User talk:MelanieN/Archive 68

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70

→

Archive 75

Timeline

Welcome to the Trump Timeline. Your history of impartial unbiased editing proceeds you. ―Buster7 ☎ 00:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I think. 0;-D I wish I could figure out why every item in the subsections repeats "President Trump" "President Trump" instead of dropping the title per MOS. But it's that way in every subsection. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

It's an affliction that presidential timelines fall victim too. I prefer variety and detest the repetitiveness. Where is it mentioned in the MoS...I couldn't find it. ―Buster7 ☎ 07:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Susan Collins

Hello MelanieN. I saw you protected Susan Collins due to vandalism. Susan Collins (disambiguation) may need the same protection. thanks,   // Timothy :: talk  04:32, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Timothy, thanks for the heads-up. I semi-protected it and warned them. How in the world did you even spot that? Not many people have DAB pages on their watchlists. -- MelanieN (talk) 05:17, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN I was looking the user creation log to welcome someone just starting (trying to welcome more often). I check the contribs to make sure I don't welcome a vandal and noticed it. :) Have a wonderful weekend.   // Timothy :: talk  06:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Commiserations

... for the fools running your country. starship.paint (talk) 10:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Revdel request

Could I get a revdel on my User talk page [1]? Thanks. XOR'easter (talk) 02:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah, looks like it's been done already. Sorry to bother you! XOR'easter (talk) 02:39, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

No problem. Ask any time. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:40, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Indenting

BTW: I changed your second post's indent, so that you weren't responding to yourself :) GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, GoodDay. Actually I commonly indent a P.S., to make it clear that it's still part of what I had to say - rather than start a whole new section as if I were a new person. I changed it back before I saw this note. If it's OK with you, let's leave it that way. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:SNOW

It's a moot point, but your closure/switch of the virus name debate was under WP:SNOW rather than WP:IAR. This incident will be reported to the People's Front of Wikilawyers' Central Committee Disciplinary Proactive Action Board Against Acronymalisational Deviations. Boud (talk) 02:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Pfft. Nobody pays any attention to the PFWCCDPABAAD. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Aww, shucks. SNOW is no fun. I live for the chance to do IAR stuff. 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus disease RM

Hi Melanie

Just a note on my decision to undo your IAR at the coronavirus thing... I feel really bad for undoing it, as you're someone I respect greatly, and maybe it was the wrong thing for me to do I don't know. But I just personally feel that I it will be a far better and more settled outcome if it is based on a reasoned closure of the original RM, including all its discussions and policy points. And I think there is still a very good chance that such a definitive closure will be achieved. This probably wasn't your intention, but the RFC was starting to look like a straw-poll of editor's individual preferences, rather than reasoned arguments. So apologies again, I hope there are no hard feelings, and let's hope this matter can be put to bed soon.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Amakuru, thanks for the note. I'm fine with that. It was an IAR thing for me to do, and IAR only works if people accept it. My fear was just that the RM would go on for weeks and ultimately be closed as "no consensus" for anything and we'd just have to start over again anyhow. But we'll see. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Eurydice (Aucoin)

On 15 February 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Eurydice (Aucoin), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 2020 opera Eurydice was created by three geniuses? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Eurydice (Aucoin). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Eurydice (Aucoin)), 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.

--valereee (talk) 12:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Bloomberg article

Hi MelanieN. I see that you recently semi-protected the Michael Bloomberg article. Thanks. I'm puzzled as to why no Admin has placed page the 1RR, Consensus Required page sanctions on it. I believe that the other announced candidates' pages all have that. It looks to me as if there are some good faith editors there who are not fully aware of the balance needed for a sensitive BLP with lots of breaking news and political talking points. Regards. SPECIFICO talk 15:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, SPECIFICO. I don't really do DS tagging myself but I'll suggest it to someone who does. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Can you topic ban me?

I want to distance myself from all things Bernie Sanders. I tried explaing at the fringe theories noticeboard, but like when I tried stepping away from the shooting victims shitshow, a certain deacon won't let me move on. So instead of anyone doing it for any of the many reasons I genuinely tried to make clear, could you possibly do it for no reason other than me politely asking you this favour? Hell, even a blanket ban from the whole problematic election would be fine, if Wikipedia doesn't recognize Sanders as a distinct topic area. But not American politics altogether, that's too general. Thanks? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I have always wondered. Can a standard user invoke IAR to topic ban another user? Technically speaking it does not require advanced tools. PackMecEng (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

If I can do it to myself more directly than this, without having to paste or type something complicated, I would. Trying through the noticeboard seems to be grounds for a total block, and I've never wanted that. I could try vandalizing a broad range of Sanders articles, but that seems even more "disruptive" to me, somehow. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Hulk, this is just weird. Using your own talk page for crazy stuff is permitted, I suppose, but you need to keep it off of noticeboards and regular Wikipedia pages. And your “prediction” is so off the wall, as well as so NOTHERE, that you really ought to delete it everywhere you have made it. But all right, since you ask: I hereby prohibit you from saying anything at all about Bernie Sanders, either directly or by implication, or editing any Bernie Sanders-related page - effective immediately, for a period of one year. The only exception would be deleting stuff you have previously said about him. And no, I’m not joking, even if you are. It’s not funny. Do it and I will hit you with a block. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much, and no, I'm not joking. I needed that! I'm not going to delete any backstory, but even the most "cryptic" allusions will henceforth refer to other people and races...trust me. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia IS ENABLING ETHNIC TERRORISM OF MINORITY GROUPS BY IGBOS

Etche is an indigenous ethnic group in present day Nigeria. It is not Igbo, has never been, and will never be. Non Etche people, the Igbos in particular have for decades continued to oppress, suppress and forcefully attempting to annex all minorities south of the Niger river for political and economic gains, and the Wikipedia platform continues to enable and protect this barbaric literary ethnic genocide on a peace loving group of people. As an Echie person, I find this unacceptable and I call on Wikipedia to put a stop to this. WE ARE ETCHE PEOPLE, NATIVE AND INDEGENOUS TO SOUTHERN NIGERIA, AND WE ARE NOT A SUB-GROUP OF ANY GROUP, WHETHER IN NIGERIA, OR FROM ISREAL, OR EGYPT.

You live your region to come match on our streets in Port Harcourt and its environs declaring that our lands now belong to you. You use derogatory terms on us and you stage rallies in our communities - causing havocs for us and people who live in our communities. How on earth are non Etche people empowered to rewrite the history of Etche? Why cannot we be allowed to live our lives in peace? What kind of Igbo supremacy project is Wikipedia advancing?

Igbos, we know you are on a mission for political relevance and possible cessation. I respect your choices and your rights to self determination, but please tell your workgroups to leave Echie out of your schemes.

Thank you!

Eze-Basil Oluo — Preceding unsigned comment added by BasilOluo (talk • contribs) 16:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, BasilOluo, and thanks for the note. I see you have made this same argument on the article's talk page. That's good; that's where it belongs. However, you should supply some published sources to support what you say. Without sources, it is just your opinion. See WP:Reliable sources and Help:Referencing for beginners. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Melanie, the biggest contention here is the first line the Igbos keep adding to our page. The line that says "Etche is one of the Igbo sub-groups". The rest of the article is fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BasilOluo (talk • contribs) 17:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I understand that. Neither side has offered any proof. Proof would be Reliable Sources stating that the Etche people are a subgroup of the Igbos, or that they are not. You should search for proof. See if you can find something at Google, or better yet, Google Scholar. Try this search: [2] -- MelanieN (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Please see a list of indigenous people from Niger Delta of Nigeria:

http://mobile.ipund.org/page-4

Please see these articles from 2013, where my people are making it clear that we are not Igbos. We may be neighbors, but that doesn't mean we are a sub of anyone. https://theneighbourhoodonline.com/2013/06/12/open-letter-to-the-honorable-minister-of-niger-delta-affairs-elder-godsday-orubebe/

https://clonlesley.blogspot.com/2016/09/etche-endangered-ethnicityby-nwankwo.html

https://allafrica.com/stories/201308190182.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by BasilOluo (talk • contribs) 18:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, the issues here are:

Some people are trying to claim my ethnic group as a sub of theirs, and this group has no proof like you have confirmed.

I, on the other hand is saying my ethnic group is not a sub of any one. I am also not claiming them as my own sub. I would think the most logical thing to do would be to let my people exist as Echie people and not subject us to the opinions of the others, for they have no proof of their claims. Asking me to justify why I am not their sub is the very definition of modern day slavery; protecting and forcing their opinion on my ethnic group, even after confirming that they have no proof defines both slavery and ethnic cleansing. Etche is an indigenous ethnic group in present day Nigeria. We have a right to exist as Etche people and this right should not be subject to our acceptance of subjugation. In 2020, no human or group of humans should have to explain why they should not be enslaved or annexed. Wikipedia ought to know better. BasilOluo (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

BasilOluo, Wikipedia only knows as well as the rest of the world. We reflect the opinion the rest of the world has. If the minority says A is wrong, and the majority says A is right, Wikipedia will say A is right. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 19:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

BasilOluo You are putting this argument on the wrong page. My talk page is not going to settle this discussion. The article talk page is the place for your evidence and arguments. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Request for pending trial for the lego star wars complete saga page

Lately there has been infrequent disruptive editing on Lego Star Wars: The Complete Saga, mainly adding YouTube links or claiming it was the inspiration for the films and any additions of YouTube links would be removed by the next minute to avoid people noticing. Can you set up a pending trial because all of these forms of disruptive editing come from IPs. 209.237.105.107 (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but I don't think Pending Changes at that article is a good idea. Here's why: literally ALL of the editing there is being done by IPs. In the month of February there has not been a single edit by an autoconfirmed editor, much less an editor with the "pending change reviewer" right. So the effect of PC protection would be to totally logjam the article, piling up IP edits waiting to be approved or rejected, with no one who is able to approve or reject them. Not an acceptable situation. People will just have to watchlist the page, and remove the problem edits as they occur. If you could recruit a few established editors to keep an eye on the page, that might solve the problem better than any protection. You could ask for "eyes on the article" at one of the related WikiProjects: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games, Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Wars, or Wikipedia:WikiProject Lego. Or you could register a username yourself; within a few days and a few edits you would be autoconfirmed. And you could watchlist. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the answer. 209.237.105.107 (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh gnome! It's a unfriendly talkpage gnome!

A friendly talkpage gnome jammed your talkpage into their already very full watchlist (1640 pages!). They hope you don't mind. --—moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 19:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Braden, and welcome! Of course I don't mind; I love my stalkers. Besides, when you added yourself to your already very full watchlist, you helped me increase my Jimbo score from 9.01 to 9.04 centijimbos. 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Nirvana

Sorry for the double "thank you", but I just had to come here thank you personally. I'm glad you agree with my rational, this will take a load off :). Thank you for what you do. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 02:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome. Ask any time you have a protection issue, that's the main thing I do. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I'll just have to take you up on that offer. I was looking a RfPP for upload protection via Twinkle and the noticeboard itself and nada. I checked upload protection guideline and found that a file I uploaded File:Buddy 2017.jpg could qualify for upload protection per the last bulleted item in that section which states Files with common or generic names. I've never had any protection issues with files (I do a lot of file moves). I don't know if you're comfortable with files, but if you could I'd appreciate it being protected, it is a common name. Anyway if you're not comfortable, I surely understand. Thanks for your time and for what you do :) Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 03:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm afraid I'm unfamiliar with protecting files. I should have said page protection is the main thing I do here. I can see how to do an upload protection, but I'm not familiar with when and why to do it - apparently it can be used pre-emptively rather than just in response to a problem. How about this, let’s ping somebody who is both an enwiki administrator and a Commons administrator. @Czar, King of Hearts, and Ymblanter: Can you take a look at FlightTime's request? -- MelanieN (talk) 04:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

My understanding is that the line cited is to protect files with names like File:Jesus.jpg from collecting erroneous uploads. I would think that the dog photo above isn't at risk of being overwritten, right? If not, we avoid preemptive protection by default. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 04:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Czar, that's very helpful. -- MelanieN (talk) 05:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Czar: Understand, thanks for your time. - FlightTime (open channel) 05:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Caroline Flack

Hi Melanie, it's possible you've been misled about the need to SP this article. @Walter Görlitz:, requested a month(!) of SP for "persistent vandalism". There was no "persistent" vandalism. There were a few content disputes involving one particular IP user, and a couple of minor edits that might be construed as vandalism. In none of these cases were the IP users warned or blocked. However, regardless of the SP, Gorlitz, @SchroCat:, and a few others are still there edit warring and arguing. SchroCat is also surreptitiously removing edits, including mine, that don't fit his world view. He does this by using misleading, or no, edit summaries, and by reverting multiple edits at once. To summarise, the problem is not so much with the IP users, but with the anonymous users, and SP does nothing to help in this respect. They have achieved the neutralisation of a whole population of editors for no good reason. I note you gave the reason for SP as "unsourced or poorly sourced content". This is a far more accurate description of the problem, but the vast majority of edits falling into this category are carried out by anonymous users and not IP editors. Could I ask you to review your decision? Thanks, 31.52.163.160 (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I reverted your edit. It was poor. There is very little edit warring, and what you are calling "arguing" is discussion on the talk page, which is what is supposed to happen. - SchroCat (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

You wrote "...death as a suicide". I wrote "...death as suicide". My grammar is correct; yours is incorrect. 31.52.163.160 (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Of course; you are, of course, brilliant. How silly of me. - SchroCat (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your mis-characterization of my request to protect. Recent death and the article appears to be a focal point. Protect for a month please. Whether there is or is not actual vandalism, which is not the reason I should have selected, the article should be protected and changes discussed, particularly from SchroCat as they have gone well past the acceptable WP:3RR limit. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Please try to remain closer to the truth than you are at the moment: I am not past 3RR, given many of my edits have been because this is in relation to a BLP, which is supposed to have solid sourcing. If people keep breaching BLP sourcing I will keep reverting within the limits of WP:NOT3RR. And coming from the person who edit warred to over spaces while reverting back to sub-standard formatting, you'll forgive me for not taking your complaint seriously. - SchroCat (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

This is what you said at WP:RFPP: "Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Recent death and the article appears to be a focal point. Protect for a month please. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)". You did actually cite vandalism as a problem. 31.52.163.160 (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. That's what I stated above.

I re-iterate my request to keep it protected as it is a focal point and has attracted a great deal of attention from all manner of editor. I would even consider elevating it to full protection with editors like SchroCat (eight edits in 24 hours) involved. There are others who are achieving high edit counts. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? Eight edits in a day is a problem?? What tosh. The number of edits is rarely a problem, the type of edit should be the only question. Please try and remember AGF Gorlitz and don't point fingers behind people's backs if you are going to try and smear them. - SchroCat (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your notes, all. Here’s what I saw yesterday when I decided to semi-protect it for two weeks: There was heavy editing by regular users and IPs. There was an IPv6 who repeatedly changed the location of her apartment. There were other IPs removing content or adding commentary or unsourced details about her death. At the time I didn’t see disruptive editing by autoconfirmed users so I gave it semi-protection. I do realize that had the unfortunate effect of locking out constructive IPs. Looking at it again today in response to your notes, I still see heavy editing, with some unconfirmed details about her death being added and removed, as well as arguing about what should and should not be in the article. I don’t consider these things sufficient to need a higher level of protection, but I do think the semi-protection should stay. My experience with controversial deaths like this is that people will keep trying to add rumors and unsourced details for another week or two. Given the existing semi-protection, those edits will come from autoconfirmed users, and they will need to be handled through regular page-watching. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Michael Bloomberg

Please lock the Michael Bloomberg for 24 hours. Vandals are trying to subtly insert false information about him being dead. GenericWikipedian19 (talk) 05:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Generic, and thanks for the note. Are you referring to this, which you reverted? That seems to have only happened once, and you caught it. Not enough of a problem to require locking the page; let's just keep an eye on the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Removal

Hello,

I have removed the statement "He would reportedly be the first openly gay cabinet member [47]" from Richard Grenell as he is not a cabinet member. There is a difference between being a member of the cabinet and holding cabinet rank status. Datamaster1 (talk) 14:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Datamaster1.Is your objection because he will be “Acting”? Or do you not accept the Director of National Intelligence as being “a member of the cabinet” even though the position is described as cabinet level? I suppose we could tweak the wording, but many Reliable Sources [3][4][5][6][7] are saying he would be the “first openly gay cabinet member”; one even said "cabinet secretary". I’m going to have to take the reliable sources as more authoritative than your interpretation, so I will restore it. I'm going to leave it as "would be" rather than "is," because it is not clear whether he has been formally appointed to the position. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC) Correction, apparently he was "named" yesterday. I assume his name will not be submitted for Senate confirmation as required, since Trump prefers "Acting" officials rather than confirmed ones. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it is important to note that acting or not acting the DNI is not a member of the cabinet and there is a difference between cabinet member and ranking member. Datamaster1 (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I think we should also be careful about edit waring and discuss before reverting... we can do a Rfc if you truly think I'm wrong I'd love to hear what others have to say. But by definition the statement is not accurate for many reasons. 1) He is not a member of the cabinet. 2) He is not confirmed as a ranking member of the cabinet. 3) If he is not a member of the cabinet he is not the first gay member of the cabinet. Datamaster1 (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Let's move this discussion to the article's talk page. When I restored the information I reworded it to "He is the first openly gay person to serve in a cabinet-level position." -- MelanieN (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		For your work defusing and assisting with reaching a compromise in the RfC at Elizabeth II Natt39 (talk) 23:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Natt, but the person who really deserves this barnstar is User:Celia Homeford. She was the one who originally suggested the format that seems to have solved the problem. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Richard Grenell text and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Datamaster1 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh, for heavens sake. Datamaster1, you are carrying this quest of yours to ridiculous lengths. I will go to the arbitration page and I only hope that I can persuade people that you are new and just misguided; otherwise you are likely to get blocked as disruptive. -- MelanieN (talk) 05:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Datamaster1 has withdrawn the request. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 22:09, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Reacting

Thank you for this post. I am rather thick-skinned (the perks of growing up a minority in Eastern Europe!), but I know that people are hurt more by the community's silence than by the words themselves. Surtsicna (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome. I don't wear my admin hat at that article, but even before I was an admin I would have said something. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

It's rather a shame that you were not as keen to prevent the discussion being bludgeoned as it was. And for the record, User:Surtsicna, it's probably a bonus that you're thick skinned, as I neither withdraw, amend or regret my remarks. Happy days. ——SN54129 08:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Serial Number, I also don't withdraw my reaction to what you said. To accuse another editor of "trolling" is an attack and should not be said short of a formal complaint. To accuse someone of "bludgeoning" can sometimes be fact-based, but maybe you haven't noticed that in recent days the arguing has mostly stopped, with Surtsicna and others joining in the movement toward a compromise solution of the issue. MelanieN alt (talk) 17:00, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Working on a story about Wikipedia and misinformation and would love to chat ...

Hey there MelanieN — I'm an editor at Fast Company looking at Wikipedia's role in the info ecosystem especially around the 2020 presidential election, and noticed your vigilant editing on some related pages. I've spoken to a few editors, and if you have a few minutes, I'd love to send you a few questions by email. If you're interested or even skeptical, if you have a moment, please reach me at apasternack at gmail , and I can explain further! Thanks so much Johnshade2 (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Johnshade2. Thanks for the invitation, but no thanks. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Page protection

Hi, could you possibly look into adding a protection to Super Showdown (2020) please. There are IP users persistently vandalising the page.

Regards L1amw90 (talk) 19:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

L1amw90, thanks for the note. I'll take a look. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I protected it for two days. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70

→

Archive 75