User talk:MelanieN/Archive 67

Archive 60

←

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70

Jim Rogers (California politician)

I found reliable sources for The People's Lawyer and wanted to know what you thought of the condition of the article now, I have completely redone it. Also do you know of anyone with access through paywalls at San Jose Mercury News or East Bay Times as I believe there are more sources to be uncovered over there.Ndołkah☆ (talk) 04:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I lost everything in that fire, so thanks so much! -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:28, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

2019 Fresno shooting

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi MelanieN, sorry to bother you, but could you please keep an eye on 2019 Fresno shooting? User:Bus stop is up to his old tricks, adding victim names without consensus. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for pinging me, but why don't you cease creating disruption over your pointy concerns about the propriety of information that other editors think is relevant? There isn't an iota of sound reasoning for your removal of "rabbinical student" at the article 2019 Jersey City shooting. That is sheer meaningless disruption. This is a collaborative project. I don't think WP:BRD is an excuse for any and all manner of disruption and aggressive behavior—which would include the immediate reverting of editors merely trying to add material that is arguably valid for inclusion, especially when those editors are entirely unfamiliar with your obsession with victim names and associated material—such as an occupation of a decedent. You don't WP:OWN the article. Use the Talk page to present your reasoning about not writing the article. Find something useful to do with your editing time aside from creating disruption. An article is largely written by the additive process, especially in its early stages. You are especially attacking articles at their inception. That has been the modus operandi you have employed to good, disruptive effect, at articles that might contain victim names. You don't get to blithely revert editors such as VanEman and Uniformcharlie886 at Naval Air Station Pensacola shooting. They are not a part of your pointy concern with victim names. It is usually uninvolved editors that add victim names to articles, editors such as VanEman and Uniformcharlie886. I support the inclusion of victim names, but it usually isn't me that you are reverting. I try my best to minimize disruption so I don't go to articles at their inception and add victim names. But you are not shy about imposing your will on editors who have nothing to do with your personal fixation on the inclusion of victim names in articles and information related to victim names—why wouldn't a decedent be described as a "rabbinical student"? This isn't a creative writing project. You don't get to omit information on a whim. If it is indiscriminate, fine—present the argument on the Talk page of "Naval Air Station Pensacola shooting" that the information is indiscriminate. But please give the disruption a break. Pinging WWGB. Bus stop (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Complete fly-on-the-wall here, Bus Stop --

There is and must be a very strong presumption per BLP and other reasons why the default is not to present victims' names where they are incidental to the rest of the article, people, places, and events. Do you think that editors must relitigate this basic principle every time there's a shooting and an article? It's just the opposite. SPECIFICO talk 22:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Bus Stop, you are welcome to start a discussion on the article TP; where I will argue for no inclusion as per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. O3000 (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

The onus is on those arguing to depart from the general outline of a subject provided to us by sources. At Naval Air Station Pensacola shooting virtually all of the best quality journalistic outlets in the United States publish not only the names of the deceased but extensive biographies including photographs of their prior lives. There is no reason whatsoever the article does not include the names of the three U.S. Navy sailors killed. The onus is on someone to explain why those names should be omitted. Bus stop (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

The proper place for this is on the article TP. O3000 (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

WWGB—are you sure you are not working at cross-purposes with Wikipedia? Why would you remove that Charlie Dick is known as the widow of Patsy Cline? You do so at the list of Deaths in November 2015. And you give the edit summary "NOTINHERITED". WP:NOTINHERITED does not tell us not to provide information. I cite this because it is consistent with your removal of information in other areas. That information is doing no harm. So what if it notes the marital relationship between these two people? It is prominently found in the source that is provided at that list: "Charlie Dick, Patsy Cline's Widower, Dead at 81". Are you opposed to Wikipedia providing information? Bus stop (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MelanieN—"Complaining in great detail about an edit WWGB made four years ago, seriously?" Not four years ago. Today. Bus stop (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

OIC. WWGB removed information today from a four-year-old listing. Do you follow their contributions around, or did you happen to have "Deaths in November 2015" on your watchlist? As for the article currently at issue, here's the situation: TomCat added the victims’ names and WWGB removed them on November 18. Nothing happened on the talk page at that time. On January 3 Bus stop restored the names, WWGB removed them, rinse and repeat - and still neither of you has said a word on the talk page. Have you both forgotten the “D” part of BRD? Or are you just so familiar with the arguments that you don’t think it’s necessary actually make them? Earlier I suggested an interaction ban; maybe what we really need is a topic ban for both of you, so that the question can be decided at each article by people who don’t have a fixed position on the issue. I’ll give that some thought. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Kinda looks like Bus Stop followed me to Talk:Murder of Tessa Majors and Talk:Ilhan Omar. But, I don't care and am not making a complaint. Just found it curious. O3000 (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Paradise High School

On 4 January 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Paradise High School, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Paradise High School football team had an undefeated regular season in 2019, even though most of the players had been burned out of their homes the year before? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Paradise High School. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Paradise High School), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• May I add my personal thanks for the above. Wikipedia generally shouldn't evoke emotion, but when I read your addition, it brought a tear to my eye. It's hard to make really good additions of human interest items to school articles without sounding either rah-rah or biased. Great work. John from Idegon (talk) 01:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, John. It affected me the same way. A very moving story. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Move to close Talk:2020_Baghdad_International_Airport_airstrike#Requested_move_6_January_2020

Hi Melaine, Can we try to close out this RM? Lot of folks have had a chance to weigh-in and I don't see consensus getting any clearer on the topic. Unfortunately the result seems decidedly ambiguous, so it would probably be good have someone with experience close it out. Let me know if you think I ought to post under requests for closure. Pinging Qono as nom. NickCT (talk) 13:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

NickCT, Thanks for the ping. I think the discussion is still pretty active and so would hesitate to close as no consensus right now. If MalanieN thinks otherwise, I wouldn't oppose it. I would encourage whoever closes it to consider the context and count the sideways support of "Assassination" titles as at least half-way supporting the intermediate change to "killing". And, as always, to give more weight to those arguments based on Wikipedia policy. Qono (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Nick and Qono. There is no way anyone at "requests for closure" is going to close this. It's only been open for 48 hours; closers usually insist on at least a week and sometimes a month. This is why I suggested going ahead with the result of the informal discussion. Since we are now in a formal process we are going to have to wait until it produces a result. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@MelanieN and Qono: - Hmmmmm..... We should have listened to Melanie (as usual). Now we're basically stuck in a corner waiting. What's worse is that we may be waiting for no consensus.

Melanie - Given this is a current event (which is attracting a high level of interest ATM), and given the RM doesn't seem to moving any more clearly towards a any kind of consensus, you don't think there's any hope that some friendly admin might step in and take action? A lot of folks have weighed-in. It seems reasonable to think that this subject has been given enough thought. NickCT (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I doubt it. Even if I were uninvolved, I wouldn't think of closing it myself. Discussion is still active, and the result is not clear. At this point the best we can do is make sure that the possible alternate titles are redirects to the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Hmmmmm.... Ok. Well I guess I'll wait for there to be a 24hr pause in the conversation before requesting close.

This is an unfortunate situation. Titles like this don't make WP look all that great... NickCT (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@ Taoxiang1014 (talk) 19:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Royal Rumble (2020)

Hi, I've seen that you've protected a few WWE pages in the past, and was wondering if you could protect Royal Rumble (2020). IP users are persistently adding unnecessary content and I've also added 3 warnings on one of the users talk pages. Thank you L1amw90 (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Swarm beat me to it. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Is this anything to be concerned about?

Hi,

Here, an IP uses what's basically original research to justify this, but it's the bit about a court of law that's worrying. Is this some sort of legal threat? Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 01:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Nothing to be concerned about; not a legal threat. The person is just using a common expression to emphasize how sure they are of their information. Of course, it is inadmissible (to use another legal phrase) because it is unsourced and opinion. If they add it again, you can remove it again. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

And I see that they did, and you did, and you explained again. I also added a comment to support what you were saying. If they do it a third time, let me know and I will give them a warning. I didn't want to warn them at this point because they are clearly operating in good faith/ignorance of WP policy. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, they haven't done anything since. Hope I haven't driven them away, but good faith or not, we can't accept stuff like that. Adam9007 (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

86.8.200.94

Needs a range block I think. Please see 3RR report. Thanks. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

DIYeditor: I commented at the 3RR report. They are recommending a range block all right. Thanks for calling this to my attention. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

IP continues harassment/insults at Talk:Albert Camus

Hi MelanieN! Please have a look here.[1] Cinadon36 22:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I blocked them for a week. If they come back under a different IP, let me know and I'll ask for a rangeblock. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do. Cinadon36 07:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

A Christmas Carol

Hi Melanie, Before Christmas you protected the article on A Christmas Carol, as it was being vandalised. For some reason the vandals just waited until after the protection was lifted and have been at work again. Could you add a couple more weeks, which will take us to the end of January? Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 08:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, SchroCat. Sure enough, they started in almost the minute the protection ended. I checked the protection log and it needs protection virtually every year. And it is a Good Article. So decided to give it indefinite semi-protection. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

That's great - thanks very much indeed. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

LGBT slang

Hi,

There's someone (first an IP, then an account) persistently removing sourced content based on their own opinion rather than those or reliable sources (as evidenced at their talk page). I tried to debate the issue with him/her, but I don't think I did a very good job of it. Might be worth keeping an eye on (it might need protection even; I've listed it at RfPP). Is it me, or are these articles some sort of magnet for aphobia (or at least, what could be perceived as aphobia)? I know it's a controversial topic, but still.... Adam9007 (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Adam. I've been offline; looks like Johnuniq beat me to it. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I was afraid that, once he stated his reasoning on his talk page, my actions would be interpreted as edit warring, rather than disruption/vandalism reverting. I'm glad to see that they haven't been. Butt his isn't the first time that so-called "ace exclusionits" have come here to push their own agenda, and I have a queer feeling that we're going to be seeing a lot more of this kind of thing. Is there any way of discouraging this kind of behaviour (the only thing I can think of is long-term protection, but that isn't fair on others), or do we just have to deal with it as it comes? Adam9007 (talk) 01:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Unless it becomes frequent enough to be disruptive, we'll have to deal with it as it comes. In the current case, it was disruptive: edit warring and frequent changing of IPs, in effect sockpuppetry; hence the semi-protection. But we certainly can't impose some kind of prohibition against a certain type of edit. And let's not stereotype everyone who tries to remove these nicknames as some kind of bigot; some are undoubtedly acting on what they believe in good faith to be the criteria for inclusion, rather than aphobic or "pushing their own agenda". -- MelanieN (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Possible discretionary sanctions violation

Does this revert violate the 24-hr BRD cycle sanction on Bernie Sanders? Sanders' portrait was updated in this edit from Nov 12 2019, and user Corkythehornetfan restored the old portrait in this edit on Jan 19 2020. I reverted his edit, and he subsequently reverted my revert on Jan 20 2020 without taking the issue to talk.

For what it's worth, I think that user HappyWanderer15's invocations of WP:IAR and WP:UCS are justified in this case, considering the age of the 2007 portrait and the significant shift in Sanders' public image since it was taken. Vrrajkum (talk) 02:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Arguable: which was the long-standing photo - the years-long one or the two-month one? Or is there a guideline for politician photos, as Corky claimed? There may be. See, for example, the photos at Barack Obama or Lindsey Graham or Mitch McConnell.

If I were you I would let it stand for now and seek consensus. The main problem I see in this exchange is that neither of you has gone to the D part of BRD. I see nothing on the talk page from either of you. That's where this kind of dispute belongs. Make your argument there. And ping the other party to the discussion. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Very stable

I was thinking about nominating A Very Stable Genius for DYK, with you and me as creators. But I thought I'd check to see a) if that's okay with you, and b) if so, whether either of these appeal: ...that the title of the book A Very Stable Genius comes from a tweet by Donald Trump? ...that the book A Very Stable Genius reports that American president Donald Trump did not know that India and China share a border? I like the first one for being interesting and neutral, and the source is the material you added. If you don't think DYK or either of these hooks are good ideas, I'm fine with that, too. No worries. Thanks for thinking about it. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 07:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Flamingo, and thanks for the note. Good idea. You don't need to credit me, I only added a paragraph - maybe 10% of the article - while you created all the rest of a very well written and well sourced article. I also like the first hook. It is based on clear public facts, while other possibilities are more in the "reportedly" realm. If we were looking for a second hook proposal I think it would would relate to the widely reported "dopes and babies" quote, rather than the somewhat obscure and open-to-interpretation India gaffe, but probably "dopes and babies" is not ideal for a hook as it casts a living person in a bad light. Let's just go with the title hook. BTW the Washington Post review gives a lot of detail about what is in the book; I think we should use it to expand the contents section, as well as giving the usual one-sentence summary of the review. I'll look into that later today. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm done. Feel free to go ahead with whatever. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Excellent timing: DYK nom. At this rate GA isn't far off. Thanks for all your work on the article! Now that you've expanded it even more, are you sure you don't want another DYK credit? So easy to add that name. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but you take this one. I have plenty of DYKs, and I was a minor participant in this one. You deserve the credit. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Junko Minagawa

Hi, hours ago I responded on the page Wikipedia:Requests for page protection here. 148.0.126.176 (talk) 03:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I have been away from the computer. I have now responded at your talk page. -- MelanieN (talk) 06:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Sindoor

Please remove following abusive content on "sindoor" page of wiki:

"in certain parts of kerala there is a practice of hindu womens wearing sindoor to protect their daughters from Love jihad attack" Alithenu (talk) 07:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I see that this was added just before I protected the article. I will restore the longstanding version, since you are not able to. -- MelanieN (talk) 07:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for consistently prodding me to run (my bad!) and advising me on my approach at every step. qedk (t 桜 c) 15:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I was glad to do it. Hope you continue to be glad you said yes! 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 17:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Brief vacation

{{vacation}}

Have a nice one, Melanie! --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Archive 60

←

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70