User talk:MelanieN/Archive 73

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 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

→

"Nijiro Tokuda" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Nijiro Tokuda. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 7#Nijiro Tokuda until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Newshunter12 (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Christa Membrandt deletion?

I do not understand how is Christa Membrandt (Christa Maatjens) a hoax? She was a known painter and feminist conceptual artist from Dordrecht and who had official membership in art organizations there. Her name was coined from Membrane and Rembrandt references in her work, but she is far from fictional. Please re-install her page.(talk) 06:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zblace (talk • contribs)

(talk page stalker)@Zblace: I'm another administrator and I can see the deleted text, but to be honest I don't think there's anything salvageable from there, and a quick search for news sources (such as an obituary in de Volkskrant or similar) doesn't turn up anything. Could you provide some sources of information that prove this is a worthwhile subject for this encyclopedia? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, Zblace. I did do a Google search before deleting the article,[1] [2] and I found nothing but Wikipedia mirrors. In other words, this Wikipedia article was the only information about her I could find on the internet. We do need confirmation from reliable sources in order to have an article about her. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I am no expert on her work but she is known artist and we collaborated in community project back in 2009-2010 - http://recycle-x.patchingzone.net/ her professional references are also locally stored in Dutch (I can not speak)

https://www.kunstveiling.nl/items/etschrista-maatjens/57649 https://beeldbank.regionaalarchiefdordrecht.nl/search/detail/id/6277FD2DA74611E7A56C00163E535DC5/showbrowse https://beeldbank.regionaalarchiefdordrecht.nl/search/detail/id/0C57614AB8185AD8FBB50630D40BA7D9/showbrowse Zblace (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks. That shows that there are in fact some paintings by her. That's not enough for an article - we would need written information about her, an actual biography. But if you want to try to create an article, with sources, you could do so here: Draft:Christa Membrandt. Or I could recreate the article for you in your own userspace: User:Zblace/Christa Membrandt - that's called userfying - and you could try to expand and source it. Because that is a not in the main encyclopedia, it will not be speedy-deleted; that will give you time to see if you can create a proper biography of her, with sources. When you think you have enough for an article and before you move it to mainspace, please see WP:NARTIST. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind offer (I am aware of bio writing practices), but I think I only started that article many years ago and most of the contributions came from others (Dutch speakers), so I am not the best person to do this well... If you permanently deleted edit history of page and saved only the content but not the meta info it is not so useful. :-/ Can you get it all info and meta data on revisions and contributors? Zblace (talk) 17:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, if I restore it the history will be restored too. I will restore it to draft space. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, it's at Draft:Christa Membrandt. I restored the talk page too. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Please see the important comments at User talk:Vexations. They believe that the biographical information in this draft is actually about someone else. All the more reason why there will have to be good written sources before this can become an article. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for giving access to this version. As you can see well article was only started by me as I wanted to do this towards an anniversary of a death of an artist I knew. Most of the content of was not edited by me. I will try to contact some people that knew of her work better and speak Dutch. Zblace (talk) 05:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: kan Nederlands spreken. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and I saw that one of those links says one of her etchings was sold for ten Euros? That does not point toward notability--and neither does the fact that the only hits we get are from a deep search. The RKD entry exists, I imagine, because some of her works ended up in the Kunstuitleen, but again, that only proves that they exist. Drmies (talk) 12:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Have no ideas of her student/early etching work *(maybe it was with many copies), I know her as painter and inter-media artist. She exhibited in Hungary year before her death (there are multiple videos from opening, but in Hungarian) and I know she did important work on the topic of cancer (she was survivor) and that was shown internationally. Pictura.NL should have more info on her as former member, but I am not sure if it is online. Zblace (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Zblace, but unfortunately your personal knowledge of her doesn't give us anything we can use in the article - per WP:OR. We can only used published sources.

Drmies, thanks for checking out the links; did you look at this one, which appears to be an obituary? Of the various links, that seems to be the only substantive one actually ABOUT her. Anything usable there? I think I see a reference to the Hungarian exhibit that Zblace mentions, and some commentary about how she integrated her art with her cancer experience. That could be added to the article, but it probably wouldn't help get it into mainspace; one source is not enough for notability. Well, we can't PROD it because it is a draft, and I don't see any speedy criterion it falls under, so I guess we just have to leave it until it becomes an abandoned draft. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

There is some more info in WikiData entry https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q18347496 and here is the reference to last solo exhibition https://mamusociety.wordpress.com/2013/06/26/artsurvival/ Zblace (talk) 04:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Zblace, instead of putting these things here on my talk page, you might want to add them to the draft. Having more facts and more references in the draft is the only thing that will save the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

From what I know of EN Wikipedia, Wordpress and similar blogging platforms can not be counted as sources - no? Zblace (talk) 05:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

You can't use Wikidata, just as you can't use Wikipedia, as a source - but you can look at what the Wikidata entry cites as sources and possibly use them. The Wordpress thing looks more like a web page than a blog; I wouldn't cite it for factual information about her, since it's self-published, but I think it could be used as evidence for the Art = Survival exhibit - location, dates, etc. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Eduard Enslin

I have worked on the draft of Eduard Enslin which will link from this species account Tenthredo mioceras. Will you now move it to Eduard Enslin. I really am most grateful for your help.This one foxed me.PS Another wikipedian always tidies my texts. Very best regards and thanks again Notafly (talk) 16:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Notafly. I am not a new article reviewer so I would prefer you submit the article through the regular review process. I have added a tag to the article to make that possible. But first, a suggestion: see if you can make in-line reference citations to some of the facts in the article, such as his birth and death dates - rather than simply listing the references at the bottom without indicating what they show. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I fixed the in-line references adding GDN for the dates.The other references give the same info except for the very detailed research gate paper I see there is a seven week wait and I doubt many other changes will be required.I would be indebted to you to make the move now partly because of the other language versions and authority control.Very few of my many entomologist biographies have caused problems and the readers are mostly entomologists as I am myself.Many have been translated. If any changes the reviewer requires seem necessary I will make them.Once again many thanks and best regards Notafly (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, I moved the locations of the reference citations a little, so that they are with what they support, and I think it is probably OK. I will go ahead and move it to mainspace. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, done. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Marvellous.Many thanks and best regards Sincerely Notafly (talk) 22:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

SchreiberBike has now copyedited this article and it is much improved.best regardsNotafly (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Good, thanks for letting me know. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

PP for Little Saint James, U.S. Virgin Islands

You protected this page a few days ago, but a bot just removed the template. I think it would be good to keep protection on here as it is a repeat target for POV drive-by additions and subtractions. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, HouseOfChange. I gave it short term semi-protection, 4 days, because of that recent spurt of vandalism. There is a recurrent pattern of vandalism at that article, often including BLP violations, but not frequent enough to justify semi-protection. So I have given it Pending Change protection for 6 months. If there gets to be another burst of repeated vandalism, so bad that PC protection can't keep up with it, let me know. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Hey, MelanieN. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! ~SS49~ {talk} 08:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Have some cake 🍰 on me! --qedk (t 愛 c) 09:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Upgrade protection of Lake Piru

Thanks for protecting Lake Piru, but I noticed you only semi-protected it, which doesn't solve the problem. I requested full protection because the cycle of adding and removing is also being done by longstanding, i.e. autoconfirmed, editors. The issue has continued after the protection, as the history shows, so can you implement the full protection now. Kingsif (talk) 01:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Kingsif, and thanks for the note. I deliberately left the article open for editing by autoconfirmed editors. The question of whether to say something about Naya Rivera is an editorial decision; it's not something for an administrator to impose. It should be decided by the users at the article, and if there is disagreement it should be discussed at the talk page - where up to now there has been no discussion. The most recent addition - the only edit on the subject since I added protection - is well sourced, neutral, and still in the article; I don't see any removal of it or edit warring over it. The edit warring was largely being done by IPs, so that part of it has stopped. There was also a problem over the past few days with IPs adding copyrighted material about other drownings, but that was stopped by semi-protection and has now been repaired by Diannaa. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

RFPP and backlog

Hi, with regard to this edit, what is your definition of a backlog? I think the bot is programmed for 15 unanswered requests. Personally I look at the time as well as the number but there are currently 16 requests going back over 18 hours unanswered which seems like a backlog in my opinion. I completely get that it is subjective and utterly not a big deal but I was wondering where you see the definition being? Either way, I've used {{noadminbacklog}} rather than removing it entirely as it can upset the bot. Cheers, Woody (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the note and the eduction, Woody. I can see I should just leave that tag alone. But I am aware that the bot is often very wrong about how many "unanswered requests" there are. In this case, I now see that the bot went from reporting 18 unanswered requests, to 2, and back to 18 in the space of half an hour! The first thing I always look at before patrolling RFPP is the page history, to see there is another admin actively patrolling; if there is, I go away and do something else. In that case I looked at the history and saw this edit summary by the bot, saying two pending requests. I didn't notice that the backlog tag had been restored by you, and I figured the bot was just messed up - noting as well that there was another admin (you) actively patrolling. (Now there are three.) But I'll just ignore that template from now on. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I completely understand about the bot, I'm often confused about it's definition of "pending requests". I noticed the 18 to 2 discrepancy when I was working through them: It was caused by someone changing the section header (the bot then couldn't see that section). I didn't want to go contradict you and restore the tag so I added the "no admin backlog" one but the bot restored it anyway when the section header was fixed. Either way, the backlog got sorted in the end (until the next time...) Cheers, Woody (talk) 18:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

india

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mohun_Bagan_A.C.#Merge_proposal

some users still in edit war please ban and if wont unlock, remove players section from mohun bagan page, club made new website atkmb for football section so is wiki page, two same squads cant play for both (mb is multisports without football sub page)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-League

here please remove mohun bagan from teams, maps and coaches — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.1.31.202 (talk) 18:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

ANI

Just a quick note to say that while I pinged you at an ANI discussion, I know I didn't officially notify you on your page. You were not a subject of the discussion, and I assumed that the ping would be enough for you to determine whether or not you wished to comment. If I erred in not leaving a notice, I apologize. Grandpallama (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

No problem; you were under no obligation to notify me. I appreciated the ping. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Submission

Please help me to submit my articles Draft:Muhammad Shafi'u Abdullahi and Draft:Aminu Ladan Sherehu Sadeeqzaria (talk) 11:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, Sadeeqzaria. I see that someone has added the necessary template to your drafts. You can now submit the drafts for review. A regular page reviewer will either publish them, or tell you what needs to be done to improve them. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank Sadeeqzaria (talk) 23:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

POV & Sally Hemings

w/r/t the TJ paternity issue & Sally Hemings, I respectfully ask you to review this and reflect. https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/

Sbelknap (talk) 17:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Sbelknap, and thanks for the link to the essay about whether Wikipedia is biased. I see that in the very first paragraph he dismisses the practice of “avoiding false balance” as an “utterly bankrupt canard” which is “directly contradictory to the original neutrality policy.” He apparently he believes that all viewpoints, whether supported by a mountain of evidence or proposed by a few crackpots, should get equal treatment in a “neutral” encyclopedia. That would certainly be "false balance", but he argues that is what we should do and we are wrong to "avoid" it. Sorry, but no encyclopedia could follow that logic and maintain its credibility. But I kept reading. I got to the second paragraph, which says the Obama article is unfair because, among other reasons, it does not report on “the developing “Obamagate story in which Obama was personally involved in surveilling Donald Trump”. "Obamagate" has been the catchall title for various accusations against Obama, but if the author is referring to this, there was never any evidence for the claim of such surveillance and it has been repeatedly debunked. So I realized this writer was not someone whose arguments should be taken seriously. I later found the author complaining that it’s “bias” if Christians’ religious beliefs are not asserted as true in Wikipedia’s voice, and that articles which are “biased in favor of science” should still be regarded as biased. He is free to say and believe all of this; it’s his blog, after all; but his opinions are not going to change Wikipedia’s commitment to fact. So, regarding the Sally Hemings article: Some people do deny that Jefferson was the father. Their disagreement is mentioned in the article, as it should be, and sources are provided for readers to seek out more information, but their minority arguments are not laid out in detail. The article gives its main treatment to the evidence and the suitably hedged conclusion which most scholars have accepted. That’s balance. That’s neutrality. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Are you aware who Larry Sanger is? In your response to his blog post, you engage in mind reading. After reading your comment, I wondered if I had mistakenly linked to the wrong essay, so I followed that link, read it again, and the apparent disparity between your summary and the actual article was stunning. Sanger's view is much more nuanced than your summary. Perhaps read it again with a more open mind and less mind-reading? Sbelknap (talk) 20:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. He apparently disagreed with Wikipedia’s founding principle of “neutral point of view” from the get-go, he left after barely a year, and he has been criticizing Wikipedia ever since. He says Wikipedia is “broken beyond repair” and frequently unreliable. I gather, from his Wikiedia article, his issue was that he wanted a formal review process of content with more reliance on “experts”. But that doesn’t seem to be his complaint in the current essay; in this article he’s mostly complaining that we do not give enough coverage, in Wikipedia’s voice, to what appear to be his political views. He’s entitled to his opinion and philosophy, and he is welcome to apply it at all the other ‘pedias he has worked on. IMO the situation here is well summed up by this quote: “The problem with Wikipedia is that it only works in practice. In theory, it can never work.”[3] Anyhow, thanks for the link, I read it, and it does not change my belief that we have the right balance at the Sally Hemings article. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Q.E.D. Sbelknap (talk) 14:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Sbelknap, lots of us are very familiar with Sanger. One of the crowning ironies is that with Citizendium, a project he intended as proof that Wikipedia would be more reliable if it had expert review, he ended up proving the exact opposite, with great swathes of credulous content written by homeopaths, chiropractors and other grifters.

The reason Wikipedia is reliable and Citizendium is not, is that we don't promote the massive "scandals" of the Obama presidency (the mustard, the tan suit, thge latte salute and of course the ultimate scandal, Presiding While Black). Guy (help!) 13:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is certainly not reliable regarding the paternity of Sally Hemings children. The language used throughout is vague and misleading. The K2 Y chromosome haplotype is *not* unique to Thomas Jefferson, or even to the Jefferson line. A group of distinguished historians reviewed the available information and formed a consensus exactly the opposite of what is stated in this article. The Commission report is listed in the references and in a footnote, but the content of that report is not covered in the article in any meaningful way. Sbelknap (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

What additional information is there since the Commission report? If you know of some, please provide a source. Thanks. Sbelknap (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Sbelknap, We report that most scholars consider it was Jefferson, but others disagree. We don't reflect motivated reasoning as fact, so we do not elevate the views of those who don't want it to be true over those whose study of the facts on the gorund leads them to conclude that it probably is. Guy (help!) 14:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

There is no cited source that supports the assertion that most scholars consider Jefferson to be the father of Hemings children. Instead, an error in the NY Times is cited. The scholars commission concluded that Jefferson was unlikely to be the father of Hemings' children. This information is hidden in a footnote. This article is simply wrong on this issue. Sbelknap (talk) 15:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editor in Asexuality

Hi,

I don't know if you've been watching my talk page, but there's an editor (AceRebel) who's been disruptive on Asexuality (including edit warring over a maintenance tag that was challenged). (S)he's insisting (without really explaining how) that the article is biased and "affiliated with AVEN", and therefore deserves to be demoted from GA status. Trying to get exactly what (s)he meant on Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Asexuality/1 was like getting blood out of a stone; (s)he kept engaging in WP:IDHT behaviour. (S)he then reverted a legitimate closure of the GAR. (S)he has also read the riot act to myself and a few other editors (Crossroads, and now the GAR closer -sche), accusing us of being disruptive. I don't know is (s)he has an agenda, or if it's just plain incompetence. I'm not sure if this is ANI worthy yet (but it's certainly heading that way), but it definitely needs looking at by an admin who knows what they're doing. Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 01:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Dear Adam9007, firstly my pronoun is They. If I'm disruptive then you should follow Wikipedia policies on disruptive editors to report me. At this moment you did none of the steps. According to examples of disruptive editing my actions do not constitute any disruptive editing yet. In fact instead of engaging in productive discussion with me you with apparently your friends who at this point apparently conspiring against me to prevent me challenging apparently biased content you created. Also, to divert attention from your own conspiracy, you trying to accuse me of conspiracy (in conspiracy there should be at least two people, BTW), to discredit me and stop challenging your biased and disruptive editing. You also do not allow time for me to respond to your statements and provide explanations (I'm alive person, I need to eat, sleep, work etc). Before I would be able to do so, we had to agree on other words definition I was using to get to the point, as your behavior was misleading claiming that what I'm saying is not correct. Therefore, I was forced by you to agree on definitions of the words I was using. You should give me a time. I was about to put my explanation, but -sche closed the reassessment breaching the rules of Good article Community reassessment. There is no rule of "speedy closer", which -sche claimed. Also, -sche is editor who is involved with topic of asexuality in general at least here. Therefore, IMO, they are involved editor. Also, according to Good article Community reassessment rules, reassessment could be closed When the discussion has concluded. Has discussion concluded? No. It's not even started yet, because of your misleading behavior and my attempts to stop it as I was looking to make sure we are "on the same page" with you on the definitions of words I was using in my rationale. In addition I have explained my agenda at the end of the rationale, therefore Adam9007 you are clearly misleading here. Also, you accusing me of "plain incompetence", but yourself have no any competence with Wikipedia policies on disruptive editors, which makes your accusation questionable. This being said, dear MelanieN if you will be looking for my additional response to allegations, or asking me for additional comments, I would like to invite you to give me 24 hours to respond if any responses needed or if you will be looking to punish me with block or ban before doing so, as at this point I'm pretty busy with other very important things too. Thank you. AceRebel talk 03:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Just wanted to say "thank you" to MelanieN and Adam9007 for writing up the case and getting things handled. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your help in taking care of this. And to think, I simply logged off Wikipedia for the day after closing that GAR, and missed all the drama... 😂 -sche (talk) 02:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, now you can close it again. Or whatever has to be done to put it properly to bed. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, never mind - User:Barkeep already put it to bed. Thanks! -- MelanieN (talk) 02:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Aunt Jemima and Nancy Green

Hi, just a friendly reminder that it's best to use existing ref name tags, rather than add another duplicate ref. Also, there are rather a lot of known errors in the recent NYTimes article. I've already told their corrections dept.

Depending on what dates you believe (as noted by NYT, they vary a lot), she was a slave who bore her first child possibly at the age of 8. She was born either Hayes or Hughes, and Green was not so much her husband as the man who fathered her children. As her main article recounts, "Local farmers from that area named Green raised tobacco, hay, cattle, and hogs." Left unsaid is it is highly unlikely that any of them were blacks (that is, the white Historical Society leaves it unsaid). Since it is not actually in a reference, we're not able to cite it.

When she was beyond childbearing age, she was sold off separately from her children to a rich man, Walker, and kept in a "wood frame shack" (still standing as of 2014) behind his "grand home on Main Street".

In particular, contra NYT, there's no evidence that Nancy Green "earned" her freedom. She apparently continued to serve the same master (Walker) in Kentucky after the Civil War, who took her to Chicago circa 1871-1872. It was not unusual in those times for a master to get an emancipated slave to sign an "indentured servitude" contract, later outlawed by the 13th Amendment. The census says she could neither read nor write. A lot of such folks never knew the contract was invalidated.

Other refs in her main article have details down to the street addresses, but we rarely put that much into wikipedia articles.

Also, the census and various articles record that she was not well paid for her work as promoter. Quaker has admitted they cannot find a contract in their archives. There's no evidence (so far) that she was paid anything at all. But again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so we're not able to cite it.

That is how she came to be buried in the pauper's section of the graveyard. There are pictures.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the information. I did notice that the NYT had a date wrong (for the Chicago Worlds Fair); that should have alerted me that their article was not to be trusted. I would object to your saying that Green was "not so much her husband as the father of her children"; that was not a real distinction in those days when slaves were not allowed to officially marry, so there is no reason to doubt that they considered themselves married. She took his last name, after all. Also, it is kind of irrelevant that the local farmers etc. named Green were white, because the last name Green would also have been applied to their slaves. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome. I was surprised at the number of errors in the newspaper of record. For example, NYT has the Jemima Higbee backstory that originated at the Fair, "created by" Young and Wyatt, unlikely as they'd have been 8 and 11 y-o respectively. In reality, they made ads circa 1910 using one of Green's successors. As to Green, because slaves often took the name of thier owner, there's no data indicating whether George Green was another slave or her owner. Or when she'd been sold. Only that she eventually became a "nanny and housekeeper" to the Walkers, not mentioning any husband or children, and no husband or children show up in the following censuses in either Kentucky or Illinois. No idea where "30 years of marriage" came from, I don't remember it in any other source.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Seeking your advice

I was wondering whether the statement I added to User talk:Crboyer's talk page was either correct or advisable. The IP in question, who I see has been blocked for 60 hours, was only expanding a plot section, so the matter was really a content dispute rather than vandalism in the first place. What do you think? Would I be better advised just to let the matter slide? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Cwmhiraeth. I might have reacted like you, but I see there is more to the story. That IP has now been partially or fully blocked by three different admins. Although their edits at Sparkster look fairly harmless to you and me, they were reverted again by a different person after Crboyer stopped doing it. Their insistence on making those edits over and over was disruptive; so was the fact that they were doing it at more than one article; so is their erasure of multiple warnings by multiple people from their user talk page. Your edit war warning to Crboyer was appropriate, but you might want to remove the comment "you should have interacted with him on his talk page" - since Crboyer did in fact make five separate comments or warnings on his talk page, about two different articles, all of which were reverted by the IP. I guess the moral here is: before commenting on someone's talk page edit, review the history of the talk page.[4] We tend to forget that an empty talk page doesn't necessarily mean that no one has tried to talk to the person; it may just mean that stuff has been removed. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Oh, and I see that Crboyer also did "report the user to the appropriate noticeboard".[5] Too late to change anything you said since Crboyer has replied, but their reply is mild and content-focused so everything is OK. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I did look at the history of the IP's talk page but I didn't realise Crboyer had actually reported him. I don't want to discourage anyone from fighting vandalism, but there are better ways of doing it than repeatedly reverting someone an excessive number of times. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:44, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Good reply to him. All good. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

People of Assam

@MelanieN:@Chaipau: Can you even justify the reason for putting the semi-protected tag?? How is it sock-puppetry?? Instead of having a healthy discussion in the talk page, you accuse of sock-puppetry on someone who has added some sourced content which counters your POV. Is this what admins are there for?2409:4065:E1C:A207:3059:7A18:8F79:9C0F (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I am glad to see you want to have "a healthy discussion at the talk page". I see that you have posted there, and that's good, but you offered no evidence (sources) for your assertions. The talk page is the place where you will should work out what belongs in the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Kindly check the section on Tibeto-Burman. It is clearly sourced there. I quote, "It is expected that the Tibeto-Burman immigrants were not as numerous as the indigenous Austroasiatic population, and the replacement was of languages and not peoples". See source: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of_Assam#cite_note-25) Doesn't that mean the same as I added("Majority of the Austro-asiatic speakers later transitioned to the Tibeto-Burman linguistic group as explained in the later section"). You should also know that there are presently no Austro-asiatic speaking groups in Assam. There are just two groups Khasi, Jaintia in Meghalaya which have very less population compared to the Bodo-Garo group (originally Austro-asiatic speakers).2409:4065:E1C:A207:3059:7A18:8F79:9C0F (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@MelanieN: As I have observed in previous edits too, these two users Chaipau and Austronesier have often misused their user rights and have reverted other constructive edits as well. One of the previous discussions in the talk page shows how both the users ganged up against another unregistered IP and prevented him without listening to the valid argument he/she was making. They made similar accusations of being a sock-puppet.2409:4065:E1C:A207:3059:7A18:8F79:9C0F (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Jalia Kaibarta

@MelanieN: Check how this user @Chaipau: is trying to add unsourced data.(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jalia_Kaibarta&diff=969832699&oldid=969830196) When I removed it stating that there is no source, he is accusing of WP:BE. I am sure that if I go on with this undo, he will again accuse of sock-puppetry and ask for semi-protection like he has done with dozens of other articles. How is this being allowed in Wikipedia?? How is a user adding unsourced data here??2409:4065:E1C:A207:3059:7A18:8F79:9C0F (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

It was actually Alboraha who added that,[6] not Chaipau. Chaipau restored it after you removed it. It’s true that it is unsourced, but it does seem to be supported by Wikipedia’s definition of Dravidian. In any case, you should discuss this at the article talk page, not here at my talk page. You should stop addressing your arguments to me. I will not be making decisions about what goes in the article. Administrators do not make decisions about content. That is done at the article’s talk page. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Move protection of "the talk (racism in the United States)"

Hey you, I was just moving it, I will not move it more according to my statement on the talk page of that article. I was just not thinking too much when I moved it. Sorry, but that doesn't mean you should unprotect it. What if no one unprotects it? Not everyone is an admin. I will not hastily move something again without consensus, and I already apologized on the talk page of that article, and you just came in and unmoved it and move-protected it and you didn't even leave a message on my talk page about that event. You also deleted my apology, which could make me look like a vandal. I am not a vandal. I was trying to help with this article that I had already been watching for a few days. Please leave a message on my talk page the next time you do something like this and I hope you will not misuse your admin rights. Thank you. (Take a look at the time guidelines on my talk page for when I am available on Wikipedia.) Friend505 (talk) 11:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Friend505, and welcome to Wikipedia. I'm glad to see you participating at some of our important articles. As you find your way around Wikipedia, one thing you will learn is how to see the page history. There is a link at the top of every page, called "view history", which shows a complete listing of all the edits to that page; it tells you exactly who did what and when. Here is the history of that page:[7] As you can see, the only thing I did was move-protect the page for a month. The reason I did that was that several people (not just you) had moved the page to new and different titles. That doesn't mean anyone was doing anything wrong; you and the others were acting in good faith; but since there wasn't a consensus or agreement on the title, each person was choosing their own favorite title. The result of that kind of situation is a "move war", which is not a good thing. So User:Valereee moved the page back to the original title.[8] Keeping the original title was what the closer of the discussion said: "No consensus, not moved".[9] Valereee also removed your comment at the talk page;[10] maybe she can come here and explain why she did that. Meanwhile, someone else requested that the page be move-protected to prevent move warring, and I responded to that request and imposed the protection. The move-protection will expire in a month, and if there is a consensus agreement on the title, it could be removed sooner. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

P.S. I just noticed that Valereee actually did post a message on your user talk page [11], but then she removed it after realizing that you had asked not to be notified. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN, yow, I have NO memory of removing that comment! That's embarrassing...could it have gotten caught up in another edit? The 'no consensus' was for the move itself, not the comment. So sorry, Friend505, that wasn't my intention! I'm...stymied. —valereee (talk) 15:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

OH. I think I know...the next edit I made has an edit summary of 'so many intermediate moves, let's just start over.' I think I must have just lost track of where I was. My apologies again, Friend505, I just tried to undo but I'm going to have to do it manually. —valereee (talk) 16:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I've reinserted. Friend505, I think it's possible we'll find a better title, but we need to reach consensus first. Having a page be move-protected is just to stop pages from getting moved around willy nilly, and this one is one that lots of people disagree on where it should be.

If you want to continue the discussion at the article talk, it's fine, but often after a long discussion it's better to wait a while. People's opinions sometimes don't feel quite as strong a few weeks later and they're more willing to compromise. :) —valereee (talk) 16:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I mean, okay yeah, so thanks for apologizing. I no longer care about who deleted my comment about not reaching consensus with you guys after you reinserted my comment. Thanks, it makes me feel better. I'm sorry. I did not mean to cause a move war, but I just did it too hastily. Um, actually, thanks for move-protecting the article. Friend505 (talk) 20:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)