User talk:MelanieN/archive 74

Precious anniversary

Precious

Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks for being a talk page watcher and replying on behalf of Valereee. I think your reply triggered Valereee's response. I am really grateful for your reply, even though in the end, you weren't the one who completely answered the question. But I think your response triggered the further discussion between me, Valereee, you, Serial, and Astme. Thanks!! Friend505 (talk) 20:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks for the barnstar. Many of us watch other people's user pages, and we chime in (or you might say butt in) when we think we can be helpful. That kind of informal collaboration is what makes Wikipedia work. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I hope you've added my talk page to your watchlist, since I specified that on my talk page. If you did, thank you, since I have a reply for you on my talk page. Otherwise, please inform me and if you do not want to add my talk page to your watchlist, I will reply on your talk page accordingly. Thank you. Friend505 (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Friend505: About where to reply to people: Don't try to make it complicated. The best practice is to keep any discussion in one place, so if it starts on your talk page it should stay on your talk page, and if it starts somewhere else it should stay there. Don't break it up. If you are concerned that the other person might not see what you said, just WP:ping them. A little red alert will appear at the very top of their pages, next to their username, to let them know they have been pinged. You can ping a person either of two ways: [[User:Friend505]] or {{ping|Friend505}}. In order for the ping to work, it has to be in the same note where you put your signature; you can't add it to the note later. Since I am signing this note and have pinged you at the beginning of it, you should have gotten one of those little red alerts just now, informing you that you have been pinged to my page. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

And I forgot to say: you will always get a notification when someone posts on your talk page. You probably got one just now when I posted there. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you, a small question

Hi, MelanieN,
I'm sorry for bothering you, but I would like to ask you a small question.
On the sockpuppet investigation (SPI), it says that patrolling admins can make comments. You have already noted my SPI, so why didn't you make a comment there? Is it because you don't have any opinion since you don't have access to information like my IP address? When I asked a related question to Valereee, she said that she couldn't have an opinion since the checkuser hadn't made a comment yet (see the discussion that you participated in on Valereee's talk page). Thank you. Friend505 (talk) 23:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Exactly. I don't know anything about the user they are listing as the master so I can't really comment. We will just have to wait for a checkuser to do their work. The fact that they have been in no hurry to do it may indicate that the report is not being treated as a high priority; when they are really worried about a possible sock, I have seen them look at it in as little as 24 to 48 hours. Waiting is hard, I know, but that is what I advise. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

If your reply specifies that it would not be bad conduct to leave a message on Valereee's talk page about this, I will act accordingly. Thank you. Friend505 (talk) 23:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Valereee has already answered your question on this once. Don't ask again. As a friend I will give you some stronger advice: stop obsessing about this. Move on. Focus on something else. Like editing Wikipedia. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, an edit conflict. And also, sorry for bothering you about this. Thanks. Friend505 (talk) 12:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm confused

Hi, MelanieN

You have locked up Teddy McDonald's page and sent me a warning. McDonald is obviously writing his own advert and the information with regards to his bankruptcy keeps getting pulled down by him. Other admins have put it back up. He has written information which has also been taken down about a harassment notice and cited an address there too. Why is there one rule for one and another for another? If you look at the link to the Gazette it states quite clearly the public record which should be part of the bio for McDonald as it is fact. Wikipedia is not an advertising site! (Redacted) Perhaps you can put the record straight?

Thanks User:Justright89199 Justright89199 (talk) 05:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, User:Justright89199. You need to understand what the issue was there. Wikipedia does NOT publish people's addresses. Not even if they have been published elsewhere. For reasons of privacy, liability, protection, whatever - we just do not publish someone's address. You kept adding it - I think three times, or was it four? Every time you added it, it got not only reverted; it got immediately erased from public view. Didn't that suggest something to you? As for the page protection, that wasn't added by me; it was added by someone on the WP:Oversight crew, which is responsible for erasing such information. They saw that someone (you) kept adding it, so they took action to prevent it from being added again. Actually it was lucky for you that someone did protect the article. Because if you had ignored my warning and posted it again, you WOULD have been blocked from editing. And if you ever do it again, you will be. Now do you understand? -- MelanieN (talk) 07:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, MelanieN. So this link can't be added ever as the website shows an address" (Redacted) ? Other editors allowed it and put it back too. I'm new to this so want to be sure I'm doing it right. But then this one could be if the other not? It is important that the page shows the facts and not just the advertising the Mr McDonald wants to show. Thanks for your time Justright89199 (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Sources

You are playing games here. If you post that link again I'll block you myself. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN, definitely NOTHERE. Bless you for your patience. Glen 14:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Glen. I'm afraid I do tend to err on the side of AGF. Not always a good thing. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Urgent question

Sorry for bothering you again, MelanieN, but after seeing your talk page, I found out that the Wikipedian who created the page Teddy McDonald in 13 January 2017, who is ArtWriter1, may be Teddy McDonald himself. In fact, the above section in your talk page kind of states that this user, ArtWriter1, is Teddy McDonald himself and is basically creating an advertisement for himself. Also, he actually changed his user account name from Tm74 (which may suggest that he is Teddy McDonald) to his current name, ArtWriter1. He also doesn't even have a user page (red link), which may mean that he is reluctant to give information about himself unlike some other users, who fill their userpages with all kinds of information about themselves. Thank you. Friend505 (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, but I have changed my mind. I guess probably we don't need to do anything about the page as long as it is not adjusted to McDonald's own interests in his publicity and his public interests. As long as the article has been adjusted by other users to be not prejudiced in favor of McDonald himself, I guess it's okay. What's your idea/opinion? Thanks. Sorry for asking too many questions. Friend505 (talk) 12:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Just a fun thing, MelanieN. I've invented a word: "Wikipedivandal", which means Wikipedia vandals. Also, of course, there is the corresponding word "Wikipedivandalize". Also, how about "Wikipedivandalblock"? That could mean a block to Wikipedia vandals. Maybe we can adopt this vocabulary in the official Wikipedia help guides and stuff like that. Thanks. Friend505 (talk) 13:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I have already identified User:ArtWriter1 as Teddy McDonald. You do not need to answer the question about ArtWriter1, but I would like a bit feedback about my new words. Thanks! Friend505 (talk) 13:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Friend505, please do not speculate about the real-life identity of users here. And it wasn't necessary to go to Justright's page and repeat my warnings. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Good idea. Sorry, I'm new. Thanks again, MelanieN. Friend505 (talk) 15:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I want to ask you a question, MelanieN. Why was my content on your talk page deleted and suppressed? I didn't include any offensive content, unlike Willbackhouse1 may have when warning Justright89199. Please tell me why. Thank you. Friend505 (talk) 21:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

It had nothing to do with anything you said or did. It was because I had not yet reverted the illegal link that Justright had posted. Although your edit - your diff - was fine, the version of the page on that diff still had Justright's illegal link. That's also why, on the Teddy McDonald page, so many of the replies to Justrright are suppressed. People like Willbackhouse1 hadn't done anything wrong, they were just deleting what Justright had added, but their diff couldn't be visible because it would show what Justright had done. Complicated, I know. But it's often the case that when bad stuff is getting suppressed, adjacent good edits have to be suppressed as well. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, MelanieN. I guess suppression of content is needed in order for Wikipedia to work. Friend505 11:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

Just a quick thank you for all the hard work you do over at WP:RPP. SolarFlash^Discussion 01:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome. That's my favorite mopping area so I don't even think of it as work. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

ANI

I've mentioned you in an ANI thread on the situation at Talk:Kevin Deutsch. Acroterion (talk) 03:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Admin's Barnstar
		This is for your outstanding performance in Wikipedia as an administrator. I appreciate your selfless effort in serving Wikipedia. Your efforts are really grateful. Your quick troubleshooting abilities are a gift for Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 14:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Path slopu, what a nice surprise! -- MelanieN (talk) 14:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Jared Kushner

Senior Advisor to the President of the United States is a formal position in the White House, which means it’s a public office. Northern Moonlight 23:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Moonlight, and thanks for your comment. Please see Politician: "A politician is a person active in party politics, or a person holding or seeking an office in government. Politicians propose, support and create laws or policies that govern the land and, by extension, its people." -- MelanieN (talk) 00:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

He’s holding an office in the White House, which I presume is part of the government. It’s clear that he is also responsible for many of the policies by the Trump administration. Northern Moonlight 08:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Tell you what: let's take it to the article talk page. I'll start a discussion there. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:37, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Herbert Hoover

Hi, thanks for your help at Herbert Hoover. Would you mind putting the padlock at the top right of the page? Thanks. Joshonian (talk) 02:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry. I forgot I wasn't using Twinkle which does it automatically. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done -- MelanieN (talk) 03:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Caleb Hughes socks

Note, historically you've been go-to admin for this SOCK's page protecion requests. SPI to follow, FYI. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CalebHughes UW Dawgs (talk) 03:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, UW Dawgs, and thanks for the note. Actually I don't think I've been involved with that particular sock before, but I see that the current one has already been blocked and the SPI closed. Quick work. Was there a particular page you needed protection for? -- MelanieN (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

MAGA.

When I look at the chief justice Roger Taney article, it already mentions statues of him being removed in Maryland 3 years ago, due to the Dred Scott vs. Sanford decision on slavery. There's local news in my city about protests against the Christopher Columbus statue in Chicago where a clash against police, multiple injured, and then some week later, the mayor decides to remove the statues. A park also renamed, from a White slave-owner to a Black abolitionist. The last 2 stories are probably not on Wikipedia yet. Well, there could be more to it. More parks, schools, and statues removed throughout the country, that I don't know about. Problem is no 1 seems to connect these stories yet. There could be more Columbus statues removed in other jurisdictions as well. So I think it was a start. I'm afraid to say it, but I think you people lack imagination. You don't see potential? It wouldn't belong in a BLM (BlackLivesMatter) article, because although it would fit with Taney or Douglas, it wouldn't fit with Columbus, who killed Taino people. It wouldn't belong with a George Floyd article either, since the Taney removals happened before it, but it did happen after Trump came into office. So it has to be something that includes both Black and Hispanic people. I know my edit sucked but you guys know it can be expanded upon. Or maybe... you guys are defenders of MAGA. I guess I'll have to post this on every single person who disagrees with it. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 08:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC).

Well, I am baffled by what connection you see between MAGA and the removal of statues; Trump himself is strongly opposed to this kind of removal. And I’ve never seen any Reliable Source make a connection between this political slogan and the removal of statues. But there is already a lot on the subject here at Wikipedia. You can find information on the topic in several places at Wikipedia, including List of monuments and memorials removed during the George Floyd protests, List of changes made due to the George Floyd protests, and George Floyd protests#Monuments and symbols. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Boy, I am so glad to see my #2 has their own article, and #3 park renames in another article you didn't post. Does this mean my convo ends? Chief Justice Roger Taney's statue being removed in 2017 is not included anywhere. I knew about the Taney statue removals for some time, but when the Columbus statues got removed, I immediately wanted to connect the 2 to something. And I would want to merge articles but the Columbus articles are already too big - there seems to be a Columbus statue in every state. And I don't connect the Columbus removals in my city Chicago to George Floyd, there was talk about removing Columbus Day as a holiday in Illinois before George Floyd. However, that doesn't matter, I argue that the Chicago story should go with all the cities, even if not all the cities had to do with George Floyd protests. But there didn't seem to be any Taney statues outside of his home state of Maryland, but I agree the Taney statues alone are not relevant to add to the MAGA article. There could be other statutes of racist White men removed before George Floyd protests, but I don't know about them, and aren't going to spend my time looking for them other. As far as U.S. supreme court judges go, I don't believe there to be any. But there could be a lot of state supreme court judges out there that I don't know about, but not gonna waste my time looking for them, only if I come across them by accident. Same with school-name renames and park-renames that happened before George Floyd, wouldn't have the time to look for them. But I hope those orphaned stories get picked up by someone someday and get their own article.

And if I were answer your question, what connection do I see the statue removals to do with MAGA? Aside from the ones that happened before George Floyd but after Trump took office? Sigh, I'm a White guy, but I grew up in Hispanic and Black neighborhoods, so I do can view White people from a different perspective. It's not the "MAG" that Hispanic and Black people find offensive, but the "again." That is, when they say "make America great again" what time period were they referring to that America was great? The '70s? And when I added into the MAGA article, my intent wasn't to keep it there unless it didn't expand, my intent was to increase enough until it can branch off into it's own article. And there could already be articles that over pre-George Floyds events that I don't know about exists. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 02:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC).

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. If you think you can make an article out of this, without too much duplication of existing articles, I suggest you do it as a draft. Not as a section in an article about something else. Or if you really want it in MAGA, suggest it first at the talk page and see if there is support for the idea. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

little help?

So I did this but I think I checked one more box than maybe I should have? I'm embarrassed to admit I've never done this before. Never was the first one on the scene, I guess. :D Should I fix something? —valereee (talk) 17:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, (talk page stalker) usually for that you'd only have to check Delete action and target and not edit summary or performer. If the edit summary is offensive then that as well. You'd usually only check performer if they had an offensive user name. Glen (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Glen, thank you. I was like...oops, I don't think that's what most of them look like... :D —valereee (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, all good I had Oshwah give me some tips so happy to pass on. I don't think it's too big a deal anyway. :) I just cleaned up the interim reversion as the edit was still there on one diff. Think it's all good now. Glen (talk) 17:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Glen. (I love my stalkers!) Thanks for jumping on that immediately, Valereee. Better to over-revdel something like that than to leave it there even for a minute. We are all going to have to keep a close eye on that article and its talk page for the foreseeable future. I'm afraid she will be getting attacked by all the racists and sexists in the country. For the future: usually we only need to hide the disruptive content. In some rare cases we need to hide the edit summary or the user name too, but usually not. Also, if you hide the content, it will usually also be hidden in the next diff. If that next diff removed the material, you don't need to revdel it; it will be revdel'ed automatically. If there were interim edits before it was removed, you need to hide all the interim ones, because they will also show the disruptive material. Clear as mud? -- MelanieN (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Totally. I am sitting here wondering what "I just cleaned up the interim reversion" and...um...well, everything in your post from 'If that next diff removed the material...' :D I may be too old to learn this new trick. :D —valereee (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh, wait! I think I do understand the general idea of the interim edits still showing the diff! Yay me! —valereee (talk) 19:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Yay you! Sometimes actually functioning as an admin makes running at RfA look easy, doesn't it? 0;-D No harm, no foul. Personally, my very first use of the tools was to accidentally speedy-delete an article I had only meant to tag with CSD. Oooops! -- MelanieN (talk) 19:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear Melanie , my reply to you, seeking help

I have to get the Post-Doc at the University each time to tell me how to reply.

And I use capital lettering because my vision is poor: all my colleagues know this for the past 12-15 years. Or I use a larger font and bold. I can barely see these words to correct typos and spelling errors.

Below you have the short bio for me that the University of Maryland uses. I didnt compose it , but supplied dates and names of institutional affiliations to the CISSM deputy. who wrote it.

Cant you at least get rid of the duplicate Wikipedia site that has my last name misspelled ?

You asked for my educational background: -- I have a Bachelor of Science degree in Biology and Chemistry from the City College of New York in 1955 -- I then spent three years of graduate work at Johns Hopkins University and Brandeis University in the Depts. of Biochemistry.

I moved because my Ph D prof. moved to become the Dept. Chair at Brandeis. -- but I was a fourth year drop-out and I never completed my Ph d degree -- I was awarded a National Institutes of Health Pre-Doctoral fellowship in my first months of graduate school -- I co-authored four scientific journal papers as a first year graduate student. -- and I was awarded a National of Institutes of Health Post-Doctoral fellowship (without having completed my Ph D degree) in the Department of Neurology, Albert Einstein Medical School imn the Bronx, New york City

I then taught for six years before being able to find a way to make a professional transition to arms control, which was one of the reasons that I stopped my graduate work.

Once I made the transition to arms control, although all of that information was still entered on my full length Curriculum Vitae which ran to about 20 pages, I stopped including it in the short two-page CV that I supplied for lecturing, etc, and publishers always wanted less than that, it was usually reduced to more or less what you see directly below on the University of Maryland School of Public Affairs, Center for International and Security Studies. I dont know why you cant use that : anything that you "composed on your own" would have to look almost exactly the same, or else it would again be inaccurate, as the one that "GEOSWAN" composed was inaccurate.

I am also going to get the Post-Doctoral Fellow at the University to post some decent references to my work, book reviews , and a journal interview in 2019 instead of those presently in the Wikipedia entry: we can do that, but do you want us to send those to you ? And is it not possible for you to correspond with me by email ? That is infinitely easier for me : I have a home email address mleitenberg@cs.com and a university email address mleitenb@umd.edu but the home computer is on most of the day and since we are all working from home now I only look at the university computer once a day. That should also take care of "GEOSWAN's" objection that I might not be "me", but an imposter. No imposter has the password to open my office computer. I would be happy to give you my home telephone number as well if you wanted that Milton Leitenberg71.126.164.156 (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Senior Research Associate, CISSM Affiliations:

Center for Intl. & Security Studies at Maryland

mleitenb@umd.edu

Milton Leitenberg was trained as a scientist and moved into the field of arms control in 1966. In 1968, Leitenberg was the first American recruited to work at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). He was subsequently affiliated with the Swedish Institute of International Affairs and the Center for International Studies Peace Program at Cornell University, and he has been a Senior Research Associate at CISSM since 1989. His research is widely published; in the years since 1966 he has authored or edited a dozen books or book length studies, and published 180 journal papers, monographs, and book chapters. Among these are major portions of Tactical Nuclear Weapons, European Perspectives, SIPRI (Taylor and Francis, 1978); Great Power Intervention in the Middle East (edited, Pergamon Press, 1979); The Structure of Defense Industry: An International Survey (edited, Croom Helm, 1983); and The Wars in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos, 1945 - 1982: A Bibliographic Guide (ABC-Clio, 1984), a book of his selected studies on arms control, Rusting und Sicherheitspolitik (Nomos Verlag, 1986), and Soviet Submarine Operations in Swedish Waters 1980-1986 (Center for Strategic and International Studies, 1987).

Leitenbergs research work is concentrated in three disparate areas of study: biological weapons; actual wars and conflicts of the past two decades, and the issue of international intervention in these; and the history of nuclear weapons between the U.S. and USSR between 1945 and 1995. CISSM published his major monograph Biological Weapons Arms Control in 1996.

With specific reference to Biological Weapons: a subject of particular current concern, Leitenbergs academic training was in Biology and Chemistry and his first paper dealing with biological weapons was published in 1967. At SIPRI, he was a member of the team that produced the six-volume study, The Problem of Chemical and Biological Warfare, published between 1971 and 1973. Since 1992, he has published thirty papers in the area of biological weapons. Several of these papers concern the BW program of the former USSR and The Soviet Biological Weapons Program: A History was published by Harvard University Press in 2013. Leitenberg published two other recent books on the subject of biological weapons: "The Problem of Biological Weapons" (National Defense College, Stockholm, 2004) and "Assessing the Biological Weapons and Bioterrorism Threat" (US Army War College, December 2005).

Great, thank you for the information. At your request I have removed the misspelled name. It was a redirect from an original error. I'll see what I can do to update your article. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

P.S. As you requested I will switch to email. Your identity has already been confirmed by the Wikipedia folks who do that kind of thing. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

PS FROM MILTON LEITENBERG

Dear Melanie, Because you asked about my education, I provided you with that information, but I should add that I have no interest at all in any of it appearing on a Wikipedia site, including the graduate and post-graduate fellowships. Thanks, Milton Leitenberg 71.126.164.156 (talk) 16:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I will include your undergraduate degree at least. I will see what I can do with the rest of the information. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I have done some work on the article and will communicate by email from now on. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you! (Cuz letter carriers and dogs...)

For your attention to the USPS page given attacks on the very infrastructure needed to hold free elections. Gratitude!

Exbrook (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the kitten. We need more kittens these days, especially given the current state of things. I suspect I'm not done with the postal service page. :-( -- MelanieN (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

United States Postal Service

Just as you were editing the article, my mail was delivered. Magic? :) S0091 (talk) 22:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

No extra charge. 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 22:43, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Ha! Very kind of you. S0091 (talk) 23:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN, can you do your wonders on a little package that got shipped from Los Angeles to me by USPS 12 days ago? It's still not here and I only live 390 miles away. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, not today - it's Sunday. 0;-D This is a sad situation, isn't it? -- MelanieN (talk) 23:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

They can't be worse than Royal Mail (whom I used to work for); I'm still waiting for my complete with manual copy of the All your base are belong to us video game (Zero Wing) that was sent to me via them several years ago (I've moved house since, so I suppose I'll never see it now :(). Adam9007 (talk) 00:42, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

"All your video game are belong to us"??? 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 00:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Not quite; they sent another copy (without the manual :(), which did turn up. Adam9007 (talk) 00:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Milton Leitenberg

Congratulations on the many improvements you made, which more firmly establish his notability. Maybe now he will want to replace his official biography with your last version?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 22:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. LOL your suggestion! No, I think he will prefer to keep his official biography. Don't they all prefer the one they wrote themselves? -- MelanieN (talk) 23:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Louis DeJoy Article

I noticed that you seen to be editing out any mentions of the current controversies about Louis DeJoy and the accusations that he is undermining the USPS from the inside in the runup to the 2020 Presidential election. I see you are a reputable Wikipedia editor and were if not for that I would have assumed you were part of DeJoy's communications team. These edits were timely, and sourced from very reliable sources, including the BBC, USA Today, Politico, and others. I made a point to say these are only accusations, but they are credible enough to be part of emergency congressional hearings. I figured that DeJoy's PR people would start an edit war, but someone reliable like you censoring any credible and justified discussion of this controversy was unexpected. What is your rationale? Do you believe that BBC is an untrustworthy source, or USA Today or Politico, etc.? Do you believe that anything that smacks of criticism of this DeJoy should be censored? Please explain yourself. Kops2222 (talk) 15:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)Kops2222

Kops2222, I have no idea what you are talking about. I have not made any recent removals to either the DeJoy article or the crisis article; most of my edits have been to add material, not remove it. You might be thinking about someone else, except that I don't see anyone else removing material critical of DeJoy either. And in the most recent history pages I don't see any edits by you either, unless they were under another username. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Kops2222 made a major rewrite to the lead on 13 Aug. Emir of Wikipedia reverted it the next day, with the edit summary not needed in the lede. Kops2222 should start a discussion on Talk:Louis DeJoy. edit to add: MelanieN, you were the next person to edit the article after Kops so apparently they misread the history and thought your edit was the removal of theirs? (wildly guessing) Schazjmd (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks, Schazjmd, very helpful! I didn't go back that far. IMO that material is not neutral in its language, especially for the lead, and I agree with Emir removing it, but we can certainly discuss it on the talk page. Kops2222, it will be up to you to start that discussion on the talk page; if you want to argue for inclusion of something like this, the talk page is the only place for it. Be sure to include a link to the edit you made - you can copy it from Schazjmd's note - and to discuss it calmly, in terms of why it should be included, rather than accusing people of underhanded motives. BTW we don't put things in the lead unless they are already included in the article text. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of Draft:Women, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in the US Healthcare Workplace

I'm wondering if there was a reason why this draft was deleted. Eugenia Lee CEF (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Eugenia Lee CEF. I see it was originally created in your userspace, then moved to draft space. The draft had been tagged with WP:G7 indicating that the author (you) had requested deletion. If that was a mistake, I can restore the draft. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that was a mistake. I think it was because I tried to submit the article but it recommended that I submit it as a draft first. That would be great if you could restore the draft. Thank you! Eugenia Lee CEF (talk) 00:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Here it is: Draft:Women, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in the US Healthcare Workplace. Good luck and happy editing! -- MelanieN (talk) 02:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much!! Eugenia Lee CEF (talk) 17:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

BLPCRIME editnotice

Hey. Following up from Talk:Kenosha_protests#Name, unambiguous violations do constantly keep cropping up in edits (mainly by newer editors), so I thought an editnotice might be a good idea, as well as a talk notice perhaps, to highlight WP:BLPCRIME implications explicitly. Something like User:ProcrastinatingReader/BLPCRIME editnotice? Wondering what your thoughts are? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. Actually I'm not seeing a big problem with that issue right now and I think our article is reasonably balanced from a BLPCRIME perspective. We have a sentence pointing out that both the prosecutors and the defense attorneys agree that Rittenhouse was the person who fired the shots - with the defense arguing that it was in self defense - so I think that stipulation softens our need for "allegedly" a little. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi. This edit which was reverted, was your version (2020 RNC)

Hi. This reversion https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_Republican_National_Convention&diff=prev&oldid=975886796 was actually the specific edit which I did purely in accordance to your past vs future tense format... In other words, I restored your version, and it was reverted by someone else. ThanksWbiases (talk) 00:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I wondered about that. I'll fix it again. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

It was me. I wasn't against updating the verb tenses, but Wbiases' edit introduced a bunch of errors, as if it was a combination of deleted and added words (e.g., "speakspoke" and "hubplace"). I imagine it was a copy-paste error. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. You are improving authenticity too.Wbiases (talk) 00:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I just copied/pasted previous MelanieN text. Nothing more.Wbiases (talk) 13:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

However, if I did something in error from this , I apologize to both. Regards.Wbiases (talk) 14:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Hey, no apologies necessary. We had some edit-conflicts going on there because we were all editing at the same time, and mistakes happen. No harm, no foul. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)