User talk:MelanieN

For your perusal.....

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

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

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

Required Notification

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

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

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

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

Notice

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

Recent RfCs on US city names

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Harassment?

I checked, and it doesn't look like you've ever made an edit to the talk page of the Drew Pinsky article. However, you recently came there after I made a comment after interacting with me on a different article and cast personal aspersions on my editing and behavior and opposed an edit I was suggesting. I searched around Wikipedia and found this: WP:HOUND. Is what you're doing a violation of that policy? TweedVest (talk) 14:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

No, it is not. The same link also says "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes." I know there are people who track my edits; that's par for the course. It's true I have a concern about your editing, since it has appeared up to now that your only purpose here is POV, to push a particular story (Clinton's health, and in particular Dr. Drew's comments about Clinton's health). But I have not been following your edits, and I did not show up at that article by tracking your contributions. I had watchlisted the Drew Pinsky article several weeks ago. So of course the subject title "Comments on Hillary Clinton's health" caught my eye. I trust you will respect what appears to be the consensus there, to report his termination without linking it to (or mentioning) his comments about Clinton's health. --MelanieN (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with MelanieN.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

More Trump

Melanie, two quick questions for you about your recent edit to the birther stuff. First, isn't chronological better? By moving the school record stuff to the end, and omitting the chronological "while seeking the certificate" preface, don't you make it sound like the cited source is referring to after release of the long form? I think so. Second, here is the Trump quote from 2015 that's in the footnote, answering whether Obama was born in the U.S.: "I really don't know. I mean, I don't know why he wouldn't release his records. But you know, honestly, I don't want to get into it". This statement clearly says some stuff, and (in true Trump fashion) is somewhat ambiguous about other stuff; I would feel more comfortable if we say in the article body only the clear stuff. Would that be okay? Right after saying "I don't know", he clarified or elaborated or waffled that what he doesn't know is why Obama wouldn't release his records. Also, please let me know if it's any problem putting this message here; feel free to move it to the article talk page if you like.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Here is fine. As you say, Trump is often unclear. To me, when he was asked "Was Obama born in the U.S.?" and he replied "I don't know", that was the meat of his reply. So you think "I mean" was intended as a clarification, that that was what he meant by "I don't know"? I interpreted it as just a interjection, a meaningless part of speech; some people say "I mean" every few sentences. But since you read it as a clarification, that is justifiable and I will revert. I do think it is better to put the "academic records" thing separately at the end of the sentence; otherwise it interrupts a train of thought, which is Trump defending his birther comments. I think the word "also" makes it clear this is a separate issue, not part of the birther chronology. Are you OK with that? --MelanieN (talk) 18:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I could live with the school records thing at the end, if we restore the prefatory "While calling for release of the long form certificate". My spell-checker wanted to say predatory instead of prefatory! If he had just said "I mean" and then something unconnected to the prior remark, that would be one thing, but he verbatim repeated "I don't know".Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll restore that if it's important to you. It just struck me as redundant/unnecessary, but it does make the chronology clearer. --MelanieN (talk) 18:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Thx. Wikipedia will have to somehow live without me for a little while. I'm off to buy groceries.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

You might ask yourself....

How many times has Trumps said "I don't know". I'm not sure but it's plenty. Here is just a small sample I collected: ==

• "... She may or may not have a university degree: Trump has said she has a degree in design and architecture from a Slovenian University. ..... I don't know why, you'll have to ask him.
• Jul 27, 2016 - Trump said. ..... And I don't know how people make it on $7.25 an hour.
• February 28, : “I don't know anything about David Duke,” to Jake Tapper.
• "I often hire people that were on the opposing side of a deal that I respect. .... I said to the bankers, "Listen, fellows, if I have a problem, then you have a problem. ..... Maybe that's right, maybe that's wrong, but I don't know why he doesn't he ..."
• Jul 27, 2016 - TRUMP: I never met Putin, I don't know who Putin is. He said one nice thing ..... How many times do I have say that? Are you a smart man?
• "...the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don't know.”
• "August 8/9 - ""I don't know. ... And Obama said that he did it because we don't have a working account with Iran ... How long does it take to set up an account?
• July 28, 2016 - According to Trump, Putin "could not have been nicer." ... I don't know anything about him other than he will respect me."
• ...then said he would not raise the issue himself "because I don't know enough to really discuss it.".
• Jul 17, 2016 - I don't know if you can remember the last time we have seen a world this much in chaos. You even said, "It's spinning apart." Are you ready for ....

I know nothing!

I'm sure there are many many many more. I stopped collecting. Maybe he uses it as a throw away like "...you know what...." Any way, I just saw this conversation and thought you might both be interested. Buster Seven Talk 19:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the collection. It's one of many ways he manages to avoid being definite. --MelanieN (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I predict a return of The Know-Nothing Party after the general election...up-dated and renamed The I Don't Know-Nothing Party. Buster Seven Talk 06:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The party's mascot could be Sgt. Schultz: "I know nothing!" --MelanieN (talk) 08:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

and Sergeant-at-arms. Buster Seven Talk 14:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Boy, we could use one of THOSE this election! --MelanieN (talk) 15:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Disentangling PolitiFact RSN question 2

At RSN:Is PolitiFact a reliable source for fact checking?, I was trying to translate question 2 into simple English. Current wording:

'Is PolitiFact a reliable source for reporting the percentage of false statements made by a political candidate (of the statements checked by PolitiFact), provided that attribution is given?'

Here's where I stopped.

'Is the Politifact subsidiary of the Tampa Bay Times a reliable source for material about the ratio of false statements made by a candidate and checked by PolitiFact to true statements made by a candidate and checked by PolitiFact?'

I'd have to say, yes, it's clearly a "reliable source" for the material.
But does that mean it's a "reliable third-party source" for it?
Probably not. It may not be a third-party source for it, period. In which case we're about to crash into a WP:SOURCE wall. And pity the poor back-seat driver who's first to point it out...
The question may need to get reworded, perhaps like this:

'Is PolitiFact a third-party source for material about the ratio of false statements made by a candidate and checked by PolitiFact to true statements made by a candidate and checked by PolitiFact?'

Should someone start a new subsection? A new RSN? (Please, let it not be me!!!) --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Some possibly relevant lyrics: Rodgers & Hammerstein, "A Puzzlement", The King and I. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to get that deep into the weeds. The discussion at Talk:Donald Trump has been closed. The closer said we should use other sources, not just fact-checkers. That has been done. As for the discussion at the RS noticeboard, I totally don't understand the claim that fact checkers are not "third party" sources, or are somehow "primary" sources, but I"m not going to get into it. --MelanieN (talk) 14:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

RE:KAI

OK, I have school coming up, and nobody else is going to work on this (I'm pretty sure not a lot of people even know it still exists in any form), so I was wondering if you could release this back into the public so other people can work on it. I mean, there's not much to write about, I found what I could, and found some information regarding her own singles, EP, the reason for her name, etc... Can you please take a look at the article again and decide if it's worthy to be resurrected. K. Thanks! Again, sorry to bother you just a few days after my last message on your talk page. Esmost ^πк 04:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

@Esmost: I can see that you have done a lot of work on the article. You have added her individual singles (one of the objections at the deletion discussion was that she hasn't done anything notable in her OWN name). You added a 2011 award nomination for her as an individual. The article is now significantly different from the one that got deleted, so it should not get speedy-deleted per WP:G4 (which means, re-creation of something that was deleted via discussion, when the re-creation is not significantly different from the one that was deleted). However, it could still get deleted via another Articles for Deletion nomination. You don't want that to happen. If an article gets deleted multiple times it looks bad in the history; if it happens too many times the article might even get "locked" so that no-one can re-create it. Let me do this: I will ask another editor who knows more about music criteria than I do. If they think it has a chance I will restore it. If they think it is likely to get deleted again, I will move it from the Magusmusic user space to your user space, so that you can continue to expand it. You have been doing the best you could, but the real problem is, as you said, "there's not much to write about". Until there IS significant stuff to add to the article - until her career moves to the next level as far as publicity and achievement - she's still not going to meet the requirements for an article as spelled out at WP:MUSICBIO. But hold on, let me get another opinion, and then we'll see. --MelanieN (talk) 15:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

@Esmost: Good news! The other editor found that she passes WP:MUSICBIO and restored the article to mainspace. --MelanieN (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Awwww, thanks! Esmost ^πк 18:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome, and I have thanked the other editor on your behalf. Do continue to expand the article as best you can. The other editor's opinion is that it meets our guidelines, but someone could still nominate it for AfD if they disagree. --MelanieN (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Mexican citizenship

This is getting a bit off-topic at the Trump article. The matter of birthright citizenship in Mexico has intricacies that Politifact did not address. Here is the Constitution of Mexico. Article 34 says that no one becomes a Mexican citizen at birth, and can only become a citizen at age 18, and therefore no one has birthright citizenship in Mexico, much less children of people unlawfully in the country. Moreover, Article 37 (Part A.I) says that a Mexican-born minor will lose his Mexican nationality and therefore never become a Mexican citizen if he and his parents are deported and voluntarily acquire nationality in another country than Mexico. Additionally, Article 37 (Part B.VI) says that, even if the Mexican-born minor is never deported and therefore becomes a Mexican citizen at age 18, his citizenship can be revoked due to the immigration status of his parents.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, I know that the Mexican version is a little different from ours. In fact NO child is a Mexican citizen at birth, no matter what its parentage; per the Mexican constitution you only become a "citizen" and thus able to vote when you turn 18. But that's semantics. The bottom line is that a child born in Mexico of foreign parents has exactly the same status as a child born in Mexico of Mexican parents; they just call it "nationality". They don't call it "citizenship" until the person reaches majority. A child born in Mexico to foreign parents is a Mexican citizen, or will be when he reaches 18, and to claim that Mexico does not have birthright citizenship is false. The Mexican birthright is not absolute - it can be revoked in some circumstances - but without such revocation they are a citizen. Note that our article Jus soli lists Mexico as one of the countries with unrestricted birthright citizenship. Most of the 33 countries that have some form of birthright citizenship are in the Americas, as I'm sure you found out in your research. Take Canada, which granted Canadian citizenship to Ted Cruz even though neither of his parents were Canadian - and which Donald Trump knew perfectly well since he was always going on about Cruz's citizenship. So much for "we are the only ones dumb enough, stupid enough to have it." --MelanieN (talk) 19:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Melanie, you play so fast and loose with facts. Ted Cruz's parents were not in Canada unlawfully. Anyway, shall we part friends now? 🙂Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I will ignore the accusation that I "play fast and loose with the facts" and continue to regard you as a friend. We have different opinions sometimes; hopefully we won't accuse each other of lying when we do. (And BTW Cruz would have been a Canadian citizen even if his parents had been in Canada unlawfully.) --MelanieN (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Maybe so, but I don't think Trump mentioned Canada. Everyone knows Canadians don't count! Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Roly Bain

That's a lovely job done at Roly Bain. I'm not much of a frequenter at DYK but surely there is something worth nominating there? - Sitush (talk) 23:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Great idea! I'll get to work on it. --MelanieN (talk) 00:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@Sitush: Thanks for the suggestion. He was such a character, he inspired some marvelous hooks! The DYK has been approved but not yet queued; look for it on the front page sometime soon. --MelanieN (talk) 17:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Good stuff! - Sitush (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Writegeist and BLP violation

Hi MelanieN,

I refactored part of a post by Writegeist that seems to be a clear BLP violation. I understand that this is a talk page, but BLP applies to ALL pages. I will not revert again, even though BLP violations I believe allow more that 1 revert. I appreciate your post that the talk page is not a forum. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 22:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Lol! Writegeist (talk) 23:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

No worries

You’re far from being the first—or last—to accidentally misattribute comments at a talk page. And as a rule your own comments at the Trump discussions are outstandingly rational, temperate, and intelligent. So no hard feelings. Writegeist (talk) 23:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Replied at the article talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 00:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

A discussion you may be interested in

I have just made a new nomination for renaming categories for those U.S cities where the article doesn't include the state name. Since you participated in a recent discussion about this, you may want to express your opinion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 6#Major US cities. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Pings

Hi

Just thought I'd mention, with regards to this edit, your ping didn't work. It's quite fussy (to avoid generating duplicate pings if you just edit a message). From Wikipedia:Notifications#Triggering events

Note that the post containing a link to a user page must be signed; if the mention is not on a completely new line with a new signature, no notification will be sent.

Apologies if you already knew all this - just mentioning because I fell for that a few times myself... Cheers. -- Begoon 02:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's interesting. As you can see, when I decided to ping you I did erase my signature and put in a fresh set of four tildes to generate a new sig. But I never heard the bit about needing to be on a new line as well as a new signature. Always learning at this place. Thanks for the information. MelanieN alt (talk) 04:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it's very fussy. If you look at the diff, although you erased your signature and put in a fresh set of four tildes, it sees the resultant overall change as just an edit to the date/time etc. Very confusing, when you think you've done enough, and made worse because you get no feedback - although I understand a change is coming where you will be able to opt-in to feedback for successful/unsuccessful pings: [2] [3]. Cheers. -- Begoon 04:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Modifying ANI proposal

There has been some pushback on the WP:AFC portion of my ANI proposal and I see the point there. I am considering modifying my proposal to strike the temporary ban on AfC declines. You have been helpful in getting me up to speed on ANI procedures. Do you have any input on how best to make this modification? Should I start a new subsection? Should I modify the proposal in place and {{ping}} those who have opposed for this reason? ~Kvng (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I would recommend #2. Strike that part of your proposal, put an addendum to the proposal explaining the change, and add a Comment in the discussion thread explaining what you did and why, and pinging the oppose voters to call their attention to the change. BTW I was very glad to see you make a recommendation. I had been practically begging people to. Because without a clear recommendation for action you wind up in "no consensus" territory every time; how is a closer supposed to take any action when it's all vague generalities? No telling at this point if it will get approved, but at least it's a real discussion. MelanieN alt (talk) 17:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'll see how it's going later today or tomorrow and revise if it still looks appropriate. I'm happy to help move conversation forward. The string of no consensus results is frustrating to me also. ~Kvng (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, and you can see why people don't usually take the trouble to make concrete proposals. The devil is always in the details, and a well thought out proposal can founder over one detail that people object to. --MelanieN (talk) 20:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it is almost like some people are not interested in helping to build a consensus :) ~Kvng (talk) 22:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

On review, it doesn't look like the AfC ban will be a significant issue for the outcome of the proposal. I have asked for input from AfC participants though. ~Kvng (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Need clarification

I took your comments and warning here [4] to mean, among other things, that Calibrador should not be taking part in talk page discussions, polls, RfCs regarding his photos. Yet, when his comments were struck at a weighted poll on the Donald Trump talk page based on this warning from you re: COI/INVOLVED. etc., he restored his comments in spite of your warning. Indeed, restoring his comments in spite of your warning is basically ignoring what you told him, his comments are influencing the !votes of others in that same poll "per Calibrador" (see here [5]). This is a heads up for you, not a request for your intervention as you made it clear you were not going to take administrative action at the DT talk page. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder; I had forgotten that. --MelanieN (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

WV: Actually, I see I had "forgotten it" because it only just happened. Don't go taking my warning to him as carrying any weight or placing any obligation on him. It was a warning only. And certainly don't go striking anybody's comments in a talk page discussion without a more solid reason than that. --MelanieN (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Understand your explanation here, however, it seemed quite solid to me. If it didn't, I wouldn't have done it. I don't do things just for the hell of it, to self-promote my own agenda, or to be intentionally disruptive. Can't say that about everyone involved in this issue. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:56, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Part deux

[6]. I started a discussion, he ignored it, chose to behave disruptively and edit war instead. Note that he's using past comments I've made in previous edit summaries at other articles (trying to make a point, I suppose). Ironically, the image he's reverting out is one of his own photos. This has become a WP:WIN situation for him, in my opinion, rather than what is best for the encyclopedia. The photo he keeps removing is the better of the two, therefore, removing it for a lesser photo makes no sense outside of a need to assert himself to end up the victor. I've stopped reverting as continuing to do so would just increase disruption. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 10:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Potential violation of 1RR by Anythingyouwant in Trump article

Hello Melanie, I am seeking your help to avoid a potential edit war on the Trump article.

This concerns the Trump article and basically Anythingyouwant removed the reference to the selective service guy stating that Trump's high lottery number was of little significance due to his medical exemption (1Y). I reverted this deletion since I believed that it was the only authoritative voice on selective service matters to be presented and further that therer had been no cogent evidence presented which refuted the fact that a 1Y classification would allow Trump to avoid the draft under any conceivable circumstances. Anything then proceeded to revert my revert, in apparent violation of 1RR, "do not restore content which has been reverted without consensus on talk page." FYI, I am particularly interested in this section of the article and feel that 1) it is buried in a section titled "Childhood and education" and 2) significant information has been deleted by Anythingyouwant and others. In July 2015, I noticed that there was absolutely no discussion of this matter (his Vietnam service or lack thereof) and wrote a paragraph describing it which remained relatively stable until 31 May 2016 when Anythingyouwant rewrote it. There was a discussion on the talk page which lead to no resolution since there appeared to be no other interest. My point in bringing this up is that Anythingyouwant seems to think that a 1 month interval makes an edit stable (which he somehow used to justify the apparent violation of 1RR) whereas he blithely rewrote a section which had been stable for close to a year. I have asked Anything to self-revert his insertion but he has refused. Your comments would be appreciated.Gaas99 (talk) 09:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Uhhh, I know I'm not supposed to be here and stuff but like: does it even matter? Rewrites happen all the time, IMO they keep articles from sounding redundant when new information that relates to previous information is added. Same thing here, the article is completely different than what you're crying about [sic]. I get you're saying information was "deleted", but, again, that happens all the time. And Wikipedia isn't just a depressing algorithm and we're definitely not lifeless bots in charge (lol Mel's the only one in charge here) that every policy has to be followed like some holy text. Please excuse my crudeness, just my 4 cents (yeah, four). Esmost ^πк 10:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Gaas99, but I really can't help you with this. I'm not going to get into the details, just to say that this kind of discussion belongs on the talk page, where you should try to convince other people that your edit should be in the article - rather than try to argue about who reverted who. The question of what determines "long term" material vs. "newly added" material is unclear (I have seen 4-6 weeks suggested as enough to make something stable, but there is no firm policy on this), and IMO it's not worth your time to try to wikilawyer this. If your edit is worthy of inclusion, other people will agree and you will be able to include it. If they don't, you won't - regardless of who reverted who. And of course, you already know not to edit war over this. Wrong reversion at an article under Discretionary Sanctions can lead to a block. Sorry I couldn't be more help. --MelanieN (talk) 13:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

24.107.107.105

He made a personal attack against MusikAnimal. I'm wondering if he should have talk page access revoked? I've asked MusikAnimal about it. Adam9007 (talk) 01:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I was just commenting at your talk page! I have extended his block to one week. I don't think it's to the point of removing talk page access yet but I'll keep an eye on it. --MelanieN (talk) 01:53, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Roly Bain

On 22 September 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Roly Bain, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Anglican priest Roly Bain used to enter church on a unicycle, open the service with the invocation "Let us play!", and preach while balancing on a slackrope? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Roly Bain. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Roly Bain), 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Information

I have a slight inquiry and wanted to know your thoughts about it. The article American Horror Story: Roanoke has been subjected to conflict and makes me quite disheartened. One user appears to be quite agitated, and seems to be making Wikipedia into a WP:Battle. I checked the users contributions and have noticed similar behavior at other articles. You can clearly see the user I am talking about with a second of research. I'm not sure how to proceed and would like your expertise. Thank you in advance. Chase (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Chase. I realize you are asking me because I recently semi-protected the page. I don't "clearly see" a problem there. After protection there is still quite a bit of back-and-forth between autoconfirmed users; I can't really follow the arguments at that page, but they don't seem to have reached the level of edit warring. Nobody strikes me as obviously right or wrong, and there is discussion at the talk page. At the talk page I noticed a brief burst of incivility from one editor - even threatening to block someone from the talk page, which they have no right or ability to do - but that seems to have passed. That editor also reverts a lot at other articles, and gives talk-page warnings to people they disagree with, but those don't seem like sanctionable behaviors. That editor is a long-established user and does not have a track record of warnings. Nothing really grabs me as needing intervention. Unless I am missing something? --MelanieN (talk) 15:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

User_talk:Changeisgame#September_2016 I would check this out as well. I tried to handle things, but they clearly didn't work. Chase (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC) , Charlie Carver, Homeland (season 6), [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. Here the user calls the other users edits possible vandals editions because the user didn't agree. [17], [18]. [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. Edit war and 3RR violation: [25], [26], [27], [28] I meant to add this as well sorry. Chase (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I did wonder if that other user was the one you were talking about, since I saw that he is very active at that page, and that you and he seem to disagree a lot. Without doing a lot of research, I don't see anything here that I am going to pursue. That doesn't stop you from other avenues if you think the problems are severe enough. --MelanieN (talk) 17:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

For now, I am just going to try to resolve it on the article's talk page. Hopefully, I used the right approached and didn't sound too attacking. Chase (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, I see you have added a bunch more diffs and some possible additional issues. But I'm afraid I'm still not going to take it on; I'm short of time right now due to real-life stuff. Besides, for a complex case like this I'm afraid you asked the wrong administrator. My admin interests are almost entirely geared toward content (page protection, article deletion, that kind of thing). I tend to deal with user issues only if they are blatant or in my face. But feel free to take it to another admin, or maybe somebody stalking this page will have some thoughts. --MelanieN (talk) 21:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, MelanieN. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

"pursuant" to "satisfy"

That's what I was trying to say, thanks for the improvement.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Just call on me any time you need simpler vocabulary, I'm good at that! 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 00:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Debate in six minutes, grab popcorn.🍿Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

That's what Tivo is for. --MelanieN (talk) 00:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Galactic Tick Day

Hi Melanie, I just noticed an old wiki of Galactic Tick Day wiki was deleted which was way before I created this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Galactic_Tick_Day which includes actual media sources (how I heard about it in the first place). I think this is a pretty novel idea and it seems others agree. What are the odds of re-deletion or re-instatiation? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wardshark (talk • contribs) 23:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Wardshark, and thanks for your note. Yes, I commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galactic Tick Day that this subject might qualify for inclusion eventually. To restore it, Wikipedia requires that it be notable; that is determined by the amount of coverage it gets from independent reliable sources. I will restore the deleted article and put it in your private user space; you can combine the two versions to see if it now qualifies for an article. Your draft includes one such reference, from WCAI, and that's good. Your Popular Mechanics and Space.com links are also good, but you should source them in the article as references, rather than just list them as External Links. The deleted article has a link from The Journal Gazette, a local paper, which you could also use. Those four, cited as references to support some fact, may be enough to meet Wikipedia's requirements. The Galactic Tic Day homepage and the IFLScience link are OK to include, but they don't help you meet the notability requirement. When you think you have the article ready to submit, let me take a look at it. If it is different enough from the deleted article I will put a note on the talk page saying so; otherwise it might get speedy-deleted per WP:G4. --MelanieN (talk) 15:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

You can find the restored article here: User:Wardshark/Galactic Tick Day. --MelanieN (talk) 15:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Melanie, thanks so much for the suggestions! I did what you suggested and think it looks pretty good and thorough on the news and references front. Do you mind taking a look? Thank you! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Galactic_Tick_Day — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wardshark (talk • contribs) 19:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, nice work. I have placed a note on the talk page which should protect it from speedy deletion. So I guess you can launch this on the actual day! Keep an eye out for new coverage on the 29th, and add any new material you find, because the article is still very short. --MelanieN (talk) 01:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

P.S. If you are done with the userfied version of the previous article, you can request that it be deleted. Since it is in your own userspace, you can just paste this at the top of the page: {{Db-u1}} --MelanieN (talk) 01:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

P.S. After it is in the main encyclopedia, you should add some categories; I suggest Category:Observances about science and Category:Unofficial observances. --MelanieN (talk) 01:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey thanks again Melanie... I resubmitted with even more sources. Can you check it out? I think it's looking really good for my first article (this is fun). Also, happy #GalacticTickDay! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wardshark (talk • contribs) 17:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this is fun. Welcome to the habit-forming world of Wikipedia editing! Yes, it is much improved. I see that somebody rewrote it to be much more "encyclopedic", you might want to see what changes did to make it more in line with our article style. Would it be helpful to say something that about "tick" referring to one tick of a clock? Or don't we have any source that explains that? --MelanieN (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• And this is self-referentially interesting: One of the submissions to a Galactic tick inspired music composition challenge on SoundCloud[29] seems to have used the See Also section of Galactic Tick Day for inspiration[30]. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 19:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Very nice! That's a good reminder that what we do here actually does get read and used by real people out there. This new article was viewed 170 times on its first day; I'm betting on a lot more today. --MelanieN (talk) 20:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Donald Trump Barnstar
		For all your work on articles related to Donald Trump and his 2016 campaign. MB298 (talk) 04:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, not sure if this barnstar is an honor or not. But thank you. --MelanieN (talk) 10:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Just saw this and couldn't help it. Samsara 11:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The election is everywhere, it pervades everything. A bird-watching friend recently commented at Facebook that he had seen an Orange-crowned warbler, and somebody immediately asked if he was talking about Trump. --MelanieN (talk) 14:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

That's a very nice anecdote I can't hope to compete with. :-) One sometimes wonders if the political implications shouldn't be discussed more than they generally seem to be - major topics of the elections seem to have included the authenticity of hair and complexion, the size of hands, and the relative frequency of coughing or sniffling. That alone makes me think something unhealthy (no pun intended) is going on here. Samsara 14:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Not to mention the enormous amount of energy devoted to which photo should be used in the infobox. I'm afraid that kind of shallowness is the nature of political coverage nowadays. After the debate, it's not about what they said, it's just "who won?" News coverage is all he-said-she-said, even when one person's comment is factually true and the other false. And in spite of (or maybe because of) the enormous attention paid to the presidential election this whole year, only 60% of eligible voters will actually show up to vote. --MelanieN (talk) 14:58, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

12% less than the Brexit referendum, whose outcome has been blamed on locally low turnout... We doubtless have an interesting month and week ahead. Samsara 22:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Harry North

Hi Melanie. You declined the BLPPROD on Harry North (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) saying Declining BLP PROD; article has references. Other avenues of deletion remain available. WP:BLPPROD requires a reliable source after the notice is placed. None of the sources cited are reliable. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

You're right. Sorry, I forgot to check when the references were added. --MelanieN (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. — JJMC89 (T·C) 14:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

AfD misclick

Thanks for that, indeed it was an accident, my apologies. It's finally prompted me to find out how to turn off tapping on my new(ish) notebook's touchpad. Qwfp (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

No problem; happens all the time. Big fingers, little buttons. It's why I had WP:Rollback disabled. --MelanieN (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Some copyedits

Here. :) Jim Carter 18:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done --MelanieN (talk) 00:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC for page patroller qualifications

Following up from the consensus reached here, the community will now establish the user right criteria. You may wish to participate in this discussion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey

Hey thanks for actually explaining things to me. I appreciate it. Also would you mind supporting the photo? It seems good to me :) User1937 (talk) 14:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Recent deletion

Per your recent deletion of the "pussy grabs back" meme on the trump page Trump, (old version permalink): doesn't the current events exclusion allow for primary sources until trusted secondary sources arise? I was reffing primary sources. Wikipedia:Use_of_primary_sources_in_Wikipedia#Current_events Still getting the hang of editing but I really thought I was in the clear! --Fightclubber (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Fightclubber, and thanks for your note. I hope you don't mind, I have moved your comment here to the bottom of the page. I know you made that edit in good faith, but IMO it cannot be included in the article until it has at least some mainstream/reliable source recognition. The sources were Facebook, YouTube, and a product catalog. Those are not simply primary sources; they are things created by the same people who created the meme. There is no way to know if the thing has any actual notability, or if it is just them and their friends. In a brief search just now I still found only social media, except for a mention at Democratic Underground, which doesn't help. As I said, if mainstream sources start to take note we could add something then. But for now it is a little too obscure for Wikipedia, which after all is an international encyclopedia. Don't be discouraged; it may get better known, and if it doesn't, there is lots of other editing that needs to be done here. --MelanieN (talk) 00:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, Fightclubber, that didn't take long. The Guardian mentioned it and it is now in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 05:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Late October 2016 meetup

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/San Diego#Late October 2016 meetup . RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)Template:Z48

Please strikethru your edit warring warning on my talk page.

I did not violate the 3RR rule as I only reverted twice. So please don't accuse me of editwarring. Someone Not Awful (talk) 19:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The # of women

Up front, I have no problem with specifying how many women. I just wanted to point out to you that I intentionally did not give a numerical indicator (some, many, a few, several, etc) to stay away from a constant battle over which one should be used. At the time I made the entry I favored just saying "women" because I thought the specific number (now 7) would be changing daily. Anyway, enjoy the unexpected nice weather. Buster Seven Talk 19:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

About "which number to use", I hear you. "Women stepped forward" was awkward but justifiable. Since it specifies the time period - "during the week after the report" - I thought it would now be safe to give a definite seven since that week is now history. (Some outlets claim ten, but they seem to be counting three old reports.) If others come forward we can update, but I suspect not many more women will volunteer for the kind of treatment those seven women have been getting. :-(

Unexpected? What's unexpected? This is San Diego, we ALWAYS expect nice weather! 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I live in Chicago. It was 80 degrees today and the same for tomorrow. Normally, it would be in the mid-50's...with the "Hawk" right around the corner. Buster Seven Talk 21:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Now that IS unexpected. 80 degrees is warmer than it is here. Enjoy it while it lasts, I'm afraid. --MelanieN (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Ted Chapelhow

Could I please ask that the article for Ted Chapelhow that was deleted be sent to my sandbox, so that I might merge my current efforts with the previous article that was deleted.Fleets (talk) 11:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Fleets: Done. You will find it at User:Fleets/Ted Chapelhow. --MelanieN (talk) 14:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Much obliged.Fleets (talk) 15:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Seeking page protection for Mira Gonzalez

MelanieN wondering if you might consider page-protecting Mira Gonzalez, a biographical article about a poet that is getting repeatedly vandalized, in violation of WP:BLP such as here and here and here and here by different mostly-IP addresses, including cases where an IP prodded the article which led to an AfD (2nd AfD decision was keep -- but the second AfD review was unnecessary and time-wasting in my view), since the article had gone through AfD (and kept) not long ago. It is much fuss for responsible contributors to keep reverting the vandalism, so I'm hoping there's a remedy here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the request, Tomwsulcer. Vandalism isn't recent enough or frequent enough to justify semi-protection. However, since there have been some problem edits that violate WP:BLP, I put it under PC protection for two months. Hope this helps. --MelanieN (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks MelanieN.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Request

Can you semi-protect Take It Off (Kesha song) and Your Love Is My Drug to persistent disrutive editing? 183.171.183.238 (talk) 00:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for your note. No, I'm afraid I can't. It appears that problem edits have not been frequent enough, or recent enough, to qualify for semi-protection, per WP:Protection policy. Sorry. --MelanieN (talk) 03:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Recent closer based on mere votes

"The result was keep. A divided discussion. However, the "keep" comments have not only a numerical advantage, but also better, more policy-based reasoning."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cymbal_(app)

Just my opinion: I wish you read the commentary and discussions made by contributors there. Every Keep vote has been discussed and given ample reasoning for being non-notable coverage. Still you preferred to close like earlier 2 close with "questionable close". Same method are used " Vote counting". Where are the efforts put by contributors. Keep vote came as Passes GNC and Move on? where are the substance and discussions require for notability. If this is how we close articles. Then Wikipedia is nothing more than a directory or PR host for such companies. Each and Every Keep vote is countered with reasoning and substance. Light2021 (talk) 08:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

"...the "keep" comments have not only a numerical advantage, but also better, more policy-based reasoning."" --MelanieN (talk) 14:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Ya, I read that too.. but have you really read discussions made by Delete Vote contributors. Each and every Keep discusisons has been contradicted for its notability, still only the numbers mattered at the end. That is my question. If we can make this Trend any better or improve. I would love to do that. There are two kinds of dangerous Close Happen these days. :

1. No-Consensus Close: It simply means article has become so long by unnecessary details, that it becomes tiring and borting to even the read the facts from garbage. and no one has time to put efforts, so results come out as " Keep" with no consensus. Keep votes wins. All contributors efforts gone. 2. Vote counts: Where most of the people comes and cite GNC and neglect all the discussions and arguments made by Delete. There are no efforts made to counter the delete discussions. Just cite Passes GNC and move on. end of the day Lazy wins the vote game. Article is kept because majority "voted" keep. Where as per Wikipedia only, keep votes are not the criteria for keep or delete anything. Discussions are paramount and must be substantial. Else every one's time is wasted. Who make Afd, who participate and even who close it. highest degree is misuse of Wikipedia policies used merely for citing. Hope we can improve this dangerous trends and make Wikipedia Better together. Thanks. Light2021 (talk) 14:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd have voted Keep for Cymbal (app) also, agreeing the MelanieM's decision. I think the Keep decision was well-reasoned and sound.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

My only intend to make the process better together. not a particular Keep or Delete page as I wrote above. 2 Major ways of misusing Wikipedia. Any suggestions on that? thanks. Light2021 (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, Light2021, Deletion review is always an option when you think a discussion was closed incorrectly. Personally I don't think anyone would have closed that discussion as "delete", but "relist" would have been an option. As for your campaign to "fix the process", to fix what you feel is wrong with AfD closures, I don't think this article would serve as a particularly good example. --MelanieN (talk) 15:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

ANI - advice re: executive summary

To your point about not adding a lot more to the ANI incident regarding Soham321 and Bastun,

• I am very happy to do the executive summary and believe that I understand what you're looking for. It will take me awhile, but it may very well be a worthwhile effort
• On the other hand, I don't want to do unnecessary work. I had an edit conflict and comments from Mandruss and James J. Lambden were posted at about the time I posted mine. See this.

What would you advise?--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Never mind, I am withdrawing from the article. It's just not worth it - I became quite upset when I started pulling the information together, realizing what a struggle it's been. It's taken a toll and it's just not worth it. Thanks for your help, I totally get your points about writing an effective ANI and should I ever be in such a situation again, I will know better what to do, based on your comments.--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Carole. I totally understand your feelings. ANI is a frustrating place, and getting involved in a case there can be quite consuming - not just in time but in psychic energy. I rarely participate there myself, for that reason. I honestly have no idea what will be the outcome of that discussion. Based on what appears to be the reluctance of neutral parties to get involved, it might just die out with no closure. But hopefully one or more neutral parties will step in, after the shouting dies down a little, and make a decision. Personally I won't have much more to say there. (Not that I have had much to say up to now!) --MelanieN (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

No action, as I predicted (and close in Swahili, just for comical effect). Apparently, admins are not able to read prose reasoning. Nobody had to read and absorb the whole thing to know three things: (1) they were acting out-of-process, (2) their actions continued for days on the talk page, and (3) they were in a persistent minority of two as clearly evident in Bastun's challenge subsection. That should have been enough. The AGF failure and competence issues were very problematic, but not essential to action, and I think a competent admin like Dennis Brown should have been able to sort that out without our help.
I have given some thought to the problem, and my only solution is to establish a group of editors who are good at putting together the kind of evidence that ANI appears to require for any action. Call them WikiLawyers if you like, since they would provide a similar service as real-life attorneys, but I don't think they would need to actually argue the case beyond presenting the evidence. The question is incentive/compensation, but many volunteers already do tough and thankless jobs just for the sake of the project (e.g. admins). ―Mandruss ☎ 21:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

That was what I also predicted, days ago. And it wasn't because I didn't bother to read your charges. In my case I read every word of the ANI, although I did not research it elsewhere as you seemed to expect. I can assure you that Dennis Brown, one of our most respected and thoughtful admins, did the same. Bottom line, three very experienced admins looked at what you were charging him with and concluded there was nothing in your charges that warranted admin action (or even a closer look at the evidence). Probably a lot more also looked at the thread, reading at least your introduction to see if it sounded like a situation needing action, and decided there was no need for them to comment. It wasn't a matter of needing more evidence or better presentation; even assuming your charges were all true, they simply did not amount to sanctionable offenses. If there had been serious offenses alleged, multiple admins would have looked into it and taken action. But as it was, you couldn't even get a "second" for your proposal for a ban or block. You just now spelled out again, here, the actions you felt were the problem, and they are still not sanctionable. This situation that seemed so terrible to you, just didn't seem that out of the ordinary to most of Wikipedia. I know that is frustrating and I'm sorry about that. --MelanieN (talk) 22:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, and thanks for the clarification. So out-of-process minority disruption of article talk is not sanctionable at en-wiki. That will be my take-away from this experience. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:DE's nutshell: "Disruptive editors may be blocked or banned indefinitely." And all I asked for was a (quite preventative) temp ban or block. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

And you would have gotten it, if they had actually been disruptive. Which they were not, in the experience of most of us. --MelanieN (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Again fair enough. Two fairly experienced editors were increasingly frustrated with the baseless argument and AGF-failing WP:BATTLEGROUND for days, until one of them was frustrated enough to try an ANI complaint with the full knowledge that any action is very difficult to get at ANI. Both reason and warning failed, and hours of valuable editor time were lost with no end in sight. That clears my disruption threshold. Which is one reason I would fail RfA if I even wanted one. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

If that is not enough, Brown said nothing to indicate he considered the merits of the complaint. What he said was: "This is too much of a mess to try to solve. Everyone please go back to writing articles." The accused managed to lay so much smoke that the result was beyond anyone's ability to process it, and it was ignored that they repeatedly misapplied policy right there in the complaint. I find that completely unacceptable, and I probably always will. But consider the stick dropped now, as I know deaf ears when I see them. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Apology

I sent the following to Bbb23 this morning:

I woke up and logged on this a.m. to find a note from GAB that I'd posted to a closed SPI discussion. Somehow, the closed discussion had popped up on my watchlist as if it were current. I wrote this to GAB and will include MelanieN and the other editor whom I'd pinged on my edit.

Thanks. I somehow didn't realize that the discussion was closed. I apologize. Activist (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC) Activist (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, but your ping auto-erased after I read it and I couldn't copy or review it. I appreciate your comments, but I can't imagine that CF has "retired" or whatever, but may be exercising more caution in the last month and the ten forthcoming days to avoid detection, once more. I'm attempting levity here, so please don't take this as criticism, but I think that my circumstantial evidence that CF has been editing exclusively on very specific Wikipedia articles as a professional occupation is better than yours that CF is a "he." Did CF admit to peeing while standing up, or something like that which I've missed? Have you looked at CF's edit summaries? I did, a couple of years ago when the weekend work was absent, and drew my conclusions from them. When I looked at them again yesterday, there was absolutely nothing there to change my opinions, but instead they reinforced them even more. My impression is that CF's presence on Wikipedia is 100% "on the clock," and that whomever is paying CF is getting their money's worth. You are aware, I presume, that certain actors have long been hiring organizations and/or personnel to do exactly that. This seems like a particularly blatant case which I concluded without my ever being previously aware, as of yesterday, of the sockpuppetry. Activist (talk) 16:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I should have known better to reply in an archive. As for CFredkin, I say "he" because of the name Fred (and because he seems very much like a "he"). Normally I would say "they" in a case where they do not identify a gender, as CF did not. And as for your speculation that he is a paid editor, it is just that: speculation. Without actual evidence this accusation could be taken as a personal attack, and I would prefer you not share it with me to any greater extent than you already have. The sockpuppetry is a matter of record; so is the disruptive POV editing. The motives for both are undetermined. --MelanieN (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, "he" seems very much like a "he" to me as well. As for the name, an uncommon family name, I doubt it has anything to do with CF's actual identity, just as "his" presumed prior main identity likely did not as well, but Edward Fredkin possesses one of the most prodigious intellects in the U.S. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Fredkin I'm hugely strapped for time, and expect to be through the end of the year, but perhaps I can find some to do a little detective work to expose the "man" behind the curtain. Have you an IPN for "him," which might help to establish that? I think the task, if successful, would be productive to Wikipedia. Oh, lastly, because of your familiarity with the DeMaio situation, I presumed you might be from San Diego county. Did you go to the Wikipedia conference? Activist (talk) 04:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I strongly advise you against conducting "detective work" and "trying to expose" this editor. WP:OUTING is a blockable offense. "Threats to out an editor will be treated as a personal attack and dealt with accordingly." Asking for an IPN is way out of bounds, and even if I knew it (which I don't; I am just an admin, not a checkuser) I would not reveal it to anyone else. If you insist on doing this research, do it off-wiki, and do not post any of your results publicly. Instead, IF AND ONLY IF you find unimpeachable evidence of COI paid editing, email it to the WMF. "Nothing in this policy prohibits the emailing of personal information about editors to individual administrators, functionaries, or arbitrators, or to the Wikimedia Foundation, when doing so is necessary to report violations of confidentiality-sensitive policies (such as conflict-of-interest or paid editing, harassment, or violations of the child-protection policy). Only the minimum information necessary should be conveyed and the minimum number of people contacted. Editors are warned, however, that the community has rejected the idea that editors should "investigate" each other. Posting such information on Wikipedia violates this policy." As for me, I do not want to hear any more on this subject, and I will delete any further posts about it. --MelanieN (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Democratic Revolution

Can you help me out here? In Spanish, the party name is Revolución Democrática, so I 'm really stuck on what the article name should be when it's translated to English. Democratic Revolution is a really vague term within itself and shouldn't be associated with a foreign party; the foreign name would be more appropriate. Є𐌔ⲘО𐌔𐍄 ^{𐍄𐌀ℓК} 23:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's a good question, Є𐌔ⲘО𐌔𐍄. It does appear to be our policy to give foreign party names in English translation - see List of political parties in Mexico for instance. I agree that "Democratic Revolution" is vague and not at all clear what is is. Most but not all political party articles here seem to include the word "Party", again as per the Mexico list and also per American groups like the Peace and Freedom Party and the American Independent Party. So it could be "Democratic Revolution Party"; there already is a Democratic Revolutionary Party but they are different enough for both to have articles. You could say "Democratic Revolution Party (Chile)" but that seems unnecessarily detailed - unnecessary disambiguation as they say. I'm going to ping another user, User:Born2cycle, who is an expert an article titles, and let's see what he says.--MelanieN (talk) 02:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The main guiding principle is to follow usage in sources, which seems to be "Democratic Revolution". It doesn't matter that it's so vague that someone unfamiliar with the topic won't be able to identify the topic from the name - the name should reflect what reliable sources use to refer to the topic. If we use something else, then we create the misleading impression that that something else is what the topic is normally called. The only exception is if there are other uses of that name on WP, in which disambiguation is required, which apparently is not the case here. The current title, Democratic Revolution, is exactly right in my opinion. --В²C ☎ 17:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks, you learn something new every day. :) Є𐌔ⲘО𐌔𐍄 ^{𐍄𐌀ℓК} 15:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

List of cities and towns in Andhra Pradesh by nicknames

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cities and towns in Andhra Pradesh by nicknames has some error in merging. Its contents were not merged. If its merged, it will be a mistake, as towns are included in it. So, please review and make some alternative attempt. I've accepted it, but upon having a glance at the merge process, I found this.--Vin09 (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The merge was carried out by User:Lemongirl942. If you feel there were errors in doing the merge, you could discuss it with her, or explain the problem by posting a note at Talk:List of cities in India by nicknames. --MelanieN (talk) 14:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Donald J Trump Foundation

MelanieN

I appreciate the advice on structure and style on the Donald J. Trump Foundation page, as well as your general hard work on Wikipedia, my favorite source. Two questions on that front:

1. Am I not supposed to use inline links for external references? If so, should I add them in an external links section? 2. I used the extra level of sub-headings for clarity. I don't see how removing them helps. If this is a general preference of the Wikipedia community, then so it is. What I'd prefer, however, is that we leave the sub-headings in the larger body of the text but not have that third level of headings appear in the table of contents. If that's possible.

Also, for content, I disagree with your contention that I've added too many examples. Any single one of the examples I've included would, for another public figure, warrant an entire section. I've been very careful to include only examples that are sufficiently backed by evidence and are, according to quality sources cited, in clear violation of IRS rules, criminal law, and/or NYS law. I've gone out of my way to omit the dozens of other public allegations that have been made but are not supported with enough direct evidence.

Peter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.213.133 (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC) Sorry -- signed it without being logged in... — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeteWL (talk • contribs) 17:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Peter, and thanks for your note! I should have talked to you earlier; sorry about that. I have watched you expand the article over the past few months, and I have admired your thoroughness and your care with sources. However, I have been concerned about the increasingly negative tone of the article. I realize that's an unavoidable result of the coverage itself, which has mostly taken the form of exposés. I have occasionally modified language or trimmed material when I thought it went too far. However, recently a Did You Know reviewer expressed the same concern: that the article is not neutral. See Template:Did you know nominations/Donald J. Trump Foundation. My recent edits have been an attempt to mitigate this problem.

Primarily, I think we need to reduce the number of items detailed. Yes, they are all referenced, but we don't need to include everything that can be referenced. If you look at the talk pages of anything related to Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, you will see a lot of discussion about whether a particular news item is significant enough to be included or not. Very often the conclusion is that the item, although documented, is not important enough to include, per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE. That's why I removed some of your examples. You have been doing the same kind of evaluation, but it may still have resulted in overkill. And your criterion for inclusion - "whether the item is in clear violation of IRS rules, criminal law, and/or NYS law" - is in itself non-neutral. This is supposed to be an article about the foundation, not an indictment of it. I think there should be additional removal of "examples" that, while documented, may not be significant enough to include. Let's talk about this. Specific items should be discussed at the article's talk page rather than here.

That's also why I removed the subsection headings. Not only is it awkward to have single-paragraph sections, but the effect of breaking out each example into its own subsection is that the table of contents reads like a bill of accusations. Again: not neutral.

As for inline external links, they are frowned upon. "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be placed in the body of an article," per Wikipedia:External links. And no, you should not add them to an external links section. That section is for things that are integral to the subject at hand (such as the foundation's own web page) or relevant to a deeper understanding of the subject. You were using the external links as a kind of substitute for a wikilink in cases where the organization does not have a Wikipedia article. That is not necessary; the name in text is sufficient for a non-notable organization.

Let's talk this out and see what we can do together to reduce the neutrality concern. Neutrality is one of the core principles of Wikipedia. We do report documented facts, and we do not censor. But in this case we may have gone too far in a particular direction, piling up example after example as if laying out a case for prosecution, instead of simply reporting significant aspects of the subject. We need to fix that. --MelanieN (talk) 15:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

"Renovation of Pulitzer Fountain to enhance value of Trump-owned hotel" (subsection title.) Definitely reads as a piece written with intent to find flaws. Compare with 'Trump COI' that was recently deleted. I'm trying to upmerge the lost material into parent-articles where it makes more sense. Maybe the TrumpFoundation can be upmerged into Legal affairs of Donald Trump? Unless it was split off from there due to length! Sigh. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Please help on WP:AIV it is getting really crowded. 2602:306:3357:BA0:85B7:9002:A1CD:9C7D (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Academically Referenced Material

Hello, just a note that someone keeps trying to eliminate academically referenced material from this page. If you can, please keep an eye on the page. Thanks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heathenry_(new_religious_movement) --146.85.212.30 (talk) 23:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, don't edit war if they remove it again. Discuss it at the talk page and abide by the consensus. If I recall correctly, that was the issue over which the page had to be protected. --MelanieN (talk) 23:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN: This IP is clearly another sock of User:Holtj, who has been disruptively editing this article for years now and has had six of their socks blocked already. I've opened up another sock puppet investigation to deal with it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, Midnightblueowl. I had a feeling they were part of the problem. --MelanieN (talk) 14:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Where's the discussion?

Hi Melanie, re this edit -- where is the discussion which allows for the content in its entirety? Because one user has removed a chunk of content, but I'm not seeing where exactly on the talk page that specific chunk of content (wording and everything) was discussed? —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your note.The consensus at discussion was to include material about Comey's letter. The discussion did include working out the specific wording, see Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016#Proposed wording and Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016#Wording not supported by sources. It was inserted a week ago and has been in the article unchallenged for a week. Today there was an update, with information about the second letter. But SCJessey didn't just remove the update; he removed the entire item, update and all, claiming that any coverage about this subject was now UNDUE because it "turned out to be nothing". This was a unilateral attempt on his part to overturn the consensus (which he disagreed with but was outnumbered). It doesn't work that way. Removing it will require a new discussion and a new consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 04:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

FYI

Here's what you were looking for. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. It turns out that was actually their second warning - although it was their first about U.S. politics. On my way to ANI to update. --MelanieN (talk) 16:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge

Hi, can I interest you in this, California? Know anybody else who might be interested? Hopefully we can run something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon for the US and see a ton of California stubs improved!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Undeletion Request

Hi. I would like to request undeletion for Said the Sky which was deleted because of the reason stated by the nominator; "Notability unable to be established". However, that was one month ago. This musician is now notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia.

This article has now met the criteria for musicians and ensembles (#2); "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart". This musician has a song charted on two Billboard (US) charts; "Dance/Electronic Digital Songs" and "Hot Dance/Electronic Songs". As per WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS, the mentioned charts are acceptable. - TheMagnificentist (talk) 08:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Said the Sky

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Said the Sky. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

(I noticed that you're on vacation which is why I went to del review.) - TheMagnificentist (talk) 12:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Replied there. --MelanieN (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi MelanieN.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, MelanieN. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Replies

Sorry to be a pain, just a quick note that I've replied -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 18:32, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Got it. I sent two or three different emails in reply. Disorganized? Me? Nahhh.. --MelanieN (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

DJ Klypson

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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer - RfC

Hi MelanieN. You are invited to comment at a further discussion on the implementation of this user right to patrol and review new pages that is taking place at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC on patrolling without user right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Requesting third opinion

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Adolfo_Camarillo High School#Usa chant . RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)Template:Z48

Thank you

Thank you for your administrator action at Fake news website.

We've been able to work together on the article and the talk page make improvements and hopefully also improve stability over the longer term. Sagecandor (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. Glad to know it helped. --MelanieN (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Donald J. Trump Foundation

Hello! Your submission of Donald J. Trump Foundation at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Fidel Castro

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

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

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

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

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

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 (talk • contribs) 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 —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring

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.[31] 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

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?

Hi Melanie,

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

"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?

Since you were one of the users involved in bringing this AE [32] wouldn't this [33] [34] 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. [35] [36]. 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 - 2¢ 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 - 2¢ 02:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

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!

	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

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 [37]
• "False" in lede (previous ended Sept 12) [38]

New current RfC: [39]

• Include "Politician" in lede sentence [40]
• Mention popular vote in lede but without numbers (ended Dec. 4) [41]

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

• Climate change: was discussed here until Dec. 2: [42]

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

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

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

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

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 . 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

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

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)

Merry Merry

Season's Greetings, MelanieN! At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a wonderful holiday season! MarnetteD|Talk 17:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

1987 in Germany

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 · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · 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)

Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays

Merry Christmas, MelanieN! Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. And for all the help you've thrown my way over the years. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969 TT me 23:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Buone Feste!

May you have very Happy Holidays, Melanie

and a New Year filled with peace, joy, and good things to eat!

Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 13:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Revdel needed

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

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

Seeing you on, wondering,

• [43]

and the discussion at

• [44]

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)

Season's Greetings

Samsara is wishing you Season's Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Adapted from {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}}.

Shinola (shoe polish)

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)

Holiday Greetings! Melanie

	Merry Christmas & Happy New Year!
	Thank you for helping make Wikipedia a better place. Blessings. May we all have peace in the coming year. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed

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

Re:December 2016

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

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)

Vacation

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

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!

	Happy New Year!
	Wishing you a happy, healthy, and prosperous 2017! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

happy new year  :-)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that 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]"[45][46]
• "notable"[47]
• "notable"[48]

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)