User talk:MelanieN/Archive 30

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 25

←

Archive 28

→

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.[1] 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 [2] wouldn't this [3] [4] 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. [5] [6]. 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)

Haha! According to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&type=revision&diff=754279357&oldid=754278177 it appears that you inserted a comma.

A one character change! A human "Emir" probably would not have even bothered to send you a "COI" message (of any kind) for a change like that. I guess the robot was just doing its job (including, apparently, 'ignoring' the slight spelling difference in your first name from that of Melania ... *and* the bigger spelling difference -- more like 100% different -- in surnames). Robots do have their place; but it would be complex to try to "program" them to make a judgment call like this, the way most human persons would. Oh well! Rock on ... --Mike Schwartz (talk) 09:39, 19 April 2022 (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 [7]
"False" in lede (previous ended Sept 12) [8]

New current RfC: [9]

Include "Politician" in lede sentence [10]
Mention popular vote in lede but without numbers (ended Dec. 4) [11]

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

Climate change: was discussed here until Dec. 2: [12]

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)

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)

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,

[13]

and the discussion at

[14]

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

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

Shinola (shoe polish)

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

Page protection should not be applied in order to protect edits against a consensus on the sourcing of material. Removal of material that cannot be properly sourced is quality control, not vandalism. 24.7.14.87 (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. I see that the previous semi-protection expired just a couple of days ago and the problems immediately resumed. --MelanieN (talk) 21:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Yep. WP:Edit warring. Warned him, but he is the gift that keeps on giving. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed

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