryk72: Hi, see Talk:Donald Trump#New official portraits, a subsection of the proposal, and admittedly a bit of an afterthought. ―Mandruss  10:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Full References[edit]

I am here for my class on full references. I have been using REfill() and it seems to work ok, but I need to understand what you mean by full references. Octoberwoodland (talk) 04:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to class. 0;-D If you are using ReFill it ought to do more for you. Here is what I am talking about: Your references look like this in the edit window <ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/lawsuit-trump-businesses-violate-constitution/2017/01/23/87c0df26-e174-11e6-a419-eefe8eff0835_story.html|title=Lawsuit: Trump business ties violate Constitution|publisher=}}</ref> and they look like this in the reference list: [1]

This only gives you the title of the article and a link; the reader has to click the link to know any reference details, like where it was published and when. A full reference would also show, at a minimum, the publication and the date. It can also show the authors. Like this: <ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/lawsuit-trump-businesses-violate-constitution/2017/01/23/87c0df26-e174-11e6-a419-eefe8eff0835_story.html?utm_term=.eaa4063b1b89|title=Lawsuit: Trump business ties violate Constitution|last=Condon|first=Bernard|date=January 23, 2017|work=Washington Post|accessdate=24 January 2017}}</ref> which comes out looking like this.[1]

  1. ^ Condon, Bernard (January 23, 2017). "Lawsuit: Trump business ties violate Constitution". Washington Post. Retrieved 24 January 2017. 

This fomat allows a person to see what the publication is, and the date of publication. Those are key indicators that people want to see, to determine whether the publication is an Independent Reliable Source and when it was published. Those in turn are things people will use to decide if the subject has sufficient coverage to deserve an article.

You might want to experiment with ReFill (I'm not familiar with it) and see if it will give you ways to enter the rest of the information. If not, come back for lesson 2 and I'll show you what I use. It's a tool right here in the edit window, but it isn't automated; you have to enter the information into the fields manually, i.e., copy-paste. --MelanieN (talk) 04:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Refill() actually will fill in all of this information IF IT CAN LOCATE IT from tags on the websites content. So I am guessing I need to fill in these field manually if refill() cannot determine it. Refill() is located here -> [23] Octoberwoodland (talk) 05:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I am ready to try your tool. Octoberwoodland (talk) 05:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, it's really quite easy and convenient. When you are in the edit window, there is a row of buttons along the top. One of them is "cite". Click that and it gives you a choice of types of source: web, news, journal, etc. Most of what you will be posting falls under the category of news. Click that and it gives you a form to fill out: url, title, author, date of publication, etc. Fill in manually, or copy-paste. When you have it filled out, put your cursor at the place in the text where you want the reference to go, and click "add citation." That's important! If you don't click "add citation" before previewing or saving, the information will be lost and you will have to do it over. Try it! Choose a newspaper article - here is one you can practice on. Put it in another window so you can go back and forth to copy-paste. Write something here and see if you can cite the article as a reference. --MelanieN (talk) 05:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

And with that, good night. Lessons can continue in the morning if needed. --MelanieN (talk) 05:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I am looking this over on the toolbar. :-) Octoberwoodland (talk) 06:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I apologize for butting in.
You would do well to learn how to use WP:SFN formatting and WP:Citation templates. See also Help:Shortened footnotes.
And you should be aware of (and wary of) WP:CITEVAR. Some of our editors get stuck in their rut, and it is a trap for the unwary. I have had mixed reactions in that. I won't bore you with the details (but speaking of bore, I got positive feedback when I fixed the mess at Smith & Wesson.
And using EFN refs can give your article a whole new dimension. see Yank Levy, for example.
Just a few suggestions. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen () 19:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

A cookie for you![edit]

Choco chip cookie.png 3-days is very much appreciated. Thank you so much for granting our request. Whooossshhhh (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the cookie. Sorry it couldn't be longer. Good luck with the article. --MelanieN (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Editing search result subtitles[edit]

Hi, I want to edit the subtitle that comes up for an article when I type its name in the searchbar of the main www.wikipedia.org page. The current one is NPOV. How do I do that? NPalgan2 (talk) 03:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Solved - nvmd NPalgan2 (talk) 08:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Glad I could help. 0;-D Thanks for asking. --MelanieN (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

DS at Trump?[edit]

This edit was made 14 days after they received the DS advice. Some kind of DS is in order. ―Mandruss  21:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'll look into it. --MelanieN (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Just to point out: Such warnings as the one you left on my talk page (after I had already one) were not accorded to those who vandalized Hillary Clinton and Meryl Streep's wikipedia pages. In the subjects's case the edit was well-deserved and should not in any way undermine my 6 years hard work on Wikipedia (as self-centered as that sounds). I gave my explanation to Dustin V.S., who warned me in a very cool and collected manner. Just by looking at your user page one can tell that you are biased, so I suggest we let cooler heads prevail.Radiohist (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Your attempts to justify such extreme vandalism of a Wikipedia page - any Wikipedia page - do not speak well for you. 'Nuff said, since I do not take admin actions at that page - because I am WP:INVOLVED in editing and discussing at that page. --MelanieN (talk) 23:52, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Once again, let cooler heads prevail. And forgive me for my comment that you were biased. I was mislead by the picture on your user page.Radiohist (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I wondered where that came from. Somebody accused me of POV COI editing because they thought I was Melania Trump - and after we all had a good laugh I posted that "not me!" picture on my page. --MelanieN (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I have a userbox for you Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
My mistake, Melanie, I thought I had seen you take admin action there in issues where you were not otherwise involved. I should have approached a different admin. It's clear enough from things like "well-deserved" that this user still doesn't get it. ―Mandruss  00:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Please WP:DROPTHESTICK.Radiohist (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Stick dropped. Count your blessings that you're not enjoying an involuntary 1-week wikibreak. You caught a break. ―Mandruss  00:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Once again, WP:DROPTHESTICK, User:Mandruss Radiohist (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Steven Moffat article links to the wrong Tony Dow[edit]

Hi, You've protected Steven Moffat's page so I can't correct the link to Tony Dow. It should be (dir. Tony Dow) Let me know if you want me to make the edit. Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kindadella (talkcontribs) 10:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Kindadella, you should be able to edit that article. You have been here long enough, and have enough edits, to be an autoconfirmed user. I have fixed this in your user rights. Try again, you should be able to edit the article now. --MelanieN (talk) 14:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks. I've fixed the link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kindadella (talkcontribs) 15:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Kenneth Folingsby[edit]

Hi. Could you explain why Kenneth Folingsby was SDed? If you google him, you can find many entries about him and his book, IMO proving that he is significant. Thanks--Mpaa (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mpaa: Thanks for your note. The Kenneth Folingsby article was deleted because it contained no verified information, and did not establish a claim that the person was significant. The article said, it its entirety,

Possible pseudonym of a probable Scotsman, author of Meda: a Tale of the Future (1891).

Nothing there to indicate that he even existed, or what his real name was, or anything at all about him. If we Google him we do find that the book exists, but not even the minimal information about him which is needed to establish a biographical article. It might be possible to write an article about the book, if you can find enough information. We do know when it was written, and that it has been republished in modern times, and that it has an entry in the Science Fiction Encyclopedia. If you are interested in this subject I would suggest you create an article about the book instead, with proper sourcing. But I have to warn you that it might not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria and might get deleted again. It is not enough that a book exists; it has to meet certain criteria spelled out at WP:NBOOK. Sorry I couldn't be more help. --MelanieN (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the advice. My view anyhow is that the process is very discouraging to say the least. Risk & reward is not balanced. Why should someone invest a lot of time in writing something, risking that it would not be accepted? A 'seed and let grow' approach would be a better approach.--Mpaa (talk) 22:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
"Seed and let grow" can work in drafts, but if it is going to go in the encyclopedia it does have to meet certain standards. And that can be frustrating. A lot of people find that the most rewarding way to contribute to Wikipedia is not to create new articles, but to edit and improve existing articles. You can still add to the sum of knowledge here, and as long as your edits are helpful - and (if you are adding substantial new material) sourced - your work is much more likely to be retained. That's how I got hooked here. That's how most of us volunteers here got hooked on Wikipedia. Not by trying to launch new articles when we are new ourselves, but by reading, noticing things that need improving, and fixing them. --MelanieN (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Acts of Sharbel[edit]

Hello, I'm wandering if you could retype the lead for the article Acts of Sharbel. I'm horrible when it comes to leads. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you are asking me to do - and I'm unfamiliar with that area of Wikipedia. I suggest you ask one of the regular contributors there. --MelanieN (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Neil Gorsuch articles[edit]

I noticed that you have been editing both articles concerning Gorsuch, his bio and the nomination page. I have been arguing for the Fascism Forever information be kept out of the articles, as you have also. There is an editor in Wikipedia that has decided that he is going to solicit other editors to force the information into the articles. To support this claim, please note this edit: Monopoly31121993 plea to Wizardman. This comment on your talk page is just a heads up.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 18:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I think we can trust Wizardman not to overreact, but I'll keep an eye on it and chime in if I think it is necessary. --MelanieN (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Apologies[edit]

I apologize for being involved in what was about become an untenable mess and a bad situation. Thanks for intervening. I did say I was going to self-revert and restore removed content. But you got there first. And I am glad. Whew! Crisis averted. Well, onward and upward. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The DS are very confusing. That's why there was a whole little informal seminar on my talk page, with more experienced admins explaining the rules to me. We really ought to be able to write rules that a 10-year editor can understand! BTW I'm glad I was the one to restore them and not you. Let the consequences, if any, fall on me. --MelanieN (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Regarding consequences - thanks for that. Can you provide a link to that "little informal seminar on my talk page" explaining the DS rules with more experienced Admins? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I provided two links in my note there. They just look like 1 and 2. Maybe I should make that clearer. --MelanieN (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I thought your comment was very helpful and constructive, Melanie. I have reverted the freshly added content that Marek challenged, but not touched any of the longstanding content which may represent stable consensus. SPECIFICO talk 22:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I couldn't tell which was longstanding and which was not. --MelanieN (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Not longstanding material[edit]

Melanie, regarding this - that is NOT "longstanding material" as far the lede goes. Here is what happened:

Glenn Greenwald and Masha Gessen are in the Expert assessment section. I guess one can argue that *in that section* this is "long standing material".

But there was a lot of discussion of whether this was UNDUE on the talk page. There really wasn't any consensus one way or another.

THEN, someone - BlueSalix I believe - went and got super obnoxious and added the material on Greenwald and Gessen that several users were objecting to being in the article at all, to the LEDE. It's hard to see this as anything as a user trying to act in a POINTy and provocative manner ("ha ha, you don't like this in here, I'm not only gonna not let you remove it, I'm gonna stick it in the lede to rub it in").

Clearly, this material IN THE LEDE is NOT "long standing". It is also still in the relevant section.

So please undo your restoration. I'm pretty sure I'm right on this one. Thank you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually it looks as if SPECIFICO already restored the lede as it was a couple of days ago. That looks like a proper action to me. But let's take this discussion to the talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Is this acceptable?[edit]

Hi,

Not sure if you're the right person to ask this, but here goes. I noticed an article had been incubated, but the redirect left behind had not been tagged for R2. Instead of tagging it for R2 and waiting for an admin to delete it, I sort of did it myself by reverting the move and redoing it without leaving a redirect. I realise that's probably not the proper way to do it, but is there anything wrong with doing that? I get the feeling I've somehow gamed the system in some way here. Adam9007 (talk) 04:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Adam! Well, what you did worked, and it wasn't against any rule, but I wouldn't recommend this method - because the history logs it creates [24] [25]] are much less clear than a straightforward "this one got moved to draft space" and "this one got deleted per R2". --MelanieN (talk) 15:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
It didn't violate any rule I'm aware of, but it feels both right and wrong, if that makes any sense (or maybe it's just me?). I thought it might be considered some sort of abuse because I used it to effectively do what only admins are supposed to be able to do, which is probably not its intended use. The "Adam deleted redirect" entry in the deletion log may also confuse people who are not familiar with moving over redirects (I think I saw you involved with something like that recently?), although it was a G6 deletion, not R2. But, as you say, it worked and is not strictly speaking wrong. Adam9007 (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
It wasn't wrong, and there's no need for you to agonize over it. But in the future I would suggest using the more standard (and more efficient) procedure of simply tagging it R2. --MelanieN (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it's difficult not to agonise over things given recent (and some not-so-recent) events. I think my carefree days here are over :(. Adam9007 (talk) 04:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Publishing password[edit]

Hi, Melanie, I noticed you took care of this. But, in view of the password publication, don't you think the account name itself is highly suspect? Not that I think it needs blocking... just yet... but let's keep an eye on it. Bishonen | talk 16:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC).

Thanks, I will. Their only two edits so far are benign, but one of our old sockmaster friends is prowling about right now so I'll keep an eye on it. --MelanieN (talk) 17:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the hat[edit]

Thanks for the hat [26] - very stylish. it looks good on me and is a nice fit. Can't wait to show it off! Shade.png. Did you get it at Nordstrom? (hahahaha...)

Seriously, it was the correct thing to do. I was considering doing this myself, but since I was involved in the conversation, I didn't know how it would be received. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for taking it in good humor. Actually you had given me the perfect opportunity to close the discussion, because you had just said something about taking it to user talk pages. A good clue that the discussion was ripe for closure. --MelanieN (talk) 02:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Trump[edit]

Hi again,

You're an expert on Donald Trump (you're much more involved with stuff relating to him than I am anyway), so you might want to take a look at what's happening here? It's beginning to show signs of edit warring. Adam9007 (talk) 04:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I've left a note on Chris' page. A combination of an over-eager editor, very little knowledge of Wikipedia processes, and some not-so-ideal opinions on his fellow editors. --NeilN talk to me 04:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Request[edit]

Can you semi-protect the pages Tropical house, Now That's What I Call Music! discography to persistent multiple edit warring from UK (including Special:Contributions/92.20.174.160) 115.164.223.186 (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I protected Now That's What I Call Music! discography for a month - multiple additions of unsourced/WP:CRYSTAL content. There has not been enough recent disruption at Tropical house to require protection. --MelanieN (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


need a revdel[edit]

Melanie, got another editor over on Donald Trump posting the same BLP vio on the talk page. I just deleted his post on the talk page. Please go revdel it before it spreads further. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't help you. I am out of town and don't have access to my tools. I see that it did get revdel'ed. --MelanieN alt (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Bowling Green massacre[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg On 21 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bowling Green massacre, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that U.S. presidential counselor Kellyanne Conway's mention of a nonexistent massacre in Bowling Green, Kentucky, went viral? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bowling Green massacre. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Bowling Green massacre), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Accidental use of rollback[edit]

Hi,

Do you reckon this edit summary would be considered uncivil? I got irritated that my mobile phone had gone haywire (again) and behaved as if I'd pressed buttons I know I hadn't, especially as it had already happened earlier. I made sure that I was clicking the right link by pressing long so that a dialogue box opened with the URL to the link appeared with a list of actions. In this case, I didn't even intend to open that page, let alone roll it back. I had actually pressed this diff to view it: the dialogue box opened with its URL and I pressed open. You can imagine my surprise when I instead got "Action Complete" with a message saying that some other page had been rolled back. At no point did I press any button marked "rollback". Obviously, if this is what's going to happen, I will not be continuing to do it that way. It used to ask me for confirmation when I pressed rollback (or my phone thought I did), thank god, but didn't here for some reason. And of course it's harder to revert myself (or make any edit) on my phone than it is on my PC, which could only add to my frustration as I was of course in a rush to revert myself. I can't help but feel I said something that I should probably have kept to myself? Adam9007 (talk) 01:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

LOL! I suspect we have all felt that way about our phones sometimes; you expressed it very succinctly. What happened here was probably what I call Big-Fingers-Small-Buttons syndrome. It happens all the time when you are trying to edit from your phone; you intend to press THIS button and instead you press THAT button, just because the buttons are so small and close together. And that's the trouble with Rollback: it does NOT give you a "confirm" option or a chance for second thoughs; it just goes ahead and does it. That's why I had Rollback disconnected, back before I became an admin; I got tired of having to send groveling apology notes to people I had unintentionally reverted. (I now have Rollback because it comes with the admin tool package, but since I don't ever use my admin ID on my phone it isn't a problem.) I don't know any way around this, except to ask to have Rollback removed from your account. Maybe a talk page stalker knows some kind of clever workaround, but I don't. --MelanieN (talk) 01:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Found a way! The rollback link no longer appears on my watchlist (which is where I was pressing the links), but is still available on diffs and user contributions. The problem is not that I'm accidentally pressing rollback, but that something is going on in the background that interferes with recognition over what's being pressed. I also had one occasion where I clicked the link to an AfD, the URL on the dialogue box was to the AfD, but when I pressed "Open", it took me to someone's user page instead. I can only assume something's loading. I've noticed that Twinkle doesn't seem to load on my phone a lot of the time. Maybe I ought to try a different browser. Adam9007 (talk) 02:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Congratulations, well done! Now you will have to find OTHER reasons to cuss out your phone. (Modern life provides plenty of reasons.) As you say it may be a loading problem: even on my desktop, I sometimes click on something but then everything moves down on the page because of some notice or other loading, and I wind up somewhere other than I intended. --MelanieN (talk) 02:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I've noticed that too. But some of the stuff that's happened on my phone you probably wouldn't believe unless I showed you: I remember occasions when I was editing, and for some reason the whole source turned into a load of coloured bars. I couldn't see what I was doing and couldn't be sure that wasn't what was going to be saved to the page! Another time, my phone seemed to want to paste the entire source into the edit summary without me copying it to the clipboard (I think I was once trying to copy something, and one of those kept happening. I had to do the edit summary first. It ultimately took about 10 minutes. On my PC it would have taken seconds.) Other times the whole editing thing just went haywire: I couldn't fix the cursor anywhere. This happened even in mobile mode. And all this was without internet connexions dying on me and the browser crashing, which are also regular occurrences. By the way, my phone does ask me for confirmation if I press rollback (I get a dialogue box saying "rollback x edit(s) by whoever?"), but for some reason did not here. Whether it only asks if I short press it, or if I press it from somewhere other than the watchlist, I don't know, but I'd much rather it continue asking me for confirmation in case I ever do accidentally press it. Adam9007 (talk) 02:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, that's interesting - that you get a confirmation. Because the definition of Rollback is that it works with a single mouse-click. (Do you get a confirmation on your desktop too?) It sounds like you didn't need one more reason to cuss out your phone; you already have many reasons. Things happen mysteriously all the time. You may have noticed a saying on my user page, that I find to be both funny and profound: I used to have a dream that someday my computer would be as easy to use as my phone. And my dream came true. Because now I don't understand my phone either. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 02:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
No, I don't get asked for confirmation on my PC. I remember one occasion on my phone when I pressed something, and at that moment things moved around, so I actually pressed, you guessed it, rollback. It definitely asked me for confirmation, and I of course pressed cancel. Nothing actually happened, thank heavens. I don't often press rollback on my phone, but it asked me for confirmation on other occasions too. Adam9007 (talk) 02:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Add: It turns out that it's supposed to ask for confirmation: There's an option on the "Gadgets" tab in Preferences that says "Require confirmation before performing rollback on mobile devices", which I have checked (and will continue to leave checked of course :)). I also came across this script which might be of use... Adam9007 (talk) 03:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Very good, again! You have now found several solutions to this problem (which was obviously a problem for a lot of people which is why they created the gadget). So at least that's one way your phone should annoy you any more. --MelanieN (talk) 03:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I've installed the script and set it to ask for confirmation from the watchlist on all devices. If I continue to get problems, I may hide the links from the watchlist again. Adam9007 (talk) 03:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)