User talk:MelanieN/Archive 91

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 85

←

Archive 89

→

Lift-to-drag ratio

Hi, thanks for your efforts. I am feeling insulted by Marc by his comments at Requests for page protection. Marc is not only clearly wrong, HE refused to give any reasons for his pics and the nonsense text.

In several years, i had some aggressive edit-wars with Marc who imho loves to revert before thinking.

I am sure, it will be the best for all Wikipedia readers, if you revert the article to a version which is scientifically correct, and by an experienced engineer and pilot who gave reasons.[1]

Thanks. 95.91.246.145 (talk) 05:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, but you are talking to the wrong person. The article talk page is where this will be resolved. A third person has joined that discussion which could be very helpful. It would be even more helpful if you would tone down the hostile, I-am-right-and-you-are-dead-wrong tone of your commentary and stick to facts and proof. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I-am-right-and-you-are-dead-wrong: in this case, it is the friendliest one can say, regarding the readers and the ignorant behaviour of especially Marc, who should be blocked for all the wrong reverts without talking. I know him for years: regarding all his other edits, this will be no big loss.

The third person started lecturing me, that i should talk about the article, what i had: he first did not. At last, one who can see clear facts after many hours.

Wikipedia should be about science: i am not discussing about 1+1=1, 1+1=3 or 1+1=4: even a compromise like 1+1=2.5 is CLEARLY rejected by me. You think thats wrong. I am the scientist who can make things fly. Reliable. Do you want to have an aviation accident in a plane designed by Marc or a person lectured by him? Humanity, responsibility, respect are my values. Accidents and death are not MY values.

Wikipedia should be a gift, a joy working together with others in the search for knowledge and truth: not a slanderous fight by dogmatists and lazy egomaniacs. 95.91.246.145 (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

You wrote:

On Wikipedia, it's important to know when to stop arguing with people, and simply let them be wrong.

In contrary, i do all i can to correct a clearly wrong article. Knowledge brings responsibility.

Wikipedia guidelines are like scripture: somewhere in the labyrinthine network of rules, you can find support for any position.

There is only one reality: its too bad so few people care about. 95.91.246.145 (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Wishing you a happy 2022!

Happy New Year!

MMXXII Lunar Calendar

MelanieN,
Have a great 2022 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.

– Background color is Very Peri (#6868ab), Pantone's 2022 Color of the year

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2022}} to user talk pages.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

LA

Just want to say that I've been a big fan of your editing, even-handedness and perspective since I first came across your comments on the Sean Spicer talk page in January 2017. I didn't know you were in LA, which is probably a good thing, at least for you - I would have asked you to speak at Wikipedia Day at least 100 times a year. I'm disappointed that our in-person paths are unlikely to cross, but thank you for removing yourself from the LA invite list; we really don't want to spam people. Happy New Year! Julie JSFarman (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Julie, and thanks for the note and the kind words. Actually I am not in LA; I live in San Diego. (There is a fairly active San Diego project, but so far I have not gone to any of the meetings and don't plan to; at this point I prefer my privacy.) I think this is the first time I have heard from the LA project and I'm not sure how I got on their mailing list - maybe they just emailed everyone in southern California. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I completely respect the privacy thing, and I'll continue to be psyched whenever you and your sanity show up on WP. And so glad I left a message, because I've never read your talk page before, and YESSSSSSS. I gotta put it on my watch list. JSFarman (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

About IP addresses

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi & Reviewing Lawyer Page Edits?

My name is Ashley and I work for lawyer Steve Berman. I shared proposed early life and personal life sections to round out the Berman page at Talk: Steve Berman (lawyer). Per WP:COI, I wanted to see if you’d be willing to review the proposed content.AshleyK1990 (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I have reviewed it and added it to the article (except for one sentence). See my comments at the article talk page. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi MelanieN. I wanted to check-in on this. I disclosed a COI and offered a draft Early life section that you implemented with tweaks at Talk:Steve Berman (lawyer). Then, I offered a of the Career section, as well as a detailed explanation of what was wrong with the current Career section (not supported by the given citations, press releases, brief mentions, etc.). No rush, but wanted to see if you were interested in reviewing the proposed career section as well? AshleyK1990 (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Ashley, thanks for the tweak. I found a little time just now to look the draft over and I have some comments and advice. Where would you like me to reply? Here, or at the bottom of your draft, or the draft's talk page, or where? -- MelanieN (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Melanie. Anywhere you want to post your feedback would be ok. I suggest probably at Talk:Steve_Berman_(lawyer) if there’s only a couple things, or at User talk:AshleyK1990/swb draft1 if you have a lot and you don’t want to crowd the main Talk page. You could even put your feedback directly on the draft if you like, if that makes it easier to show the specific sentence you’re referring to. Thanks AshleyK1990 (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I'll put it directly on the draft, at the bottom. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Melanie, I also wanted to draw your attention to Talk:Hagens Berman. In a nutshell, I feel the current page focuses almost exclusively on criticisms/controversies that are not the main thing the law firm is known for. Another editor inferred the best approach to balance the page was adding more citations, rather than contesting the op-ed cite. Based on that feedback I prepared and shared a draft that summarizes independent sources, much like I did for the Steve Berman page. If you are willing to review/consider the draft content, or provide any feedback, your time would be greatly appreciated! AshleyK1990 (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Ashley. I'll take a look at it over the next few days. I think with some touchups it will a big improvement on the current article. For one thing, I have been bothered that the article does not make it clear that they are best known for class-action suits, though I didn't do anything about it. Your draft presents a much clearer overview of the firm and its work. BTW I don't agree with that other person about including the Wall Street Journal editorial; the WSJ editorial page is notoriously far-right and they don't even try to hide their bias, with their the accusations against "liberals" and "Democratic politicians"! I may suggest a trim of that quote.

Meanwhile, do me a favor: in the future if you wish to post on my talk page, please start a new subject at the bottom of the page. I am likely to miss it if you add it to a months-old discussion in the middle of the page. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Tatars

Sorry to disrupt you, but Vaultralph is again edit warring regarding the numbers. Beshogur (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Beshogur, thanks for the note. I have blocked them for a week - partly because I noticed that they do this kind of unsourced editing to many other articles, always involving Tatars. You might want to look over their recent contributions and see if any of them are unsourced or inaccurate. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check, but I'm not Tatar expert, so leaving for now. Beshogur (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election#Electoral college vote and "alternate" electors

Hi there - I noticed we are editing the same section of this article, and one of your recent edits deleted one of mine. Wanted to check if you were intentionally removing my edit or if it was an oversight. If it was intentional, would appreciate knowing what if anything from it can be salvaged - I noticed this Hawaii 1960 incident has been cited by commentators a few times and think it's important to have some kind of pointer to it on the page. (See 1960 United States presidential election in Hawaii for more context.) GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 04:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Fixed diffs, they were screwed up for some reason. GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 04:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, GlobeGores! I was baffled, because I saw your paragraph when I was in "edit" mode, but it simply wasn't there whenever I looked at the actual article. I wondered if it was in "invisible" brackets or what. I finally concluded it was some kind of glitch and overrode it. Let's figure out how to restore it without interrupting the narrative. Or is there some better section in the article to put it? I agree it should be somewhere. -- MelanieN (talk) 05:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

While we're at it, what would you think about eliminating the Biden quote at the end of the section? I don't think it adds much. -- MelanieN (talk) 05:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Amusingly I remember editing that sentence more than a year ago. I don't have a strong preference but it does seem important to note Biden's responses to some of this - IIRC the only speeches he gave that touch on this issue were the one after the Electoral College vote, a few after the January 6 incident, and then the recent speech on the anniversary of January 6. So removing this does memory-hole the fact that Biden was saying this was dangerous even prior to January 6, which might be notable.

Re: the Hawaii thing, I think see a good place to reference it, though the amount of verbiage in my previous edit might be overkill. I'll add a sentence or two and you can let me know what you think. GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 05:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'm heading for bed soon so if I don't respond, that's why. Go ahead and do your thing. And I hadn't realized how little Biden said about this; in that case we should keep it, maybe even expand it a little (it's awfully generic).

Another thing to think about: I believe this is a huge story, particularly since it was clearly orchestrated by someone: most or all of the groups had EXACTLY the same document to fill out, right down to the fonts and spacing. And somehow they all knew exactly where to send it. The congressional committee is investigating, and IMO there will be a lot more to report on this issue. But for now, are there any other articles where we should be posting this, or a brief summary of it? -- MelanieN (talk) 05:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing MelanieN a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Birthday Committee! Best wishes! CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended protection

Can you please give extended protection to Mahabharat (1988 TV series) article? A person continuously doing disruptive editing with three accounts (Ilyadante, Sidbidmidlid & Tahir Mahmood 1). Rtyggu (talk) 13:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Done Thanks for the alert, Rtyggu. That can happen when there is active sockpuppetry going on. Is there a sockpuppet investigation for this case? If so these three should be added to it. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah yes, I assume this is the one: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yashthakurkamail. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Not vandalism

Hello, I just want to say my edits are not vandalism, nor am I ban evading or IP hopping. I'm on a mobile device, sometimes the IP changes and I've never been banned, suspended, or anything. I have however been baseless accused of such by Ymblanter, but that seems to be a personality issue. The sentence under contention is "The list excludes the city of Sevastopol and locations within the Republic of Crimea, since those were not subject to the 2010 Census as constituent parts of Ukraine." I removed it for two reasons: it isn't part of Russia, and including this sentence is superfluous. But perhaps most importantly I removed that sentence because "Sevastopol and locations within the Republic of Crimea" ARE included in the table, making the sentence inaccurate for yet another reason.2600:1008:B015:2A95:F496:11AC:F84D:BB08 (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for the note, but you're talking to the wrong person. This kind of content dispute needs to be worked out at the article's talk page. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Unneecessarily reverting all my edits

Hello, I am a new editor on Wikipedia trying to contribute here with correct information but DaxServer is unnecessarily trying to make me a Socketpuppet account. I just added one line in the Mahajanapadas article which was a direct fact. I mean everybody knows it that Karna was the ruler of Anga. But still Dax Server reverted my edits and despite providing sources, he is still reverting my edits on Mahabharat (2013 film). Please check into the matter and tell DaxServer to not revert all edits unnecessarily. This is not fair to hurt small editors on Wikipedia which has hardly made 10-15 edits and is trying to suppress him or close his account by calling him a socketpuppet--User talk:Anther24

Aishwarya R. Dhanush

Hi. Would you consider extending protection for Aishwarya R. Dhanush (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), the last protection expired on 25th, and IP disruption soon after. Or does it not have enough disruption to warrant so soon? Thanks! — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 11:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, DaxServer. This is clearly the same person, with changing IPs, making the same kind of disruptive edit. (I assume she has not publicly changed her name?) I have put on semi-protection for a month. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! It seems she hasn't had any change yet Facebook profile — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 17:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Gianpiero Sportelli

Hello,why you think only one fight...in internet we are a lot of article... There is not fake bio 79.43.35.13 (talk) 03:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Pacific Typhoon Season

Pls Discuss For The Names Jolina,Maring And Odette Was Retired In 2021 Pacific Typhoon Season. But I had A Serius Problem : why you lock That Article? 2021 Pacific Typhoon Season (talk) 10:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Haikou22. The place to discuss this is at the article's talk page, Talk:2021 Pacific typhoon season. If the names have been officially retired, say so there. Be sure to show a Reliable Source for the information. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

there's the name Jacinto, Marisol and Opong replaced that names i mentioned, tnx Haikou22 (talk) 09:39, 15 April 2022 (UTC)