Jump to content

User talk:MelanieN/Archive 49

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45←Archive 47Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50Archive 51→Archive 55

Opinion polling for the Pakistani general election, 2018

Sir, please look in to this [1] force full addition of blogs and news anchor analysis. Please help in. Jawadmdr (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

There was severe edit warring going on, so I have fully protected the article for two days while you all continue to discuss at the talk page. I cannot help you with the analysis of the material and sources. I'll try to help you find someone with knowledge in that area. I could not find any administrators who identify as Pakistani. User:RegentsPark, User:Titodutta, User:Sitush, can you help with this issue, or suggest anyone who can? --MelanieN (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Sir, Thank you very much for protecting the page but kindly reverse Duniya news link. In Pakistan Media houses take sides of political parties therefore their surveys are biased. Please see other Pakistani user is also confirming this fact [2] and [3] . Even the person who is adding Duniya link has confessed the fact in his previous edit summary [4] Jawadmdr (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I will further add, No editor has any objection on reputable survey organizations like Gallup Pakistan, Pulse consultants and GSP but Media houses such as Duniya and ARY are known for taking sides in favour of political parties. So during Talk page discussion period please remove controversial edits [5] . Jawadmdr (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

We do not remove edits from talk pages, even if they are "controversial". The article page will stay locked as it is for two days, unless one of the people I mentioned here can come and evaluate the situation and change it. --MelanieN (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Please could you reinstate semi-protection for autoconfirmed and confirmed users until at least one month after the general election? (25 August 2018). This is because many anonymous users are continually disrupting the page. We agreed to enforce semi protection until at least the election on the talk page a couple of weeks ago. Masterpha (talk) 10:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Masterpha, I agree that the article needs semi-protection and have installed it for 2 months. I'm glad to see that you and the others were able to work out your content dispute during the full protection. Good luck with the article and the election. --MelanieN (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Superhuman (Aretha Henry Album)

Hello i did not created this page but it appears on the list of pages created by me.Pls help me to remove this from the list. Thank you. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 03:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Akhiljaxxn, and thanks for the interesting question! Apparently you did “create” the article, in that you moved it from a different title. You actually took the article through several moves and renames. Each article history I look at shows you originating the article by moving it from some previous article, and I can’t identify the original article before those moves. It went through drafts and page moves and even a round-robin history swap; it’s very confusing. But I'm afraid I can’t find a creator’s name before yours. (Maybe one of my wonderful talk page stalkers can trace it back to an origin?) Anyhow, it might not be possible to change the record even if we find the originator. I suggest you not worry about it. --MelanieN (talk) 04:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Hey sorry for this belated reply.You know what makes me worry?. A few months ago I requested for autopatrolled flag and they denied by saying most of the pages that i created are stubs and five of them are deleted. I would like to have autopatrolled right in the future so I don't want them to deny me again with matter of increasing number of deleted pages. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, User: Akhiljaxxn, I don’t think that one "deleted" tag is going to be the deciding factor in whether you get the autoconfirmed right. IMO you are borderline for this user right: you have created 40-some articles but most of them are categorized as stubs. But moving beyond that: why do you even want the autoconfirmed right? It makes no difference to you or your editing. It doesn’t let you do anything that you can’t already do. It is really just a way of reducing the case load for new article reviewers. I would suggest that you just focus on what you are doing - creating articles and editing - and not worry about whether you are or are not autoconfirmed. --MelanieN (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Dealing with repeated WP:COI allegations

I've asked for your advice before about User:Activist's hounding of me. S/he's kept it up, and is continually accusing me of having an undeclared WP:COI on a number of different pages (I don't know what they specifically think my COI is, since they've made allegations on a number of pages). Back in February, I replied here about their COI inquiry (when they brought it to my talk page, rather than trying to discuss my conduct on article talk pages, which is what they are doing now). They never acknowledged or responded to my explanation, but have kept up a steady stream of accusations since. See Talk:Steven Horsford, for example (an article which they followed me to, in the process of stalking my edits). I don't want to interact with this editor because that has never been productive, and I don't think I should have to keep stating that I don't have a COI when they just keeping accusing me of having one. I've also been told by other editors that this editor has emailed them about me. Basically, they are stalking me every which way. I could just ignore them, as I've tended to do, but they keep following me around. Should I seek an interaction ban? Or could you or another administrator ask them to refrain from accusing me of COI? In my view, if they actually think I have a COI, they should pursue that through appropriate channels (Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard) rather than harassing me about it ad infinitum. Thanks. Marquardtika (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I posted a warning on their talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Marquardtika (talk) 20:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Re-litigation

Are editors allowed to re-litigate the same issue on the same noticeboard a year later or would that be considered disruptive and sanctionable? I'm considering going for this[6] again. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) WP:Consensus can change: feel free to go ahead, but please exercise judgment to evaluate the chances of success of any proposal. Don't revive issues that have been settled with an overwhelming majority. (No idea about the one you're looking at now, as I did not participate in that discussion.) — JFG talk 10:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I certainly don't think it would be sanctionable. Some people may criticize you for bringing it up again, but a year later is acceptable, and the original discussion had only a "rough consensus". But I think it's unlikely to get a different outcome. A blanket, Wiki-wide ban is pretty drastic. Maybe you should consider going for a local consensus applying to one particular page? Less drastic and more enforceable. JMO. --MelanieN (talk) 14:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • (talk page stalker)For what it's worth, Snoo, I'm a great supporter of immigration to this country, including less-than-legal forms of it, and I generally use "illegal alien" as opposed to "undocumented immigrant" or other, more PC terms.
I doubt you'll get much traction, because there's only one reason not to use it (some people find it offensive) and multiple reasons spanning the political spectrum to use it*, including the simple fact that it's an extraordinarily common term. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
*

For a left-leaning/liberal reason, consider that it highlights the fact that we're essentially making people outlaws because they didn't fill out the right forms before doing what they can to save/provide for their families.

It's widespread as a slur and an equivocation, but it is linguistically and legally meaningless to call a natural person "illegal" -- actions are illegal -- and although we might have an article on the use of the colloquialism, we should certainly try to reach consensus on the use of the term in what are required to be NPOV expositions of facts and events. SPECIFICO talk 19:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
You completely missed my point SPEC: It didn't get traction last time and it's highly unlikely to get traction this time because it's just not as unequivocal as it's being made out to be. Whether or not it's the best term to use is immaterial to that.
Also, any widespread use of a term is linguistically meaningful. Finally, the law does, actually recognize slang terms (else any evidence using it would be inadmissible), so it's legally meaningful, too. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Nah. I think you completely missed my point. I must be getting tongue-tied. Thanks SPECIFICO talk 20:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
You are aware that this sort of rhetorical tactic ceases being effective around 7th grade or so, right? "No, you are!" hasn't really bothered me in a couple of decades. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
7th grade, or presidential campaigns. [7] 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 22:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Political office campaigns get a special dispensation. They get a "poopyhead" quota, as well ;). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
(orange butt icon Buttinsky)...more like fingers-tied, perhaps? ^_^ My thoughts - illegal immigrant/immigration is a ubiquitous legal term, although some may consider it not a politically correct one. WP is not about PC because that is just another form of censorship, and WP doesn't censor. As for the use of the term in RS, a good start is the recent PBS article which uses both, but specifically that (my underline): Congress passed a law 70 years later prohibiting illegal immigrants from voting “for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner.” Happy editing - Atsme📞📧 20:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Atsme, the point is that "illegal immigration" is a meaningful and testable statement about an event. "Illegal immigrant" is a slur. People don't get "illegal" no matter what they do. SPECIFICO talk 00:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Rfc

I thought open RFCs were closed by nonparticipating persons preferably an admin?--MONGO 00:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. We've discussed it and worked it out at the talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 05:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Re: "I didn't intend to create drama", I can't fault you at any step along the way. The outcome was clear, the close was fine, and reverting the close was the path of least drama when it was challenged. ~Awilley (talk) 05:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

THE Melania Jacket

Hi MelanieN. I notice that the discussion on the Melania Trump Talk page has been closed, so I hope you don't mind my replying to your questions to me here.

Towards the end of the First World War, the Italian Special Forces known as the Arditi adopted the defiant catchphrase or slogan "Me ne frego", a boast that they did not care if they were killed in battle. The phrase literally translates as "I don't rub myself (about that)" (compare the English expression "to rub one out"), which was considered vulgar or obscene at the time, and which is paralleled in meaning and sexual implication by the English phrases "I don't give a toss" and "I don't give a fuck." The actual Italian phrase features grammatical points of interest to linguists, which is mainly why Language Log was examining the issue (see Menefreghismo), though admittedly LL, like Reality, has a distinct Liberal bias.

Former Ardeti members and others in various subsequent movements and bodies, such as the terrorist Black Squads who became part of the Italian Fascist movement, continued to use the slogan though the 20s, 30s and WW2 itself, during which Mussolini's Italy occupied the Slovenian homeland of Melania Trump's family. The slogan (as well as several others) is still in wide use today by Italian neo-fascists, and by fashion and graphic designers who pander to them: Pope Francis recently referred to this very slogan while discussing the horrors that Italian fascism wrought.

The vendors of Melania's Jacket have previously sold items with apparent (if not actual) fascist or nazi implications (such as a handbag with a swastika, and a child's teeshirt with the stripes and yellow star of Jewish concentration camp inmates), and it has been suggested (though I myself can't corroborate) that some of their designers are linked to those producing for the neo-fascist market, and that THE jacket carries a deliberate translation of this fascist slogan. Being professionally involved in the fashion industry herself, speaking fluent Italian (she herself claims), and coming from formerly Italian fascist-occupied territory, it seems at least feasible (though it may not actually be true) that Melanie Trump would be aware of some or all of this, and would not therefore have worn THE jacket unthinkingly.

Whether all of those dots do join up, or whether her wearing THE Jacket was nothing more than a tone-deaf gaffe (which, surprisingly, none of her personal staff flagged up), I myself neither know nor care (having never being nearer than 2,500 miles to the USA). As a disinterested Wikipedian, however, it does seem to me that the controversy over the issue might merit inclusion, and having stumbled over the alleged possible "fascist connection" on Language Log (which I read regularly for interest) I thought the material was relevant to the discussion.

I hope you're enjoying your holiday. Regards, {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.0.113 (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

IIRC, Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz was wearing the same jacket when he gave the order to destroy the Earth to make way for a hyperspace express route. I could be wrong. O3000 (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
He really didn't care, because all he knew about Earth was that it was mostly harmless. --MelanieN (talk) 04:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, I'm sorry, but I don't seen any connection at all between someone saying "I don't care," and an Italian expression meaning "I don't give a fuck" and specifically used by the Fascists in a particular context. If someone says "pardon me," and someone else digs up an old German expression meaning "please commute my death sentence," I don't see a connection there either. --MelanieN (talk) 01:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree. It's interesting to speculate, but we can only use SYNTH and speculation made in RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
+1. This is the English Wikipedia. Things are complicated enough without introducing usage from other languages. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm not for a moment suggesting that Wikipedia should make such OR/Synthesis claims. The point is that others in the (English Language) Real World are making such suggestions: I've seen mention of them in fora completely independent of Language Log (did you actually read the linked post and comments?) and the article it excerpted, and that this is part of an ongoing (though currently perhaps slackening-off) media controversy. What Wikipedia should do is consider whether or not the controversy currently merits inclusion in the article, and that consideration should be aware of the gamut of relevant material.
My own estimation is that, currently, the controversy isn't quite prominent enough to be included in the present article, but things may change. I would also say, speaking as a disinterested foreigner, that the article presently seems very anodyne and perhaps over-sanitised, suggesting that it is being subtly curated by pro-Trump interests rather than being neutral. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.0.113 (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
It was recently decided, by overwhelming consensus (16 to 2) at that article’s talk page, not to mention the jacket at all. If we are not mentioning the jacket at all, we are certainly not going to be exploring media analyses of its possible meaning. With that overwhelming a consensus, this is clearly not a “subtle curation by pro-Trump interests.” This decision, like other decisions involving that article, comes from a large and diverse group of editors editing the article in accordance with their understanding of Wikipedia policy. Personal observation: It may be that in this and other articles about First Ladies, the balance between DUE and UNDUE comes down a little more on the side of privacy, and a little less on the side of aggressively covering every move they make and every controversy they get involved in, compared to the articles about their presidential spouses. That’s just a hunch, I haven’t made a study of it, but I think you will find that most First Lady articles have been handled this way. --MelanieN (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Justin Trudeau

Hi Melanie. Sorry for the disturbance, but I would like your opinion on on this edit, whenever you have some free time to check it out. Thank you. Dr. K. 03:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. As you know, I am uninvolved at that article. I took a look and tidied up the section. IMO this would never have been mentioned in his bio on the strength of an unsigned editorial in a minor local paper - but his recent denial was reported in enough major media outlets that it probably does now have a place in the article. That's just one person's opinion; the actual discussion about whether to include it or not should take place on the article's talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 04:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
P.S. As I said, I am uninvolved there and don't know the article's traditions, but shouldn't there be something in the article somewhere - maybe under foreign policy - about the recent difficulties with the U.S. over trade policy specifically and level of discourse generally? --MelanieN (talk) 04:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much Melanie for taking the time to check this out and also for your copyedits. I know this article is outside your normal subjects, but I value your opinion, and, in the absence of any reaction from the regulars there, I think I will leave this alone for now. As far as the recent developments, you are right, as usual. However, my focus on that article has been on removing BLP vios rather than adding any political events. I think this will eventually be added by a few active editors there. Dr. K. 11:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


Monarch butterfly migration GA article review

I am working to bring the article on Monarch butterfly to GA status and thought you might be interested in helping out. I read your article on Katalina and like it very much. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 21:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Barbara. I'm away from my regular computer for a couple of weeks but I will take a look when I get back (maybe it will already be a GA by then). MelanieN alt (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
@Barbara (WVS): I do have a few comments about the article's coverage of the 1975 discovery. It does not mention Fred Urquhardt's wife Norah, who by all accounts was his collaborator and co-researcher (although her name does not appear in his formal publications due to her lack of a PhD). Also, a little more explanation of the army of "citizen scientists" from all over the US and Canada who did the tagging would be helpful. Finally, the earlier historical paragraphs are confusing because they mention "before 1975" when there has been no mention of 1975 at that point. Thanks, sorry I can't help with the actual editing at this point. MelanieN alt (talk) 22:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestions and I will certainly add the information you suggest and clean up those things needed. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 02:13, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

California Proposition 6 (2018) user Issues

Hi Melanie,

A user keeps adding political opinion into a Wikipedia page I created. Please advise on what I should do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_6_(2018)

I edited in the message below to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Narayansg

As the creator of the page, I have been working with Wikipedia Editor Patrick Rogel https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Patrick_Rogel to ensure the page is correct.

On the first major revision, I have noticed the Car Fee Tax portion of California SB1 was removed and then paragraphs placed with opinions denouncing the Proposition 6 2018. I spent some time getting the page back to facts only. Upon the second major revision and the newest revision the opinion information were entered once again.

It is wrong to turn the Wikipedia Pages as an opinion to sway vote against or for any Proposition bill or any election, especially when not voted yet. The page should be just facts with reference for research and not included any political opinion. Please communicate with me so that the Wikipedia page we both are working on is edited with only correct facts as Reference only. Political opinion quotes should be left to blog posts.

Thankyou Melanie for taking the time,

--CRTGAMER (talk) 13:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)CRTGAMER


Hi Melanie,

Narayansg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Narayansg) and I are currently discussing on a compromise on the Wikipedia page. I once again removed the opinion statements but did leave some of Narayansg edits of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_6_(2018).

I also noticed that Narayansg had edited Carl Demaio (the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_DeMaio) page. I reverted this page back to march 8, 2018 and recommended to Narayansg that both of us should be hands off on that page.

There are already some defaming statements in this section that I cannot repeat here. Perhaps you might want to delete, look at paragraph 5 in the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_DeMaio#2014_congressional_election

Thanks again for taking the time for this,

--CRTGAMER (talk) 23:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)CRTGAMER

Hello, CRTGAMER. I am out of town and can't do much online. I took a look at the Carl DeMaio article and I think you were wrong to remove his entry in its entirety. It was mostly factual and well sourced; it is only necessary to edit out the political opinion. I will restore it and do that. As for the paragraph about allegations, that is factual and well known, and it has been in the article for a long time. I'll take a look at the proposition article a little later. --MelanieN alt (talk) 00:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
P.S. And where did you get the idea (expressed on his talk page) that if you are editing the Prop 6 article you mustn't edit the DeMaio article? There is no such rule, and in fact it is common for people to edit closely related articles. --MelanieN alt (talk) 00:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Melanie,

Thank you for taking the time to review the pages and helping Narayansg and myself to sort out the articles. I thought it was unethical to touch the Carl Demaio page due to the back and forth editing in the Proposition 6 page. Carl Demaio is the sponsor of the Proposition 6 bill; this is why I did not want to edit out the politics of the Demaio page and felt that Narayansg who placed that "gazelle strategy" took a political stance. I will not touch that page, especially now that you are reviewing and editing it.

Thank you,

--CRTGAMER (talk) 10:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)CRTGAMER

Dear Melanie, Thank you for getting involved to resolve this edit war. None of want to be in an edit war, and since you and I are both travelling on vacation right now, I will not edit these pages for the next few weeks. Every single piece of info I added to the pages on Prop 6 and Carl DeMaio is factually correct and properly sourced, and I believe that they are all relevant to encyclopedic articles about Prop 6 and DeMaio. The only "opinion" I added was a quote which I attributed to Governor Jerry Brown, and I believe that is relevant. However, I respect Wikipedia's neutrality and I will trust you to make this a neutral and good page, when you have time to do so. Thank you,

Narayansg (talk) 14:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Folks, please don't back out of any page just because I am also editing it. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, no one owns a page. The fact that you are editing a particular page does not make it "unethical" for you to edit similar pages; on the contrary, it is common for people to work on multiple related pages at the same time. What would be unethical would be if either of you had an actual relationship with Carl Demaio; if so you have to disclose it and have your edits reviewed by a neutral editor. (Fun fact: some years ago, when Demaio was on the city council, I discovered that his article was purely promotional - in fact mostly copied from his campaign website - and when I fixed it I found myself in an edit war with someone trying to restore the promotional stuff. Turned out Demaio had ordered his staff to maintain the article, and a local newspaper found out about it and publicized it; you can read the whole sorry adventure here on my talk page, under the "my press" section at the top of the page.)
Anyhow, I will not be monitoring the proposition page on any sort of regular basis, so please continue to work on it. And where you disagree, discuss on the article's talk page until you reach a consensus. That may sound impossible but you would be surprised how often it is possible for two people who disagree in principle to come up with a wording that both can accept. And BTW there is nothing wrong with having a section at the proposition article which includes commentary for and against the person or issue. Not just any random commentary, and not from a primary source (that is, the person him/herself); it has to be comments from prominent people that have been reported by multiple independent secondary sources. And it should be summarized, preferably to a single sentence, rather than quoted extensively. Look at other proposition articles and you will see what I mean -MelanieN alt (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
P.S. On a talk page discussion, don't separate comments by a line; the usual format is to indent a reply under the comment it is replying to, as I have done here. To indent one space put a colon : at the front of the line; to indent two spaces put two colons :: and so on. --MelanieN alt (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello again Melanie,
A different user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:47.151.23.7 added a Polls section to the page which showed a public opinion leaning positive to approving Prop 6 bill. The poll does not count for every single registered voter so only a partial public opinion. As in earlier additions by Narayansg that to me presented a reverse negative opinion, I felt any post that leads to opinion of any proposition bill is wrong especially since the vote will not be until November 2018.
We really need clarification on where Wikipedia stands concerning sway of any upcoming election. I believe in free speech of all contributors and every one owns the page, but do not think any entry should have opinions inserted influencing voter decision. That would lead to a huge warring effort from both sides of a given election. Whichever side more diligent in posting opinions even with substantiated references will sway voters and this to me is very wrong. To remain fair to all, I feel best that Wikipedia maintain upcoming election posts as factual reference only.
Perhaps Edit in referenced opinions only after an election?
Thanks and please post guidance on this.
--CRTGAMER (talk) 04:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)CRTGAMER
Hi Melanie,
There have been a few edits going back and forth inserting opinions into the Propsosition 6 Wikipedia page. The two recent updates today appear a great cleanup removing opinions and moving the page back to research reference only. I thanked both of the following users with below statement.
Yilloslime (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yilloslime)
Red Rock Canyon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Red_Rock_Canyon)
"Just would like to thank you for cleaning up the paragraphs and also allowing the edits that another user had made to remain. The Wikipedia User Yilloslime (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yilloslime) removed all the opinions in the article and leaving to facts only. Wikipedia should not be used to affect decisions on an upcoming election, but should provide just facts for research.
Thanks again, hopefully the page stays this way, a great layout."
--CRTGAMER (talk) 22:02, 20 August 2018 (UTC)CRTGAMER

Option G

Re [8], no worky. MONGO already laid claim to the letter G. I'll let you sort that out. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:56, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I fixed it. Glad you recognized me in my disguise. 0;-D --MelanieN alt (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Hatting

Hi...why would you hat my response to your off topic comment but not your off topic comment? can you adjust that to include at least the part of your comment that strayed off topic? [9]--MONGO (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

That's a fair request. --MelanieN alt (talk) 20:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Checking in

Re: [10], got it. Sorry. MastCell Talk 00:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Prior consensus for the lead

Re your editsum: Since when? ―Mandruss ☎ 23:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Maybe that was an overstatement. But the lede in that article has already been so thoroughly parsed and discussed that it is almost always controversial if someone decides to add something to the lede without discussing it first. You know that; the talk page is full of "I think we should add this to the lede" discussions which are vigorously debated. --MelanieN (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Sure, but that doesn't warrant inaccurate and misleading statements from admins. The reason for the revert was that the reverted edit violated bullet 1 of the restrictions. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
And IMO almost all significant changes to the lede violate some bullet or other of the consensus list. Like I said, that lede has been thoroughly, thoroughly debated. --MelanieN (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Opinion polling for the Pakistani general election, 2018

A new survey result is to be added to the article, I believe the article should be unprotected or semi protected, as no edit warring took place before it was given full protection Jibran1998 (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

You should make this request to User:Enigmaman, who imposed the full protection. --MelanieN (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
"as no edit warring took place before it was given full protection" This is not correct. Enigmamsg 02:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Enigma. I totally defer to your judgment on this one. --MelanieN (talk) 02:46, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Opinion please

Enough of this. OID, there's no need to get nasty.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi Melanie - I'd like your opinion on something as both a woman and an administrator. I came across the following on an editor's talk page as left by another editor. The text I'm having issues with is, "You fucking retarded bitch....need to go play with my pussy because I'm a bitch who needs some release" [11] I get that it was posted as an attempt at humor, however, even as a male, I see it as sexist and extremely offensive. Not to mention use of "the 'R' word" is offensive for obvious reasons. I'm imagining how it would be seen if it had a racist tone, and I know it wouldn't be seen as acceptable. Yes, Wikipedia editorship is mostly male, but that's no excuse, in my opinion, for it to remain. Neither is the posting editor's excuse that it was said to him rather than by him, therefore, it's no big deal and doesn't need to be deleted. I brought this to the attention of the editor in question at his talk page - discussion can be seen here [12]. Thanks for taking a look into this. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I shouldn't even dignify this with a response, but I will note that "You fucking retarded bitch" wasn't even in the visible text on MjolnirPants' talk page, it was part of the link. Alexis Jazz (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Does it matter? Such commentary need not be promoted whether it be by linking to it or repeating it or having it visible in the diff. It was poor judgement on your part from then to now (with you defending its existence and visibility in any form or location). -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Go find something better to do with your time than being a talkpage traffic warden. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure you're right. One should just ignore and encourage the perpetuation of insensitive, discriminatory, sexist, and ugly language in Wikipedia because... tolerance and professionalism, right? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Not interested in playing your concern troll games. When someone refers to themselves clearly quoting someone else who has insulted them, and you start whining about being offended just because you have had to see language that you do not like *in the context of someone talking about abuse they have received*, that is your problem not theirs. They are under no duty or obligation to satisfy your personal whims. What you are attempting to do is making someone who is genuinely the victim of harrassment, into an attacker. And it is entirely to justify your own needs. It is a vile and base tactic and has no place here. If you want to continue being the talk-page tone police, you will swiftly regret it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:41, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
"If you want to continue being the talk-page tone police, you will swiftly regret it." A threat? How original.
(edit conflict)"it is entirely to justify your own needs." The only ones justifying anything are those who have no problem reposting and excusing what Melanie rightly referred to as "vicious name calling using every offensive word in the book." [13] Do carry on, if it makes you feel better about yourself, but don't expect others outside your in-house applause circle to agree. [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:55, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Karen McDougal

Regarding this section: Michael Cohen (lawyer)#Discussion regarding Karen McDougal

Last night Rachel Maddow stated repeatedly that Trump's lawyers had leaked that tape so they could get ahead of the story since it would come out anyway. I haven't looked for it in RS yet, but let's keep our eyes open. That would be legitimate content if properly sourced. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Prob’ly true. But, as much as I respect Maddow’s knowledge, intelligence, and effort; I tend to avoid her show nowadays as I’d rather view sources that are a bit more filtered by time. O3000 (talk) 01:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
There was also a report that the Special Master had withheld the tape as privileged lawyer-client communication, but that the Trump attorneys had said, never mind privilege, give it to the prosecutors. But again, no confirmation. And I would never use Rachel or any MSNBC host as a source - just as I would never use a Fox commentator. If I can't find it in a neutral mainstream news source I won't use it at all. Wanna bet we can find both of these items very quickly if we try? 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 02:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
It should be on CNN somewhere, because this report cites it happening there, but it's Chris Cuomo and Rick Santorum who say it. Sometimes these things aren't available until the transcript is released, and that can sometimes take weeks. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
I've never seen this source, but it cites The Times (presumably the NYT, since it's mentioned earlier, and it's a good source for this): "Cohen’s lawyers found the recording when reviewing the seized materials from the raid and shared it with Trump’s lawyers, The Times said, citing three unnamed sources." I'm not a subscriber and my free access limit is used up right now. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
There's a flaw in the NYT paywall. You can usually access it with FireFox without a subscription. Or, access in Chrome using an incognito window. O3000 (talk) 11:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Or use a different computer - for example, if your desktop access is used up, use your phone. --MelanieN (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't see anything solid yet. Cuomo is just speculating that Trump did it, and the others are unclear what they are even saying. A Times article I looked at [19] says they got the information about the tape from "lawyers and others familiar with the recording". No help there. And Guiliani confirmed it, presumably after the reporters already knew about it and asked him. There's nothing in this article about who found it or who shared it with who whom. (correction for grammar nerds) But let's keep our eyes out for something we can use. --MelanieN (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, here's half of what we were talking about: it is true that the Special Master evaluated the tape as privileged, and that the Trump attorneys waived privilege and let the prosecutors have it.[20] I have added that to the Michael Cohen article. Still no confirmation of who leaked it or why. --MelanieN (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

And as for Rachel's comments: I listened to the tape, and she is speculating or deducing (along the lines of "it can't have been Cohen's people so it must have been Trump's") - not reporting something she knows for a fact. So no real information on that, but it will be really interesting to find out who it actually was. --MelanieN (talk) 16:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

P.S. If Trump wanted to take the headlines away from the summit, and regain the offensive, he certainly did so with the release of the FISA warrant about Page. I am reading that such a release was very rare - since FISA warrants are highly classified. I also saw a suggestion that Trump himself was the one who declassified it, but I can't find confirmation so we will have to regard that as a rumor. Anyhow, he certainly came out swinging with all of his old favorite positions as soon as it was released. --MelanieN (talk) 16:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Add it. --MelanieN (talk) 15:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, well, now we have the actual tape! Turns out Giuliani's version is baloney; is anyone surprised? Let's discuss on the Cohen talk page how to handle this. --MelanieN (talk) 04:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Giuliani's version not entirely truthful???? What??? I can hardly believe it. (It's pretty sad when one's default attitude toward this whole administration must be to distrust everything they say, because 99% of the time that's the safest position.) Like I've said many times, Trump is a RS for the fact he said something, but never a RS for its veracity. There is a huge difference. In fact, the old adage usually applies: "How do I know if he's lying being untruthful? If his lips are moving..." (There should be a few thousand RS to back up that position.) -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
BTW here's how we should have known that Giuliani's quote of Trump saying "make sure it's done correctly, and make sure it's done by check" was fraudulent: It's a complete sentence. Trump doesn't talk in complete sentences. --MelanieN (talk) 23:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Really? PackMecEng (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
So sad! --MelanieN (talk) 23:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Could we at least pretend BLP is a thing? PackMecEng (talk) 23:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
(EC)Come on, you were obviously joking by posting a one-word comment (i.e., a non-complete sentence), so I responded in kind. Humor, arr arr. One would have to have an ultra-hair-trigger sensitivity for even the tiniest BLP violations to discern any problem with that. --MelanieN (talk) 23:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
He can read complete sentences in prepared statements, but that's the extent of it, and he often interjects his own true thoughts ("strays from the script"), and that's what gets him in trouble. Normal people don't like the real Trump he reveals. Normal people also write his speeches, but then he gets hold of them. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Archive 45←Archive 47Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50Archive 51→Archive 55
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MelanieN/Archive_49&oldid=866317427"