User talk:MelanieN/Archive 27

This is an archive of past discussions about User:MelanieN. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

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'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: [1] [2]. 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 [3] 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 [4]). 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

[5]. 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), [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. Here the user calls the other users edits possible vandals editions because the user didn't agree. [16], [17]. [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. Edit war and 3RR violation: [24], [25], [26], [27] 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[28] seems to have used the See Also section of Galactic Tick Day for inspiration[29]. -- 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)