User talk:MelanieN/Archive 79

Archive 75

←

Archive 77

Archive 78

Archive 79

Archive 80

Archive 81

→

Archive 85

Michael Bloomberg protection

Hi MelanieN, hope all is well. Looks like I undid your semi-protection over at Michael Bloomberg. I reinstated your previous protection, I apologize for that. Thanks and Happy New Years! -- LuK3 (Talk) 21:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

LOL, that one falls under the heading of "Great minds think alike"! We must have protected within seconds of each other. No problem at all. And I have revdel'ed the vandalism edits. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

WMBQ-CD full protection for one year

Hi, I was taking a look at the article about WMBQ-CD, and I respect the decision to protect the page for one year. However, I think protection for one year may have been too long, because so far there have been no attempts by the warring parties for some time to discuss the article on the talk page. Please consider unprotecting the article as I believe it has become stale. Is there any other solution? P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 21:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, P,TO 19104, and thanks for your note. Regarding so far there have been no attempts by the warring parties for some time to discuss the article on the talk page, that is exactly why it is protected. I had no intention of leaving it full-protected for a year, just for long enough to get people to discuss on the talk page and reach agreement. I thought that would prompt the two combatants to talk it out, but they haven't. User:Sammi Brie tried to get them to discuss in mid-December; the two combatants were pinged and I put personal notices on their user talk pages; no result. Let's try this: I will unprotect it as an experiment and watchlist the page. If the warring resumes, I will choose between re-protecting it, or issuing partial-blocks from the page. @Tvstationfan101 and BlueboyLINY: I am going to unprotect the page. The article should stay in its current format - which was the longstanding version until Tvstationfan started changing it back in July - unless and until the two of you agree on a change. Tvstationfan, this means you: if you change it without an agreement first, I will give you a partial-block from editing that page. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response and consideration. I will do my best to ensure that the warring parties do not repeat their same mistakes. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi @P,TO 19104 and MelanieN: I've made some of the changes I suggested and also cleaned up other issues (mostly poor English in a couple sections) that were not addressed by either of the other editors, as well as some obvious inconsistencies. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Thomas McElwee

Hi Melanie. Could I ask why you applied pending changes instead of the requested semi-protection to Thomas McElwee? Pending changes does not stop the disruptive editing, does not save the time of editors reverting the disruption, and does not encourage the IP editors to engage in discussion on the talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 02:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, DuncanHill. I agree that PC can be a pain. You don't ever want to use it on heavily edited articles. But in that article the problem edits are spread out over time - persistent, but not frequent enough to justify semi-protection. That's the kind of situation PC protection was made for. Because it is less restrictive than semi-protection, you can apply it for months instead of days. If there is a sudden burst of vandalism, it is possible to add short-term semi-protection on top of the PC, and the PC will survive after the semi-protection expires. You can see my philosophy - how I decide what kind of protection to apply and when - at User:MelanieN/Page protection. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any benefit to PC on this article though. It doesn't stop vandalism, it doesn't save any work for those who patrol pages subject to this sort of disruption, it doesn't push IP users to the talk page. There's no point trying to message mobile IP users as they never receive the messages. I haven't managed to find a single constructive IP edit to the article after one or two in 2007. Most of the article history is IPs or disposable accounts violating WP:DERRY and then being reverted, and as we have seen it happened again within a few hours of PC being applied. It needs a longish term of semi protection.

Well, you are welcome to list it again at RFPP and see if some other administrator finds that it does qualify for long term semi-protection. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC) P.S. You are right that PC does not do anything to lessen the load for regular editors. The one thing it does is, it prevents the IP edit from being visible in the encyclopedia article until it is approved. When PC protection was devised a few years ago, it was designed to be a way of sort-of protecting articles that don't get problem edits often enough to qualify for semi-protection. Protection is supposed to be assigned based on RECENT problems. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

NYC TV Stations

Since I follow a couple users talk pages (we have interacted in the past), I have noticed a pattern between Tvstationfan101, Mvcg66b3r, and ‎BlueboyLINY. Neither of these edits can get along with each other. Currently the latter two are engaged in a slow-moving edit war on WRNN-TV. I think a content block and a interaction block is needed, at least temporarily, maybe 3 months. Then, after 3, let them edit and if they can get along, cool. If they can't, make it 6 or just permanent. Cause clearly they are not editing constructively now and short of complete site-wide blocks, which I don't think are necessary (yet), I think this is the best way to go. I leave this in your hands, I am just a pair of outside eyes, you are the admin. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:41 on January 7, 2021 (UTC) • #WearAMask • #BlackLivesMatter

I hate to say this, but it looks like the community is, as always, completely disinterested in doing anything constructive and has completely abandoned the discussion. Looks like they are leaving it in your hands. I know, you are just so thrilled. </sarcasm> I am sorry, I was only trying to help. Looks like I didn't do anything at all. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:09 on January 16, 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Neutralhomer. Don't apologize. Thanks for trying; you gave it your best shot. Unfortunately I am not going to take it on either. I only got involved because of a protection request; I don't intend to make it a career. I have done the best I could with those three - posted on their talk pages multiple times - but they just won't use the talk page to discuss. And riding herd on their edit warring, or on dozens of articles on subjects I am not interested in, is not a job that I or anyone else seems to want to take on. You'll notice that even the people who chimed in about their past bad experiences seem to have simply given up. Sorry, I'm afraid I don't have a solution to offer. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

That's OK, I only saw it playing out in seperate talk pages of admins I follow and decided to investigate. This was about all the time I was willing to invest, which was actually more than I intended to be honest. Wikipedia isn't my "full time job", I'm a school custodian, so COVID is my full time job at the moment. Keeping students, teachers, and staff safe is my full time job.

I let the ANI thread run until I'm done with my weekly shows (which I DVR through the week and watch on Saturdays) and I'll self close it. Let 'em battle. They ain't bother me. I don't even do TV station articles anymore, I only do radio. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:08 on January 17, 2021 (UTC)

Well, bless you for trying. And bless you for taking care of the kids and teachers. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate that, but I'm just doing my job. Just like any other day...just with a lot more disinfectant. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:31 on January 17, 2021 (UTC)

Draft AKL

Dear Melanie,

Happy new year. As you had suggested last time, I'm still holding onto the Draft AKL and working on it. Looks like so many unknown users have tried to recreate the page from the deleted version and submitted the page prompting for speedy deletions. I'm afraid with the history of speedy deletions, will this affect the current draft that I'm holding onto. Could you please review and clarify. Thank you Melanie Adapongaiya (talk) 18:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Adapongaiya. I have added a note to the talk page of the draft explaining the situation. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks MelanieN for your timely help. Much appreciated. Hopefully my working draft is safe now. -- Adapongaiya (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Conflicts

Dear Melanie. You and I have experienced an unfortunate amount of friction in the past seven years or so. It originally stemmed from my edits on the Carl DeMaio and Scott Peters articles and those made by CFredkin, back in October 2014. CFredkin was clearly a paid editor, the first I became aware of, and his job was to tout Republican candidates on his or his employer's client list, and to trash their opponents. He also had another two client interests: The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Because of those two, I don't think he was working directly for the Republican party. I can show you how he exposed the basis for his activity if you'd like, but I'd rather not do it publicly. I wasn't trying to dox him, just labored to get him off my back, and had no interest in finding out who he actually was. He was very effective at what he did. He may have had some salient part in getting Joni Ernst elected to the Senate six years ago, over Bruce Braley, and I'd also be happy to explain why I think that was the case. When it appeared that Trump was going to win the presidential nomination in 2016, his focus shifted almost entirely to pumping up Trump's candidacy, aiming at the general election. He was making a dizzying amount of pro-Trump and anti-Hillary edits, until he somehow got busted for sockpuppetry in September 2016. Now it was clear that if he depended on his efforts to put food on the table, pay the rent or mortgage, and/or the car payments, he wasn't going to go "quietly into the night." (I don't know what his new identity was, though I suspected he was now writing as another patently obvious paid editor, though I've doubted that conclusion in recent months.) I found myself in disturbingly regular conflict with him when I ventured into editing AP2 articles. He had zero interest in other topics of interest to me, one's where I'd created and edited substantially, i.e. long-distance runners, especially female ones, (I wished I could have traveled to watch some of the Cross-Country championships at Balboa Park), anthropology, contemporary literature, etc., etc.) Actually, he had zero interest in any other topic, it seemed. He was also a skilled tactician at what he did, mastering Wikipedia rules and conventions, ready to throw Wiki-"alphabet soup" at any who stood in his way. He was very dishonest. Subsequently to his sockpuppetry ban, I tangled with a similar editor who complained about me to you. I don't think that was a coincidence. I am still at occasional loggerheads with him. So, here are my thoughts. I have a great deal of respect for your editing. You have considerable knowledge, ability, and an obvious deep commitment to improving Wikipedia as much as you're able. But my question is, do you think you can be neutral where I'm involved? That's the sort of question that is not meant to impugn others, but rather put daily to jurors and sometimes judges, and might be a cause for recusal or dismissal. I want to stress that I have absolutely no problem with you personally. I had hoped to raise this issue with you privately, but that avenue would be entirely your prerogative. I also should say, that I'd prefer to work things out with other editors in a mutually respectful fashion. I did so with another editor, who was religiously and ideologically motivated and came to an eventual rapprochement. I had appealed to his religiosity (particularly evident when he fought to keep pictures of naturists off Wikipedia) and he concluded that I was right and he intended to labor to change. That story had an unhappy ending because shortly afterward he received a term ban for "combative editing" and decided to quit editing entirely. I was very disappointed that he chose to do so because I thought he could be a real asset to the encyclopedia and we clearly could work cooperatively. Lastly, I haven't mentioned the editor with whom I've had problems but I don't think he's a paid editor for strong reasons that make me doubt it. Again, I would rather not have been limited to discussing these issues publicly. I am very open to doing so privately. Please be assured I bear you no animosity. I'd hoped to have this discussion at the Wikimedia conference I expect you attended. (I appreciated its atmosphere, site, organization, and food.) Thanks for your time. Activist (talk) 14:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

P.S. If you have a problem with the way in which I communicate, please feel free to be critical. I have very thick skin. Activist (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I will reply here as MelanieN's talk page is on my watch list and I suspect this discussion is related to me. I'm happy to discuss these things with Activist in a respectful way. I would hope we could discuss a few things civilly. Not everyone will agree on what is DUE in an article nor how text should be written. That said, if another editor opposes an edit then the correct course of action is to go to the talk page and discuss it, find common ground. Simply restoring the new material is not only combative, it also is against WP:NOCON. If only two editors are involved then the disagreement represents no consensus. Finally, edit summaries such as this one [[1]] are never OK. The same is true of talk page sections that focus on the editor, not the content dispute Talk:Don_Young#Stalking_behavior. Contrary to what you may feel, I am very happy to discuss these things and work them out. Springee (talk) 15:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Activist, as I believe I have said before: if you feel you have evidence of misbehavior or sockpuppetry on the part of another editor, you should pursue it through the normal Wikipedia channels. Those would be WP:SPI for sockpuppetry, or WP:ANI for accusations of stalking or other misbehavior, or WP:COI for conflict of interest. Of course you would have to provide evidence in the form of diffs; without evidence you should not make the complaint as it could backfire on you.

I don’t know why you have chosen me as the admin to complain to about other users, but I have neither the tools (I’m not a checkuser) nor the inclination to pursue this kind of case. If you believe some other editor is stalking or harassing you, you could ask at ANI for an interaction ban. If you believe they have an undisclosed COI you should either provide the evidence at COI if you have it, or stop hinting and accusing them if you don’t. From your extended comments above about CFredkin you seem to be hinting that this “other editor” may be a sock of CFredkin, but you admit you can’t prove it; in that case you should not be saying or hinting it. See WP:ASPERSIONS. Finally, if it’s none of the above but simply that you have disagreements with the other editor, I am not going to referee them. Such things should be worked out through polite direct discussion (I see that Springee has suggested that above), or by ignoring or avoiding the the other person. Not on the talk pages of third parties. Sorry. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Hatted discussion question

MelanieN, you hatted this discussion [[2]]. Thank you for that. I raised the issue with Activist here[[3]]. Did you mean to name me when you collapsed the article talk page discussion? ("Springee, this is totally inappropriate. ") Am I misreading a statement of agreement with my concerns? Thanks Springee (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry - mental lapse! I have corrected it. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Sidney Powell

I saw your crucial input on the Sidney Powell article and talk page. My news organization is looking to speak with a few Wikipedians anonymously about their thoughts and interpretations on this person for a story that covers current events like this alongside the birthday of Wikipedia and how wikipedians shape the discussion and shed light on the facts. Do you have a few minutes to spare over email to talk about your perspectives? Thanks very much. I look forward to hearing back from you. Kombucha Morning (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

User:W33KeNdr

User:W33KeNdr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Since their single page block: [4], [5], [6]. VQuakr (talk) 01:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Re: WRNN-TV

Could you please lock this article before User:BlueboyLINY reverts it again? He's a picky editor. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

ANI

I have opened an ANI discussion regarding BlueboyLINY and Mvcg66b3r. Since I mentioned you within the discussion, this message is to notify you of the discussion itself. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:51 on January 14, 2021 (UTC)

A heads-up

I pinged you, but I didn't spell your name right, so you might not get advised.

You were concerned because you thought I was suggesting hundreds of insurrectionists merited standalone articles. You voiced some outrage and some doubts about my conduct in predicting hundred of articles.

I wrote I don't think any predictions of the number mattered, as each individual has to be evaluated on a case by case basis.

But you misintrepeted what I wrote. It was the attacks on September 11, 2001 where I predicted there might be hundreds of standalone BLP. I've started something like a dozen articles on individuals with an association with the WTC attack, and worked on a dozen others. I started the ones on Frank de Martini and Pablo Ortiz just a few years ago, more than fifteen years after the attack. So, I wasn't pulling that prediction out of thin air.

WRT the 2021-01-06 event, I predicted dozens of standalone articles that could measure up to GNG. It is just a guess. I don't think it is unreasonable, but the actual number of your guess or my guess doesn't really matter, as each article will have to be evaluated on a case by case basis.

Cheers Geo Swan (talk) 19:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I did misread your comments and thought you were predicting those large numbers for participants in the Capitol riots. I now see that you were (somewhat confusingly) bringing 9/11 into the discussion and I missed that. My apologies. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

How about addressing the issue of non-supported claims in Talk page of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killings_of_Aaron_Danielson_and_Michael_Reinoehl

False or Misleading causality in parade. The article claims: "On August 29, 2020, hundreds of Trump supporters took part in the "Trump 2020 Cruise Rally", a caravan of more than 100 cars and trucks displaying pro-Trump flags and signs which drove through downtown Portland. In some cases, the participants fired paintball guns and pepper spray at protesters, who responded by throwing various objects at the caravan.[5]" Thus, this expresses a statement as to the order of the events, and strong implications as to the causality: The parade participants are implied to have acted first, and only then did protesters 'respond'. However, the cite 5 does not appear to support this in any way. https://www.kptv.com/news/hundreds-show-up-for-trump-2020-cruise-rally-in-clackamas-county/article_e5112422-ea6e-11ea-a394-6f4d7667cd50.html So, it appears that this wording was written so as to be biased. Allassa37 (talk) 04:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Allassa37: Which part needs to be removed? Wareon (talk) 04:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC) Anything not supported by "Reliable Sources". I have found the diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Killings_of_Aaron_Danielson_and_Michael_Reinoehl&diff=prev&oldid=977436267 This editor, "MelanieN", should document where this material came from. Allassa37 (talk) 05:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC) Allassa37 (talk) 03:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I notice that MelanieN hasn't responded to this problem. Any reasons for that? Allassa37 (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, Allassa37; finally finding some time to look into this. This goes back to September 8 when the article was a few days old and “under construction”. You are right, the source I used is only about the start of the rally, and says nothing about the violence later or how it started. I may have read something elsewhere but not in that source. Just now I found another source about the confrontations, and it does not suggest which group started them. So I added the source and reworded. Thanks for the alert. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Familiarity breeds contempt

Long time no talk. Firstly, congratulations on your new management; secondly, doesn't this energetic editor look familiar? Fixation on Trump as a demagogue, an avalanche of sources and overdone attempt at a jokey user name. Favonian (talk) 16:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Replying via email. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Images

Hi there MelanieN. A small favour, if possible, now you see the page of Zoran Tegeltija, Chairman of the Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Bosnian Prime Minister), does not have an image of him and I can't see to find one that respects copyright rules. My mentality is that a Prime Minister of a country should have a decent image of them on their page. Could you somehow, if you want to of course, try to find a decent, non-copyright image of Tegeltija and send me a link so I could put it up? I would greatly appreciate it.

Also, Dušan Bajević a Bosnian football manager and player has an old image of him put up, precisely 1974. I also looked for a much newer image of him to put up, particularly this one. Could you somehow see if its copyrighted? Even if not that one, another newer image of him can do. I know I'm asking for a bit much, but I really looked for images of them and couldn't find any that are ok too use. Sadly, their images on Flickr are all not fair to use. So if you could just look in to it a bit I would honestly really appreciate it. But again though, your call. :) Kirbapara (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Kirbapara, and thanks for the note. I am no expert on images, but I can tell you (you probably already know) that Wikipedia is very strict that images must be free to use. I can't see the copyright status of the gstatic image but I think you can assume is it copyrighted. In fact you can pretty much assume that anything you see on the internet is copyrighted, whether it says so or not. So there is really no point in doing an internet search because you won't be able to use what you find. The easiest place to find images you can actually use here is Wikimedia Commons, found at https://commons.wikimedia.org/. Almost anything you find there can be freely used here. You can search there in exactly the same way you search here. Here are three images from Commons for Dušan Bajević [7]; probably not what you are looking for. I found nothing at Commons about Zoran Tegeltija. Also you can use pictures that you take yourself - not pictures of a picture, but pictures of the subject. And most (but not all) images issued by the U.S. government are free to use. I wonder if the same is true of images from the government pages of Bosnia and Herzegovina? Sorry I couldn't be more help, but sometimes we just aren't able to have pictures of everybody. Any stalkers have anything to add? -- MelanieN (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Kenya

Hi! First of all, thank you for protecting the page 2021 Indian Premier League. Secondly, do you really live in Kenya? :) Thanks, ☎️ Churot ^DancePop 04:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

How funny! Some IP added that to a four-year-old talk page archive, and I didn't notice. No, I don't live in Kenya. And I am not Melania Trump as someone once claimed. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I know :), just noticed it yesterday. I thought rather than reverting it myself, I should inform you instead as it is your talk page. Thanks, ☎️ Churot ^DancePop 06:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@Churot: how in the world did you happen to notice it? -- MelanieN (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Not too difficult, given that you have used this link in the picture caption on the top of your talk page. 😁 ☎️ Churot ^DancePop 16:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

OIC! Thanks for the tip. That explains it. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Sholam Weiss

I totally get your not wanting to do a semi at this time. I may have panicked a little and my request was premature. If you can keep an eye on the article now and then it would be a very good thing. Thanks, Coretheapple (talk) 17:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I've added it to my talk page; you can ping me or post here if it gets worse. It is currently borderline - one or two problem posts a day, and too much active posting to qualify for Pending Changes. Let me know if it gets worse. BTW I am particularly sympathetic to cases where the vandalism violates BLP, as some recent edits there do. You can see my protection philosophy here. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Apparently the article was subjected to lengthy COI editing over a period of years, and there are still remnants of that. Coretheapple (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The situation has definitely worsened, and I think a semi for a long period would be a good idea. Perhaps permanently. Note the talk page, indicating that this article has been subject to problematic COI editing for fourteen years! Some of the IPs have been personally attacking me in edit summaries[8] and on my talk page. A current list of problematic IPs and the latest SPA is at the COI noticeboard. Please note this this comment concerning the lengthy history of COI editing and a possible approach (of which I am unfamiliar). Coretheapple (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, Coretheapple. You are right, the article has gone totally out of control in the past day or two. I have semi-protected it for two months and revdel'ed the accusation that was made against you. I saw that someone at the noticeboard suggested EC protection; I don't see the need for that right now, it looks like IPs are the problem - but let me know if we start to get disruptive edits from autoconfirmed users. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Coretheapple (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I just wanted to mention that two related articles also have been subjected to COI edidting: National Heritage Life Insurance Company and, even worse, Scores (strip club). I've been obliged to rewrite both. Scores was owned by one of the co-conspirators and it was, arguably, the worst article I've ever seen on Wikipedia. That's saying a lot! I don't know about Scores but I anticipate further COI activity in the National Heritage article. Hopefully I'm wrong. Thanks again. Coretheapple (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Very nice work! Let me know if they become targets. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Why thank you, and I will. Coretheapple (talk) 23:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

(Sigh) [9] Coretheapple (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your wording suggestions at Talk:Donald Trump, and for being a clear voice of sanity. I don't venture over there much, but it was like stepping into a bizarre alternate reality where people authoritatively present crazy things that they clearly made up on the spot as if they were longstanding site practices. "It's not stable if I reverted it"? "The BLP can only contain statements in wikivoice; anything requiring attribution has to go in a subarticle"?

No response required, just amazed and a little jealous at your equanimity in the face of this stuff. MastCell ^Talk 18:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks. It is pretty amazing what kind of "logical" and "policy" arguments people can come up with. Maybe I should start a collection. Nah. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

MelanieN's suggestion was exactly the kind of update that this article needs. Replacing series of incidents and examples with summary descriptions. Pinging @Onetwothreeip:, who I hope will consider this entire episode carefully before any further removals. SPECIFICO talk 21:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I too applaud such efforts to reduce the size of the article and see this as a positive outcome not only of my attempts to reduce its size, but the talent and common sense of editors to come to a consensus that keeps size in mind. And yes, MastCell, it should be self-evident that content being reverted isn't stable content. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

You have a remarkable new definition of "stable". (Maybe I should start that collection of amazing arguments people come up with, after all.) Wikipedia's definition is: something that has been in an article unchanged for at least months, sometimes years, is considered stable content. Wikipedia treats such content a little differently from something that was added yesterday, in terms of whether changes to it require consensus if challenged. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Archive 75

←

Archive 77

Archive 78

Archive 79

Archive 80

Archive 81

→

Archive 85