My press

You made the news. Just a passing mention mind, no indepth coverage yet. ;) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and again here (at the bottom). Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, and here it is again [1] in a separate story about the same issue. Think I'm notable yet? 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notification (historic)

This is to notify you that I have opened a complaint about your behavior in the Victoria Pynchon matter here:

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive757#Complaint About Editors' Behavior In Victoria Pynchon Deletion Discussion

Pernoctus (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I modified the link for the record when the discussion was archived. --MelanieN (talk) 15:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AN Notification (historic)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wikipedia editor paid to protect the page "John Ducas". Thank you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent RfCs on US city names

for reference
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

April 2012: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2012/June#WP:USPLACE was not officially made into an RfC or officially closed.

September-October 2012: On another page, Talk:Beverly Hills, California/Archives/2012#Requested move was closed as "No move".

An extensive November 2012 discussion involving 55 people was closed as "maintain status quo (option B)". Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2012/December#RfC: US city names.

A discussion in January 2013 later was never officially made into an RfC or officially closed; discussion died out with 18 editors opposed to a change and 12 in favor. Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2013/February#Request for comment .

Discussion started in June 2013: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2013/June#Naming convention; speedy-closed per WP:SNOW.

December 2013-February 2014: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2014/February#Should the article be at Bothell or Bothell, Washington? . Closed as "no consensus to change existing practice (that is, USPLACE)."

January-February 2014: Associated proposal for a moratorium on USPLACE discussions. Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2014/February#Moratorium on WP:USPLACE change discussions. Closed as "There is a one year moratorium on changing the policy at WP:USPLACE unless someone can offer a reason that has not been discussed previously."

August-September 2018: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Proposal to eliminate comma-state from unambiguous U.S. state capitals.


I have the habit of reading various controversial discussions here on this website and saying nothing because I do not think I have anything unique or useful to say. But I must say to you at this time that your contributions are an enormous asset to this encyclopedia, and I regret that negativity has come your way. You are a great editor. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I second that emotion. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 08:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I third it. Thanks for all that you do here at the 'pedia M. MarnetteD|Talk 08:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I regrettably am not sure what this is about, but you are definitely a valuable editor. --TheSandDoctor Talk 10:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kind words, all. I'm touched. But hey, getting blocked by a troll is not negative. It's kind of a badge of honor. Or an initiation rite. Or something. Anyhow, I was more amused than bothered. But thanks for the sympathy. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, Cullen made it seem like something more serious had happened. It is a badge of honor—how many people have been blocked by a compromised account? :) (granted, that number seems to be rising by the day..) Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. I got blocked once as an April Fools joke. My first block was by a now blocked editor who couldn't even explain why he blocked us. He couldn't define a revert, yet he blocked two of us. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What was someone like that doing with tools??? That was in 2006. I'm glad we're a little more careful nowadays who gets a block button. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, I’ve been trying my utmost to get blocked for a couple years. Frankly, I don’t understand how some folk find it so easy. There’s probably a name for this in the DSM-5. Just came here to pile on the kudos. And thanks for co-nominating an editor in an RfA with a short history involving DS articles who is clearly worthy. O3000 (talk) 01:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Objective3000: It really is easy. Do four reverts within 24 hours and make sure User:MSGJ is aware of it. Any article will do. :D (I grin, but only because it's been 3 years. I wasn't grinning then.) ―Mandruss  01:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good thing I don't wear hats! -- MelanieN (talk) 04:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Protection question

Hi MelanieN. You added ECP and PC to Donald Trump. Does that mean that those protections are somehow combined? Does it mean that an EC user can approve a pending change, or does it require an admin to approve it?- MrX 🖋 14:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MrX. We've been using PC in addition to whatever primary protection is in place because we have been switching back and forth between full protection and EC protection - due to the recent vandalism by compromised accounts. The idea is that the PC protection would remain in place to cover any gap between the expiration of full protection and the resumption of EC. PC is a lesser protection, equivalent to semi-protection, but the feeling was that it is better than nothing. However, I'm glad you asked, because just now I added it automatically (it's been that kind of couple of days) and now I realize that we don't need to worry about covering a gap as long as the EC protection is indefinite. We only need PC when we are under temporary full protection. So I will go back and remove it, and thanks for the nudge. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see. Thanks for the explanation. I didn't realize that it was possible to have an article under more than one type protection.- MrX 🖋 15:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

Have a glass of AleSmith Grand Cru for your efforts to stop this tirade of vandalism. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I can sure use it. MelanieN alt (talk) 15:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image vandal

I wonder if anybody has noticed the image vandal did some prior vandalism to Roblox? Is someone trying to make a roster of the accounts they used? Maybe for a checkuser? ☆ Bri (talk) 03:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There may be some logged-out edits also ... pls ping me if you want me to post it here. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:11, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for David Bennett (opera director)

On 3 December 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article David Bennett (opera director), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that David Bennett was hired as general director of the San Diego Opera after his predecessor tried unsuccessfully to shut the opera company down? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/David Bennett (opera director). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 12:08, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Gordon Banks

Please go back to the above site and read the Talk page.

Read the only paper item 10 in relation to "Failing to Stop" - you've never read the it properly before have you?

Mr Gordon-Banks was not charged with "Failing to Stop" yet repeated Editors' fail to read the evidence properly. Here is the key quote from the paper. "Mr Ryman told the court an officer found Gordon-Banks 'stumbling' along the road 'so intoxicated he had to steady himself against a garden wall.' The garden wall was his own garden wall. Mr Gordon-Banks is disabled. He had not walked anywhere neither does the paper say he was charged as such. Mr Ryman deliberately misused words. I am after accuracy here. Everything positive MGB has done has been removed. Your actions are therefore wrong and should be undone. (talk) 13:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I gave the page brief semi-protection because the arguing at the article was getting disruptive. This is a content matter and properly belongs on the talk page, where you have repeated this point several times. I note that after you wrote this, someone removed the entire section you were objecting to, so presumably that solves your issue. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

Cheers! Flipswitch5 (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

International Lady of Mystery

Re:[2], feel free to be less vague in private email. I have a solid technical background and may be of assistance in weighing existing options or devising new ones. — JFG talk 02:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the updates; I appreciate the good news. Curiously, apart from this recent bout of egregious vandalism, the Trump page has been exceptionally steady over the last couple months. The age of agonizing talk page debates about "losing the popular vote" may be gone. Still some tensions about the persistent lying and the purported racism: I expect those will get paused during 2019 and eventually re-emerge in full swing for the 2020 campaign. Allegations of mental illness may even make a comeback whenever convenient! — JFG talk 19:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, things have been pretty calm lately. Maybe the vandal took all the oxygen out of the room, or maybe the midterms took people to other articles, or maybe people just haven't realized that the full protection is gone. My own prediction: at some point, well before 2020, something (I have no idea what) will happen with regard to the Mueller investigation, which will cancel out all the old arguments (how many times have we had to deal with "put birtherism in the lead"?), and ignite wars that will make the past ones look tame. When that happens, fasten your seatbelt. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, the Mueller probe is petering out; even Flynn's sentencing guidelines failed to create any wikidrama. Now, when the next Supreme Court Justice retires or dies, we'll surely be in for a ride. — JFG talk 00:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If I were a betting person I would challenge you on that. The Flynn sentencing guidelines clearly indicated that in addition to the Russia/collusion investigation, Mueller is working on two other still-top-secret investigations - one a criminal investigation, and the other a complete dark hole. Anyhow, the past 2-3 years have taught me the wisdom of a very old saying: Expect the unexpected. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Things will get exciting on the Democratic side before they get exciting on Trump's article, I think. There's probably going to be an RFC soon at Talk:2020 United States presidential election about whether Andrew Yang (entrepreneur) is a "major candidate", and the floodgates for candidates declaring should happen over the next two months. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Those Dem primaries will likely suck all the energy out of the regular political process. Sad! — JFG talk 00:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, aren't the Democratic primaries part of the regular political process? Anyhow, it's entirely possible there could be a challenged primary on the Republican side as well, and that would REALLY generate some action here. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed they are part of the political process, but American politicians seem to spend their whole 4-year mandates fighting for re-election or horse-racing to pick a challenger, and that's not healthy. Switzerland just elected two women to the Federal Council, to replace retiring members, and nobody made a fuss about it. They're just quietly doing their job. — JFG talk 09:37, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly agree with you on that. American politics has been described as a "perpetual election". Recent example: The night of the recent midterm elections, the media coverage was at least as much about "what does this mean for 2020?" as it was about the actual results. I agree this is not a healthy way to run a democracy. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assault Suit Leynos 2

Restored article which was deleted via unchallenged PROD. There's multiple reviews and previews in the game in magazines and websites all over the world including:

These are only the reviews I've found today, and there is no doubt others (especially Japanese sources). This page was tagged with PROD by the same user who has been going around tagging hundreds of JP only games. This user mass tagged pages, and then proceeded to do zero research on any of thee games to see if they were notable. I have been slowly going through pages and restoring as many of them as I can. Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harizotoh9, I have no objection to this restoration. The previous article, which was called Assault Suits Leynos II, had no references and was only a few sentences long. This one is much better. Be sure to add some categories. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:30, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Daft Lucario

Would G11 be better?

The logo uploaded on Commons by the same user refers to it as being "my band". It looks like someone's just trying to promote their amateur vanity project. ViperSnake151  Talk  04:38, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:ViperSnake151, you are free to re-tag it with whatever you think is appropriate. I wasn't arguing for it to be kept, just pointing out that it didn't meet G3. (You really should do a Google search before tagging something as a hoax.) Many admins would agree that it meets G11. Personally I tend to have a high bar for G11, but I am in the minority, and anyhow I would probably not be the admin evaluating the next nomination. If no speedy criterion seems to fit there is always PROD. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) Nothing in particular about the draft looks like it merits any speedy deletion criteria (even in mainspace, signing with a notable label probably scrapes them past A7), even though it is quite unacceptable as a vanity page (although yes, some admins would probably delete it). You can wait 6 months for WP:G13 to sweep it away or MfD it. (also Melanie, no PROD for drafts :)) Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, Galobtter, an admin for one day and already you are teaching me! 0;-D I KNEW you would be a great admin. Thanks for the lesson; please keep it up. You are correct. I had never noticed that before, but although WP:PROD doesn’t say directly that PROD cannot be used for Draft namespace, it does list the types of pages it CAN be used for - drafts not being on the list - and then says it may not be used in “any other namespace”. So, no draftspace. Learning all the time at this place. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BTW I just proposed at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion that we add drafts to the list of namespaces where it cannot be used. Just for people like me who don't read the instructions very carefully. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Cutting Room Floor (again)


Did we ever actually reach a consensus regarding his name? By reading the discussion on the talk page, I don't think we did. Was I right to revert its removal on those grounds? If so, I can see this becoming a long-term edit war, much like the one on Father Ted about whether the show is British or Irish. Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Adam. Yes, I think you were right to restore it. It was mainly Xkeeper himself who was asking us to leave out his name, but he seemed to grudgingly accept our decision in August.[3] And then in early November he actually went to the article and corrected the spelling of Xkeeper.[4] It seems he is no longer raising an objection to the way we are doing it. So I think our decision (which was based on discussion at two talk pages as well as Reliable Source usage) stands. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you reckon what we've got is enough justification for putting a note on there? Adam9007 (talk) 04:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's necessary at this point. This was the first attempt to change it since August. If it becomes a problem we could do something, but for now I think we can leave it as is. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they say prevention is better than cure (not that it did much good on Father Ted...) :) Adam9007 (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And it just so happens he's gotten rid of the request on his user page. Do you reckon he's watching this? Adam9007 (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite possible. We know he doesn't log on to Wikipedia often, but he did in November, when he fixed the spelling of his handle. I do get the impression he has accepted the article the way it is. IMO we should just let it ride unless it becomes an actual issue at some point. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Merry

Happy Christmas!
Hello MelanieN,
Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that

Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?"

My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk 03:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Cute anecdote, and inspired me to order this book from the library. (I have never read it but it looks like I am missing something.) Happy everything to you too. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad this as inspired you to read the entire story M. You might try reading it aloud. I do that each year with friends or family or even just myself on the 24th. The words are somehow richer when I hear them. However you experience Dylan's work I hope you enjoy it. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 02:33, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Muangthong United F.C.

The 5th protection period ended today, and was quickly vandalised again. Please add another period. 2 more months should be ok, as the league will start then. SveinFalk (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I agree. This is an unusually long protection period, but this article has been on virtually continuous protection since October, and the problems always resume as soon as the protection expires. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Melanie, this guy above just came off a 24 hour block for edit warring, and is right back at it again. He's arguing all manner of assumptions/original research regarding the status of Murphy Brown, and doesn't appear to have the competence to understand what the sources he's using actually say. Would you want to swing by his talk page and give him a warning about edit warring before it all gets out of hand again? Thanks! ----Dr.Margi 23:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I ask of you not too. I am editing what reliable resources say. TV By The Numbers has acknowledged that "“Murphy Brown” ending will make room for the Nina Dobrev-led freshman comedy, “Fam”"[5] CBS is also advertising Fam on its website.[6] I ask of a compromise which doesn't involve fanpage bias, which I feel has been strongly shown. (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again, for 48 hours this time. I explained on their talk page about consensus and Reliable Sources. If they can't get the message they are going to find themselves blocked for longer and longer periods of time. If they are correct in their assertion, they should be able to find lots of sources, not just tvbythenumbers. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:04, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Melanie. He's not correct, either in terms of the status of the show, or in terms of what the source he's citing says. He's going by a tertiary source that's mis-reporting TV by the Numbers, and we can't seem to get it across to him. Happy Holidays, and thanks for the quick action! ----Dr.Margi 06:22, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Hi MelanieN!

I'm a brand new Wikipedia user - was browsing user pages to get ideas on how to get started customizing my own 'user' page for the 1st time.

Thought yours was well done and wanted to send a star!

Now I think I have some ideas on how to describe some interests, and maybe even throw in a few puns for good measure :)

Thanks for the inspiration!


AdidasZRO (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the compliments. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Dear MelanieN, I am not sure if I am following the correct procedure so apologies in advance is this is incorrect. The page I was editing was protected. I have left a comment on the Tempted Talk page explaining why I believe an edit should be made which restores the page to a neutral basis and adds back ratings data that was removed. Is there anything else I should do? Thank you. Circle999 (talk) 00:35, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Circle999! Yes, that was exactly what you should have done. The other person has already replied, and the two of you should discuss and work out what the article should say. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your help. I have tried to reach a consensus and offered a couple of versions in the talk section. I will await for their response. If we cannot reach a consensus is there anything else that can be done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Circle999 (talkcontribs) 01:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's usually possible to work out a wording that satisfies both of you. If you can't reach agreement, you need additional opinions. One thing you can to is to WP:ping other people who have previously edited that article, to get additional opinions. If you get to that point, ask me and I'll tell you how to do that and who to call on. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yosemiter and the Russian National Hockey Team

Hi, you previously warned Yosemiter about edit warring on the Russian National Men's Hockey Team page, and it seems that he's back to making revisions that are degrading the article. For instance, instead of saying that the Russian Men's National Hockey Team "participated in the Olympics" which took place in February of 2018, Yosemiter's claiming that saying that the "Russian Men's National Hockey Team was cleared to participate" is an improvement to the article. Instead of saying that the "IIHF awarded the points to the Russian National Team" (which they did,) Yosemiter's claiming that saying that "the IIHF considered the OAR games for the Russian team in its rankings" is an improvement to the article. His other edit includes claiming that comparing different coaches' performance during different seasons is an improvement over comparing said coaches' performance during the same season. Can you please take a look at it when you have a chance? Here's the edit that started the tangent:

Thank you! (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note, but I'm not going to get involved with the content of the article. My only input was that I saw a request for full-protection due to edit warring, and I decided to issue a warning instead, which was heeded. I see that the two of you are discussing your differences at the talk page; that is the right way to handle this. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can I also request?

If I or the anonymous Editor can't edit, Could you please tell someone that is more knowledgeable about the Page's details. I suggest, Chinese Show Editors. Jiangye (talk) 03:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are talking about the article Ever Night, which I full-protected. Tell whoever you want; it's up to you. More important: start a discussion with the anonymous editor on the talk page. That is the whole point of protecting an article: to get the editors to stop reverting each other and start talking. Start a discussion there, explaining why you are doing what you are doing. See if you can get them to come and explain their position. Try to reach agreement. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you need outside help, you might post a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China, asking for someone to take a look at the article and comment. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Dear, MelanieN thank you very much for all your editing adjustments and help, if you don't mind could you say me which paragraphs and information from MY previous version should be corrected so well that it passes moderation, once again I want to repeat the fact that my revisions and edits to Mr. Elliott Broidy Wikipedia page are based on accurate, current, and reliable sources from highly trusted American and international media such as The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, BBC, CNBC, Al Jazeera, Los Angeles Times, Bloomberg, Politico, New York Magazine, New York Daily News, Esquire, Buzzfeed, The Huffington Post, The Times of Israel, OCCRP, and many others. Additionally, there are public records available in open source that support the revisions I have made. Material about Elliot Broidy has been written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research. At the same time, respectfully, your edits are aimed at hiding important information about the life and professional benchmarks of Elliott Broidy; your revisions are outdated, incorrect and misleading as to information about the areas of his business and life. No source confirms that he is or was a philanthropist and venture capitalist. Therefore, attributing to him this fake activity is pure PR, and an attempt to hide the truth. I suggest indicate like: scandal-tarred or engulfed in numerous scandals and investigation.Regards Annmorgan24 Annmorgan24 (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I replied at the article talk page. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why you put Protected on 1995-1996 Government Shutdown article

What gives you the right to put fully protected on 1995-1996 Government Shutdown article? You are a disgrace to WIKIPEDIA! You denied other folks to edit the article. You remove that padlock right now! >:(

I'm very disappointed at you! This is supposed to be The Free Encyclopedia...NOT UNFREE! Remove the padlock and let them edit right now! Spencer H. Karter (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Spencer. I assume you are talking about United States federal government shutdowns of 1995–1996. I semi-protected the article temporarily because of recent disruptive editing by brand-new users. Since you are not a new user, the protection does not affect you and you should be perfectly able to edit the article. Semi-protection is temporary, and as soon as it expires all users will be able to edit it again. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I just saw this edit of yours at Donald Trump, and I wondered if you would care to weigh in on a similar issue I am having at Kirsten Gillibrand. I started a discussion on the matter at Talk:Kirsten Gillibrand#Philip Morris extra detail if you are interested. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Thank you, CAPTAIN! How time flies when you're having... uhh, fun? -- MelanieN (talk) 23:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Fix(er) is in

Hello, MelanieN. I had thought to return to the fixer page and categorize the various types of fixers, when I noticed that the list I had added was shortened by yourself. I'm not sure why you might think that I would add a name on the basis of "Just being a lawyer for thugs or a PI for celebrities"; the most notorious of known Hollywood fixers were deleted. Your point on there being no direct mention of the exact phrase on those individual's pages was well-taken, however, and I might have thought of that sooner. Though you did not encourage adding sources, I have, nonetheless, now remedied the lack thereof on individual pages, and so have restored the names to the list. Thank you for your apparently sharp eye.Lindenfall (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that you had added and restored some entries - all properly sourced at their articles! 0;-D Thanks for adding that list - a good idea and it definitely improves the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC) P.S. Does that make you a fixer (in the British sense)? -- MelanieN (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! You caught me out. I do "fancy myself" as making my exacting Scot mother proud by improving grammar and punctuation, and by recording correct details... she was quite a fixer herself, back in the day. (Were she among us, Mother might say that I "just fancy myself," though, and really catch me out!) Lindenfall (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, and you earn the title. You not only added good content to the article; you gave me an example of a freelance fixer (American sense) which I did not have up to then. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Too kind, thank you! Lindenfall (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Me, again — I had added match fixing thus to help prevent names being added there, instead of on the more exacting match fixing page, and rather than having repetitive lists. I also don't see match fixing linked on the page otherwise, as your reasoning had noted. Bit confusing. Lindenfall (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Match fixer" in the article was hiding under a piped link. I have clarified it. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Egad, it's me, again — I feel like I'm the only one bothering you here. (BTW that Melania photo cracks me up every time I do, adding to the allure.) So, I've edited the match fixing section in a way that I think is more suited... I can only hope that you like what I've done with the place! Lindenfall (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you have definitely improved the article. As for Melania, that's been a running joke ever since someone gave me a templated conflict-of-interest warning for editing the Melania Trump article. They were actually serious, but it seemed like too good a joke to let go. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great, and "Melania" is now even funnier... best joke (that was not a joke) ever! Lindenfall (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since you commented on the picture, I decided it would be worthwhile to add the link [7] to it. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That just cracks me up! So nice to encounter an editor with a sense of humor, Mrs T. Lindenfall (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax, again

Hi. Thanks for deleting Draft:Famiglia Di Alshibli a couple days ago. User:JonesBrown1992 has created it again, and I doubt he will stop. Maybe SALT? Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 15:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:RHaworth has block said user and deleted the page. Let's hope that stops the page from being created in the future. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 16:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like RHaworth salted it as well. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Thank you both. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 16:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, et al

Cheers, again. I saw your name in edits for Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, and wonder if you could have a look at a set of wholesale deletions I stumbled into yesterday. I'm presently going through one at a time, and making reversals and corrections. (Best I can say, is some few links did need updating.) It started with Fasken, and other editors stepped in. The deleting editor next hit Skadden, and so on. It's pretty tedious, of course, and your name appeared, like a shiny golden gift (if you get my drift, Mrs. T.) and I thought you might have some magic wand (also gold, of course). (Otherwise, I'll just carry on.) Lindenfall (talk) 18:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting you should say that. That’s a brand new user, called Histnewbie, whose first edits here were to puff up the article Fasken; most of that was primary sourced puffery and has been reverted. Then they went through a bunch of other law firms deleting material as improperly sourced.[8] I found someone at Talk:Fasken who is suspicious about COI editing and I think that may be what we are looking at here. I don’t have any magic wands to deal with this, I’m afraid; we will just have to evaluate their edits individually and revert or modify as needed. Actually I am going to follow up on one suspicion, and then see about the other articles. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know if I should do anything now... I'm not meaning to pass the workload of it on to you, but thought your laser wand was needed. Lindenfall (talk) 20:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some research at that article and I think I have evidence of sockpuppetry. I'm planning to file an investigation about that. If they are socks we can delete them all without further ado, so maybe hold off until we get a SPI result. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of thought that, but more senior editors reversed some, yet didn't seem to react that way, so I didn't know how to proceed (until your name appeared, like a golden gift from Mrs. T). Thankful for your expertise. Lindenfall (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to know other editors are working on it; they of course don't know the big picture. Neither did I until I looked at Talk:Fasken. I'm going to file an SPI request and see we can learn. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Having followed the trail to this, does it mean nothing will be done? No block on disruptive edits? Should I just go back to individual edit assessments? What would Melania do? Lindenfall (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What would Melania do? She would just wait - I bet she spends a lot of her time doing that. (At least we both look pretty while doing it! 0;-D) As you can see from WP:SPI, it is in the queue to be looked at. SPI is pretty backed up, and cases like this - where they can't do a checkuser so they will have to evaluate it behaviorally - can take a long time so people do them last. They'll get around to it eventually. Meanwhile, I'm not seeing disruption. Histnewbie laid low for a few days, and now has tried again to upload the photo. Want to bet it still doesn't pass muster? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC) P.S. I see he is claiming it is in the public domain in Canada. I'll let somebody with more copyright expertise figure out if that is correct or not. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. The last comment there read declined, so I couldn't tell if that banner up top meant anything now. That photo just might past muster, but looks to be the very least of the issues created with copious edits. Thanks for clarifying, Mrs. T. Lindenfall (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MelanieN: Considering the timing and their edits, it looks to me like OhSweetNuthin may be the new Histnewbie. What would Mrs. T. do? Lindenfall (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weird the way they are following him around and undoing his tags; not suggestive that they are the same person but we could keep an eye on the situation. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I thought so, by their phrasings, as well. No envy for Admins... you all have your work cut out for you around here, times how many languages? ...bit of a mind-boggle. And, thank you for all that unboggles. Lindenfall (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a copycat. For once I'm not behind the events unfolding.Histnewbie —Preceding undated comment added 02:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not anything but disagreeing with the major contributor and advertising flags that were put on the ones I removed it from. Lindenfall even thanked me for removing the ones on O'Melveny & Myers. To insinuate I would be helping someone who I disagree with is baffling to say the least. I put all my reasonings in the edit summary and was requested by Histnewbie to do that on the talk pages, which I will moving forward.--OhSweetNuthin (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Miz T... I thought this would have ended by now... what do you think? I didn't even mean to notice, but something popped up on my watch list. (Internet's been spotty, at best, lately, but I'll be back soon.) Lindenfall (talk) 00:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


This page was deleted by you as a "redirect to a deleted page". However, the page this was redirected to, was moved to the draft space by a new editor. It should be undeleted and have its history restored to move back to the mainspace (Mitrasen). -- Flooded w/them 100s 09:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, Flooded. Actually the “page this was redirected to” had no significant content or history. It was the result of a confused series of moves by a new user. I have just reviewed the whole history of the pages Mitrasen, Mitrasen Yadav, Mitrasen (disambiguation), and Draft: Mitrasen. I can lay it all out for you complete with time stamps if you want, but here’s the Cliff Notes version: An article about Indian politician Mitrasen Yadav was originally created in 2006 under the name Mitrasen. It was moved to Mitrasen Yadav in 2012, leaving a redirect. Mitrasen Yadav is the only page with any significant content or history, and it was undisturbed by the recent shenanigans. Everything the new user did involved moves of the redirect page Mitrasen. That included creating the pages Mitrasen (disambiguation) and Draft:Mitrasen, both I which I deleted - the DAB page per G14 as an unnecessary DAB, and the draft page per G4 as a redirect to the (now deleted) DAB page. The draft page never had any significant content, just the redirect to the DAB page. As far as I can see, everything is now as it was: Mitrasen as a redirect to Mitrasen Yadav, the page to which it was moved in 2012. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's great! Thanks for explaining and sorting things out. -- Flooded w/them 100s 17:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And I see that isn't the end of it! There was another mess today having to do with Master Mitrasen, aka Master Mitrasen Thapa Magar, which you helped to fix.[9] Apparently someone moved one or both of those articles to Wikipedia space.[10][11] I'm glad other people fixed it and I am not even going to try to sort out what happened. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).

Administrator changes

added EnterpriseyJJMC89
readded BorgQueen
removed Harro5Jenks24GraftR. Baley

Interface administrator changes


Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
  • Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
  • A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

Technical news

  • A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.


  • Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Writer's Barnstar
Hi MelanieN,

Thank you for your addition to the Fasken history in the talk page. I will try to update the history and will let you know. You can review it at that point and let me know if it's okay.

Additionally, feel free to let me know if I am doing anything that would be considered stepping out of bounds. That's not my goal!

Histnewbie (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the barnstar. Since it's so complicated (I would have trouble figuring it out myself), you might propose your version with references at the talk page for review. If we can get some well sourced history into the article, it will add to the firm's claim to notability. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page blanking


I don't know if you still stalk my talk page, but do you think I was right to blank Military establishment of the Roman Empire? It's caused more hoo-ha than I thought it would, and I think Botteville think I'm accusing him of copying. Should I perhaps have consulted an admin first? I can't help but think I've yet again made a right pig's ear of everything. (by the way, you're not one of the 'several editors who would rejoice if I were to leave Wikipedia and never come back' or one of those who 'tries to make me out to be a complete f*ckwit'. You should recognise the incidents I referred to, so I thought I'd clear that up in case that gets misconstrued, which is of course the last thing I want :)). Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 00:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Adam! I’ve been AFC (away from computer) all day and I have no idea what has happened. I tried to figure it out from your talk page. Apparently you tagged Military establishment of the Roman Empire for possible copyright infringement. Judging from your talk page, you notified the person who originally created that article (splitting it off from a pre-existing article rather than writing it) and they were (mildly) unhappy; I can see why they might be, but they didn't make a big deal out of it. If that's all the "hoo-ha" that developed, it seems pretty minimal. I see mention of you leaving Wikipedia but I’m not sure why; you’ve really got to develop a thicker skin and not threaten to quit every time someone disagrees with you.

As for the article, it certainly doesn’t read much like an encyclopedia article, does it? Lead sentences: The Augustan reforms didn't change the military structure that much. Beginning with Gaius Marius (Marian Reforms). He changed the requirements to enlist in the legions. What led you to link this article up with the crystalinks site, anyhow? Did you just come across the article and decide to check it for copyvio, or what?

When I Google individual sentences from this article (my preferred method rather than using a tool) I find many Wikipedia mirrors like revolvy and WN. I also find it at a site called, which does not credit WP and has the gall to tag it “Copyright © 2019” but is probably another mirror. You identified a problem with crystallinks, which does indeed seem to match the article very closely. Crystalinks calls itself a “metaphysics and science website” (judging from the web page I would call it more of a pseudoscience website). Anyhow it is a sort of blog created by one woman, who IMO is very unlikely to have written this historical thesis herself. What I mean is that she undoubtedly copied it from somewhere. You believe that couldn’t have been Wikipedia because your information is that the material was on Crystalinks as early as 2000, is that right? So if she copied it from somewhere, we don’t know where.

My feeling is that none of these other sites are likely to be the primary source of the information. If our information was copied from somewhere 13 years ago, we won’t be able to identify the source. IMO the most likely suspect would be the external link, “Augustan Legionaries” by Ross Cowan, but that’s a dead link that I can’t find anywhere on Google. User:Justlettersandnumbers offers the most logical analysis here, namely that if there is any copyvio it stems from the original article, Campaign history of the Roman military created in 2003, and infects all of its spinoffs. That article started out as just an outline and was gradually expanded by many people in what seems to have been pure OR - no sources ever cited. It wasn't copy-pasted as a whole, but portions may have been. If Justlettersandnumbers is willing to try to make some sense out of the history, at their convenience, I think that’s the best solution and heartily thank them for being willing to try. I would even question whether the article can be saved; the subject is notable but the article is a total violation of WP:Verifiability.

To answer your original question, I would not have tagged it as a copyvio because we don’t really have any idea what it might have been copying from. And I would not have blanked it; I don’t think WP is in any kind of legal trouble if we leave it open for another week or month. But these are judgment calls and are nothing to talk about leaving WP over. I do suggest you revert your tag and leave it to others to figure out. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Adam9007, you got a lot of sound advice here! Unlike Melanie (hi!), I do think that that blanking the page was the right call – it can soon be unblanked if there's no problem, and if there is one, then it should be blanked. In case there's ever another time, the only thing I'd have done differently here - given the age, the uncertainty, and that the article creator is a long-established editor – is to leave a brief personal message ("can you help me to understand ...?") rather than the huge "standard" template message. I don't think you made a pig's ear here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will certainly go along with leaving it blanked if that's JLAN's preference. (Hi back!) JLAN is certainly able to do any investigation needed using the history. In any case, blanking vs. not blanking was not a major issue or horrible error; more a matter of preference and judgment on which reasonable people can differ. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. I too have been away from my computer all day today :(. I didn't read the article thoroughly, but it didn't seem to be particularly encyclopaedic. On a whim, I decided to check for copyvios, and found that match, which, at the time, appeared to pre-date its presence on Wikipedia. I notice that the content on Crystallinks appeared in December 2005, so if the 'heavy edit' was indeed from a split then it could be a backwards copy and the only issue is attribution (Botteville said he wrote none of the original prose). Adam9007 (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

protection Russians

please restore protection page. Unregistred user regulary vandalised this page.Hatchiko (talk) 15:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hatchiko, and thanks for your note. Actually the PC protection which is still in place seems to be working well. I see about one vandalism edit a week since the semi-protection ended. One a week is easily handled by page-watching and reverting, and responsible IPs and new users can still edit (with their edits subject to your approval). And while waiting for approval, the IP addition does not become a viewable part of the article. That's exactly the situation that PC is designed for. If it gets to the point where there are multiple vandalisms a day, let me know and I could add temporary semi-protection again. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the Fiat Freemont page protection

Please remove the Fiat Freemont page protection as we want to create a separate page from Dodge Journey and to have some different information, even those vehicles have similarities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rejs12345 (talkcontribs) 21:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rejs12345. You will have to get consensus at the article's talk page first. The protection is there to prevent edit warring, so we need to see that other users are in agreement before removing the protection. I see that another admin warned you at that page: if you expand it again after the protection expires, without first getting agreement from the other users, you could be blocked for edit warring. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Howdy, I've mentioned you over at Tony's talk page which as a courtesy I would like to make sure you understand. In passing you've observed editing in support of an organization, which I've interpreted as a possible concern about COI. I certainly have that concern, and take full responsibility for my own concern, whatever yours may be. Moreover I actually think we have a major DE problem on the horizon and I believe a long-term silverlock would be best for a period of learning, in order to save us time at ANI. Your patience and AGF stance has been exemplary, and I don't want it to be taken advantage of. Cheerio, -Roberthall7 (talk) 06:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Robert. About long-term protection, Tony's answer is also mine: per protection policy, we don't protect pages pre-emptively, as a way of preventing possible future disruption. Protection is used to stop immediate problems, and only for as long as needed to stop those problems. If disruption resumes after the week expires, we may need more permanent ways to deal with the disruptor.
I do think it's highly likely virtually certain that the editor in question is strongly connected to the organization, either as an employee or as a devotee/volunteer. But I also think we have their attention now, and they seem willing to work things out on the talk page and to take suggestions/direction about how to do it. I will tell them explicitly not to edit the article but only the talk page, and leave it to us to make the consensus edits. If they see we are working with them in good faith, I am hopeful that they will not cause any further problems. Tony has been remarkably patient in following this case through please-block and please-unblock; hopefully he won't have to bother with it any more.
Right now at the talk page we have many subjects covered in a single long edit, followed by someone else's response covering many subjects; that's hard to follow. I think we may already have consensus on some of them. Going forward we might want to identify the subjects of controversy and make a separate subheading for each. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. BTW if you and the other person come to agreement on a particular wording, go ahead and put it into the article immediately. Don't wait for me; my computer access is sporadic, and when I am online I may have higher-priority matters to deal with. Anyhow I think you and I think sufficiently alike on this matter that anything you agree to, I would too. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieN, thanks and all understood and agreed. I also have higher-priority matters to deal with so I hope to draw down my Talk page discussion at least while we have the silverlock preserving stability. -Roberthall7 (talk) 07:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar

Suffering Bastard cocktail

You're more than welcome, but I have no fancy pictures to share :( Nicholas Nastrusnic (talk) 21:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Nicholas, here's where you sometimes can find "fancy pictures": . Type in a search and see what you find. Unfortunately I couldn't find any for your articles about the Diki-Diki or the Doctor cocktails, but here's one you can use for your Suffering Bastard article! -- MelanieN (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, duh.. I see you already have it there! Well, cheers! -- MelanieN (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a picture of Hot Buttered Rum in a cocoa mug is just not the same Hot Buttered Rum

Invitation to attend a Southern California Regional mini Unconference

Who: All Wikipedians & Wikimedians

What: Southern California Regional mini Unconference.

When: Sunday 3 March 2019, 2:00PM PST / 1400 until 4:10PM PST / 1610

Where: Philippe's at Chinatown, Los Angeles

Sponsor: San Diego Wikimedians User Group ( US-SAN )

Your host: RightCowLeftCoast (talk · contribs)

Please add your username to our attendees list so we know how many will be attending, due to the limited size of the cafe.

(Delivered: 00:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC) You can unsubscribe from future invitations to San Diego Wikimedians User Group events by removing your name from the WikiProject San Diego mass mailing list & the Los Angeles mass mailing list.)

Mongolia's Next Top Model

Hi, I'm sorry to bother you personally, I don't know if I'm allowed to do this here, so I'm sorry in advance if I'm not. Unfortunately, Mongolia's Next Top Model (season 2)'s page has been edited again despite being semi-protected, this has been going for quite a few days now, so I would like to ask for advice, what should I do in this case? What should I ask mods to do? It frustrates me, personally, because I feel like most of the content added has a negative conotation towards some contestants and accuses the show and I don't feel like Wikipedia is the right place for that. Thanks in advance for your help. Termo-status (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Termo, no problem; you can always ask admins about stuff. I saw your request at Requests for Page Protection, and I asked for someone else to make the decision what to do, since I was the one who imposed the semi-protection that is still in effect. You might want to add a P.S. to your request there, pointing out that there has been disruptive editing again. Someone will surely answer your request soon. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your help, I hope we can get this solved soon =) Termo-status (talk) 04:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Unfortunately, it seems like edits continue to happen despite your warning =/ Termo-status (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Blocked for a week. Let me know of any future problems. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


The article you created, Bill W. Stacy, really? What seems to be missing is a statement such as Stacy is notable for something -- not just being a university president. What, if anything, is he notable for? My news sweeps did not come up with much.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's what. Please see WP:NACADEMIC, criterion 6. But if you don't buy that, feel free to test it at AfD. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm rolling my eyeballs...--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are You?

Are you the real Donald Trump's wife? THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reality is fake news. O3000 (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the disclaimer on my user page. I get asked this every now and then (one person even gave me a COI notice for editing the Donald Trump page), and it's become kind of a running joke for me. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sorry about that. Everyone gets excited by this for some reason. As the next step, you should for real claim to be the real first lady (just make sure you don't do COI with politics) XD. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 22:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I could do that if I wanted to. "Oh, yes, I am Melania Trump, I just accidentally misspelled my name when I created this username." After all, you can be anyone you want on the internet. 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 22:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Teahouse logo
Hello! MelanieN, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 00:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the invitation. I know it's a great place and some awesome people help out there. I'm glad to see you are one of them. If the real Melania shows up here, I will definitely recommend it to her! 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Plea for help?


This, when decoded, appears to be a plea for help of some sort (and contains BLP violations to boot). Looking at it, I'm not sure if it's a silly joke or if it's serious (I suspect the former but need to be sure). Should this be WP:999'd? Also pinging PlyrStar93 for input as he marked it as vandalism. Adam9007 (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree with deleting it. I might have tagged it as nonsense rather than vandalism, but it’s pretty much the same thing. No, I don't think it needs to be taken seriously or reported. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It claims a man that was reported to have died is in fact alive and has been kidnapped and trapped in some place. Sounds like a joke to me. (by the way, G1 doesn't apply to userspace:(). Adam9007 (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Adam9007: There is no help we can or need to provide. If they genuinely need help, they would have posted in places other than this website (possibly not in public either) and/or contacted authorities, and they don't have to encode their message and insert a bunch of gibberish characters with "top secret". It should be deleted as vandalism as the page when displayed is purely disruptive with all the weird characters and is clearly not related to building an encyclopedia. -★- PlyrStar93 Message me. 23:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
...and I deleted it. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My stupid humor

Please stop your obsessive editing on Wikipedia. If your uselessness continues, you will be blocked from editing. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 23:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Mommy. I'll stop ... one of these days. Sure I will. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A custom award for you!

ImmortalWizard Exclusive "Brightest Minds" Award
For your tireless and resilient work in this community. You have shown outstanding skills and dedication. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 23:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
... LOL! I take it, from the illustration, that the above commentary is blarney? Thanks for the laughs. And thanks for creating a clever, original barnstar just for me! -- MelanieN (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to User surevey 1

Hello! There is an ongoing survey going on at User:ImmortalWizard/User survey 1. As a fellow Wikipedian ImmortalWizard would like you to answer some questions. It wouldn't take too long, and your participation will be appreciated. Thanks, THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 16:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, learned a lesson. Newbies always have a hard time. So I would like the experienced ones not to be assume they don't know everything and teach them politely, instead of threatening with "I'll block you indef". THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the lesson is, ask an experienced user BEFORE you do something like this. Instead of expecting them to politely teach you not to do something, after you have already done it. I think anyone would have advised you that this "survey" was a bad idea.
I do think your best approach here would be to focus on editing articles. My suggestion, and the way most of us start out here: Just read. Read articles about anything you are interested in: your home town, your country, your hobbies, your school, people from a geographic area or a profession that interests you. When you find something wrong, correct it. When you find something that needs expanding, expand it. Just be sure you use Reliable Sources and not your own opinion or experience. (I'm afraid I did a lot of that when I was new here, but it was a long time ago and they were not so strict about making everything be sourced. So I could learn how things are done here a little bit at a time.) -- MelanieN (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BTW getting into arguments with admins, and trading insults with them, is not a good idea. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, why don't you do that, at least for a little while, and depending on the nature of the disruption. I don't guarantee results - it's really up to him - but I think it's worth a try to help him find his niche as a productive editor. I've done this a few times in the past (at times as the person's sole friend and defender), and I can point to a couple of productive editors to show for it. If it turns out he can't take advice, well, we'll have tried - but Wikipedia does have its limits. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I will proudly take the chance. Really depends next on what I do. I have recently acting both in WP:CRICKET and WP:PW, where the latter is much peaceful with consensus. I am trying to improve some of the biographies I am familiar with, however getting really annoyed when they have little to no proper inline citations (i.e. I don't know where the info is from, especially is an most of the general sources are offline). New editors should be encouraged to get help. Also, did you just assume my gender? THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
((gender|ImmortalWizard)) = they. You specified it in your preferences. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And your user page starts off "I am a young man...". Why would you try to play that game with someone who just volunteered to mentor you? Melanie, good luck, you've got your work cut out for you I fear. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I forgot. Nothing to hide now. I think I should head towards De la Marck, looking at his comments about autism here. May I have your permission please? THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you're asking permission for; I pray to God you don't mean starting an WP:RFA. I think you should direct this question to Melanie, I don't have the patience. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sheesh! I walk away from the computer for an hour and look what happens! Like Floq, I certainly hope you are not thinking about an RfA. At this point you are so far away from RfA that it would be disruptive for you to start one. In fact if you did, I would tell Floq "go ahead and block him, he is clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia." (And BTW, as Floq explained you have clearly identified yourself as male; so has Floq which is why I call him "he". And I am clearly identified as female. If I don't know a person's gender I call them "they". All clear now? 0;-D) I'm glad to see you working in some projects; that's a good start to doing actual encyclopedia work, instead of just hanging out on talk pages. If you find an article where some of the material is not cited, you might want to do a search of Google or Google Books to see if you can find references and add them. (Do you know how to cite references? Actually full citations with the author and the date and the publisher and all that good stuff? If not I'll teach you.) If it is cited but not visible online, that still counts as citation; we just have to assume good faith that the material is quoted correctly. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wait what? I am never said I am going for RFA. I asked for permission of asking De la Marck about autism. I linked to the RFA page because they wrote a comment about it there. Floq seems to have twisted the situation somehow. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 23:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. You were following my advice about trying to connect with other users on the spectrum. From looking at their talk page they may not be the best person to talk to; they don't seem to be interacting with others very well. But maybe you and they could establish a rapport and form a little support group; it's not impossible. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, I took a look at your contributions to see what kind of areas you are working in.

In other words, do most of your work right now at the article and article-talk level; don't try to thrust yourself into areas that call for more experience than you have. You have to walk before you can run. Fair enough? -- MelanieN (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, regarding the AFD proposal at Christos Tsoutsouvis, the article is protected "This page is currently protected so that only administrators can edit it." So I clicked at "Submit an edit request".Cinadon36 (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So wait until the protection expires. Anyhow, there is much more involved in nominating an article for deletion than simply pasting a notice on the article page. Please read the instructions at WP:AFD. You have to 1) create the AfD discussion page, including your rationale for why the page should be deleted, 2) list that page on the AfD listing page for the current date, and THEN 3) post the notice on the article page. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cinadon36, BTW, do you use Twinkle? If you do there is a button on Twinkle, "XfD", that automates this process for you. You have to be looking at the article page to use it. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Νο, Ι do not, I am not a follower of "Association of Deletionist Wikipedians", that;s why I didnt installed Twinkle. As for the AFD instructions, first step is: "Put the deletion tag on the article. Insert ((subst:afd1)) at the top of the article." So I tried to do, but the article is protected and hence I suggest it in a new page, and my edit was redirected to the article's talk I prefer AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTAD Cinadon36 (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my mistake. It has been several years since I nominated pages manually, and it looks like they have made it easier. OK, so do it when the protection expires. And, I give up, you will have to explain AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTAD (I have a feeling it is something pretty amusing). -- MelanieN (talk) 19:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's a worldwide movement.([12]) Cinadon36 (talk) 19:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, thanks! -- MelanieN (talk) 19:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia user vandalizing law firm articles


I'm a little concerned about user Histnewbie continuing to vandalize and watch the articles of many law firms. For the record, I am a college student and have no formal relations to any law firm. The user in question has removed content for a few reasons, including: information being posted from the law firms IP address (not a rule violation, especially since it was properly sourced), citations coming from the law firms website (a lot of the information cited was coming from press releases that contained factual or otherwise informative stuff, and it's not as if the citations made up the entire article).

He has basically made entire articles barebones and is reverting all of their content on a whim -- on his talk page it says he was warned about this previously by you and I don't think it's fair that he's guarding every page vehemently and not allowing anyone to revert his blatant vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimogul666 (talkcontribs) 00:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Panjab University


Few years ago, you merged University Business School – Chandigarh with Panjab University. I saw your name on Talk:Panjab University. On the top of the page of Panjab University, there is a statement that the page may require cleanup and there are too many random lists and unsourced claims. How can I make it better? Is it possible for me to start a fresh or new page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bh Ch (talk • contribs) 05:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bh Ch. Wow, that was four years ago! I think the biggest issue is too many lists. It is very unusual for a university to list all of the majors courses of study under each division of the university! I think I will undertake that bit of cleanup, but please correct me if I do anything wrong. No, I don't think you should start a fresh or new page. This is a longstanding article and its history should be preserved. Clean it up by removing excess detail and adding sources. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RFC Request

Dear Fellow Wikipedian

I would like to invite you to my RFC request on  the page One America News Networks. I am reaching out to you to include your expert opinion and your solution to this problem in the RFC request. Please also invite more editors so that we can have a fair discussion that will improve the page.

Kind Regards

Saad Ahmed2983 (talk) 11:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it WP:CANVASS? I was once accused for doing something similar here. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 15:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hello there, I made a report here. Can you have a look and tell me what further actions I should be taking? Thanks. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 12:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Replied there. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beach and Bergeron

Do you know a solid wiki contributor good at differentiating pages and synthesizing biographies? Victor Bergeron doesn't have a personal page despite his biographies. What is there is a page named after his restaurant, but then it reads like it is supposed to be a personal page. Ideally there should be a separate article page about him and one on his chain. Donn Beach is in the same boat. His article is really more about him than the restaurant, but lists the restaurant as the name for the article. I realize he changed his name to Donn Beach, but he did not change it to Don the Beachcomber. It seems a nickname should not be the article's main title if it is supposed to be a person page. If separate articles on the person vs. the restaurant can't be done, it would seem that at least a person's legal name should be at the top. Regardless, there appears to be a lack of consistency. At a minimum it seems that the Don the Beachcomber page should be renamed to Donn Beach, with a redirect for Don the Beachomber wikilinks going to that page? I know the Don vs Donn is confusing; he changed his name to Donn, but only Don made it into the restaurant name. There was likely already other Hollywood "Don Beach"s.

@Nicholas Nastrusnic:, I'm not ignoring you; I just haven't had time to look into this yet. I definitely will take a look and see what I think should be done. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, was just a thought in case you knew someone. I did some basic improvements, and tried moving the page to Donn Beach with this reasoning: This article is ostensibly first about the man, and not the restaurant. There was more to Donn Beach than the restaurant. His legal name was Donn Beach. However, my attempt to move it failed, saying such a page already exists.

The Donn Beach page is a redirect. If we decide to do that move we can deal with the redirect page. But we should probably propose it at the talk page first. That's always a good idea when you are thinking of moving a page that has been at a particular title for a long time; we shouldn't assume the move is non-controversial. That is not a heavily edited page but a move discussion might bring out some page watchers. And if it doesn't but someone objects later we will have covered ourselves. I haven't even given it enough thought myself at this point. I'll look into the whole situation when I have a little more time. In the meanwhile you could go ahead and post something on the talk page. I don't think it would have to be a formal Move Request, just a talk page message with your suggestion and reasoning. I'll chime in within a few days. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm on it. The article has been about the person, not the restaurant, from the day it was written, and the person's name is Donn Beach, so you are right that should be its name (with a redirect from D the B). I will take care of that. Then I will make some improvements to the article based on new searches I have done. Once I took a look you got me hooked. 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nicholas Nastrusnic: I have done the move and added a couple of excellent references to the article, which I used to update and expand it. That's all I can do for now but there is a lot more good info in those references if you want to explore them - including about the drinks (he mostly used rum because it was cheap but extolled it as the finest type of liquor to be had) and the role of Sunny Sund. (I'm going to make a redirect from her name.) Also we need to check the article for name consistency; I think we should refer to him as "Gantt" until 1945 or so (apparently he did his military service under that name?) and after that should call him "Beach". One other thing: as a result of the move there are a lot of double-redirects out there now, see this. Would you want to tackle those? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. It will be a day or two before I can look into Bergeron/Vic. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, you have done more than enough and things I can't do. I was thinking about needing to add Sunny as well but had no good material on her (a shame). She deserves her own page. Beach had been totally obliterated on the International Market Place page, so I added some things there instead. I will look at your citations later to expand after I finish some other articles. Thank you again.

Here's a couple more articles with biographical material about Beach and Sund. [13] [14] (lots of good material there; the original bar had 25 seats!) [15] (according to this he DID legally change his name to Don Beach-comber - which is how he was named in a 1942 LA Times article - and Donn Beachcomber before settling on Donn Beach). There is a wealth of material out there! and at that I had to reject a couple of things as not reliable. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And one more [16] - I think we almost have enough to expand Sunny's redirect into a page. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I don't want to revert for the third time but look at this edit hitory. Two IPs are trying to give false information without proper ref or consensus. Since they are IPs, they won't be very responsive and I would like remove the false info ASAP. Please let me know what best could be done here. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 08:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)@ImmortalWizard: Looks like the IPs got bored and left. In future, I would request semi-protection of the article at WP:RFPP and cite WP:ARBIPA. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not really Indo-Pak, more like India-Bangladesh, but it will work anyways. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FAC review

Sorry you to bother you, but unlike others' advice, I decided to be bold and started commenting Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alf Ramsey/archive1. It would be appreciated if you, or any other expert have a look at them and give me feedback. Thanks! THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 14:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I just dropped in on the FAC myself. I'll admit part of it was trying to rebuild bridges with The Rambling Man, however as I did the original GA review and have supported the improvement of the article to FAC for some years, it should be clear it's something I would have done regardless. As for your comments, I think there are insightful and welcome - I asked you to focus on content, and that's exactly what you are doing, so that's good. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revert 2

I just wanted to reach out to because Beyond My Ken removed my tag here because apparently he doesn't think it is required. However, he didn't reach for consensus on the talk page where my provided reasons. I leave it up to you. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 22:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What I use as the ideal source requirement for an article is: at least one inline citation per paragraph (except the lead which does not require sources), and sources for any direct quotes. Looking at your list on the talk page, I agree with it; pretty much everything you have listed does indeed need references. You name some paragraphs, like the last paragraph of “playing career” and the first of “1995-98”, as needing an additional source. You are also correct in listing direct quotes; those do need to be sourced. And you are right about “Appointment and first years”, it has multiple paragraphs without any sources at all. If this was a Good Article it would need all of these things fixed. Note that people are often less demanding, or less compulsive about sources, for articles which are not identified as Good Articles. Don’t demand Good Article standards at pages which have not been nominated as such.
So having identified the problem, how best to deal with it? I don’t advise putting a “sources needed” tag on the entire article; it just annoys people. People will often object to or remove a general tag on the article if MOST of the article is well sourced, which this one is. If an individual section is really bad, like the Manchester United section which has whole paragraphs and even whole subsections unsourced, I would tag that with a section tag for references needed. Anyone who looks there to see “hey, why is that tagged?” would immediately see the problem. It can actually be best to put your list on the talk page WITHOUT tagging the general article, just saying "I notice there are some places that need additional references," and wait a few days to see if page watchers will respond.
A tip about your list of places to improve: You list a dozen or so sentences without saying where in the article they are, which is unhelpful; a person trying to add references doesn’t know where to look. Always say what section you are talking about so they can find the problem sentence easily and not have to search through the whole article for it. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry MelanieN I didn't read this prior. This is a wonderful explanation and exactly what I needed. Please check the message I left at Ferguson talk after reading this. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 23:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Hello MelanieN, I want to thank you for everything you've done for me. I am grateful there is an admin like you. Without you, it wouldn't have been possible for me to remain an editor unblocked. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 01:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note, Wizard. I am glad you have a new mentor and you are listening to him and doing what he says. You will be a productive and respected member of this community yet! -- MelanieN (talk) 05:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

hatting extended discussion. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Hi MelanieN, Thank you so much for the protection! I have some questions:

1. After protection period, if Lester1231 or if he uses another ID of his to come back to change and add those slanders words again, is that considering an editing war? If he comes back and changes it again, should I change it back to what it is now? 2. Due to the history that Lester1231 did many personal attacks to the main composer Roc Chen, I believe he is intentional to vandalism Roc's reputation and the wandering earth page. If we talk in the talk page, such slanders or rumors of "Roc's music is not original but copy" actually got more spread, which is exactly what he wants. Can you give me any suggestion on how to deal with this to protect the wandering earth film and the main composer? Thank you again.Wraper11 (talk) 04:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wraper11: Thanks for the barnstar. To answer your question: Do what you are supposed to do: Go to the article talk page and explain your position. Not by attacking Lester1231, not by trying to "protect the film and its composer", but by explaining WHY you want the material removed, based on Wikipedia's rules. Lester says the allegation is reported by sources. He cites sources to prove it. Why do you object to that material? Is there something wrong with the sources? Do they not say what he claims? Wikipedia uses what is reported by Reliable Sources, and that will determine what goes in the article. The result will be determined by discussion among you, not by me. If you and the others there can't agree on what the published material says, I can ask a Chinese speaking Wikipedian to come to that article talk page and help interpret. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, MelanieN. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.
@MelanieN, I sent you an email about two questions as in private would be better as those contents are not published yet. Can I ask you another question here about using Wiki: now the page is protected and we're talking in the talk-page. What about if after the protection period is over and Lester1231 come back and just went ahead and made those changes again despite the result from talk-page, will that behavior be considered a violation of Wiki's rules? Wraper11 (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see you have commented at the talk page. That is where this will be decided: by discussion among the involved people there. At this point there are three of you discussing; if that is all there are, and if two of them are in agreement, then that will be the decision. If Danny does not have an opinion, as he says, then it is still just you and Lester, I could try to find additional Chinese speakers to comment. But the bottom line is: try to find a compromise, try to find some kind of agreement on wording. For example he seems to have changed his proposed wording from "copied" to "trace of suspected mass imitation". Maybe you could propose something like "commentators have noted similarities to"? And maybe you can reach some agreement about the "additional composer" you seem to be arguing about.

At the talk page you claimed that Lester1231 is the operator of the "Soundtrack" magazine. How do you know that? If you don't have specific evidence - for example, that he has admitted it himself - then you must not make that kind of accusation. Just as I have told him to stop describing you as the "film crew". Anyhow, if you look at his talk page, he seems to have agreed not to use Soundtrack as a source, so that isn't important any more. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN Here's the specific evidence showing Lester1231 is the operator of the soundtrack magazine(I have drawn arrows for you hope it's easier to understand, start looking at top right): Wraper11 (talk) 12:47 pm, 6 March 2019, last Wednesday (2 days ago) (UTC−8)

@MelanieN you said "he seems to have agreed not to use Soundtrack as a source", I only saw he said "I will follow you to remove the "Soundtrack Magazine" title from the main page or just keep the media name in references" meaning he is still using it as a source and keep it in the reference. Correct me if I'm wrong. Also, how about the case that if Lester1231 is intentionally sabotaging the reputation of Roc(the main composer) and Wandering Earth by adding suh copying issues word, what can we do in such case or deal with such person? All the sources he used are all started him, you don't have to belive me but I noticed he started personal attack Roc ever since 2012. Wraper11 (talk) 21:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you really need to STOP ATTACKING LESTER and start focusing on what the article should say. For example, "Soundtrack is not what Wikipedia considers a reliable source, so we should not use it for anything." Wikipedia policy on talk pages is "discuss the content, not the other editors." -- MelanieN (talk) 02:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BTW Lester said, at the talk page, that you once said you were "official film crew". Is that correct? -- MelanieN (talk) 03:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN Ok, thanks for the advice, but I really really have one question: on the talk page I didn't post the evidence that Lester1231 is the operator for soundtrack magazine (Lester1231 is operating soundtrack magazine) because I don't want to attack him anymore, but look at what he just posted, attacking me. Now under such circumstances should I go ahead and post such evidence to the talk-page? I haven't done so because you said stop attacking, but I think he should remove his attacked part too. Wraper11 (talk) 7:24 pm, 6 March 2019, last Wednesday (2 days ago) (UTC−8

Well, you might start by answering my question: did you tell him you were "official film crew"? -- MelanieN (talk) 7:53 pm, 6 March 2019, last Wednesday (2 days ago) (UTC−8)

@MelanieN No, I have never told him such, and I'll appreciate you help me using Wiki better. How should I deal with such case that IF I know someone is intentionally doing the vandalism? Wraper11 (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, stop calling it vandalism. It's an editing dispute, a disagreement about what should be in the article. Discuss it at the talk page, see what the consensus turns out to be. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, so even if I know someone is intentionally sabotaging, but I should not call it vandalism publicly, and there's no other way to report him and the only way is to use the talk-page from one page to another page, am I correct? Wraper11 (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have listed evidence showing soundtrack magazine and it's operator personal attacking roc chen the main composer at the talk page. Do you think this is a way, according to the rules of Wiki, to prove soundtrack magazine can not be trusted as a reliable source at the talk page? Wraper11 (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't ask here - ask at the article talk page. Where people who can read Chinese can evaluate what the operator said. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I just want to check in with you if the way I wrote, is in a good manner according rules of wiki. Wraper11 (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MelaineN, is it right that I delete my own words from your talk page, or that's against the rule that you the talk-page owner can delete them? Wraper11 (talk) 05:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wraper11, I don't want anything to be deleted, but if you want I can "hat" (hide) this discussion. Is that what you want? -- MelanieN (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MelanieN Yes please hide them. Also, since the protection period is over, and it looks like pretty much everyone is not supporting the idea of add Lester1231's words into the page, just wondering, what will happen if Lester1231 or someone come back and just edit it similar what Lester1231 have done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wraper11 (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cathedral Catholic High School

Thanks for the second eye and comment. I have a very messy local school case that seems related but worse than this one. A school was replaced by a new building on a different site (same school name). 20 years later the city opens another high school in the original building. Both schools now claim the history of the original school.There's a similar case in Montreal, but the original school never actually closed. A new school was build and took over the name and history (trophy cases, etc) of the original school.. An unexpected enrollment crunch lead to the original school not closing, and continuing under a new name. Again, which school is the continuation of the original school? Meters (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meters, I see that you have been keeping an eye on the CCHS article for a long time: thank you! I have posted a discussion at that talk page with some options. I was going to ping recent editors of the articles, except that there really don't seem to be any current users following either article. If I can't get any participants maybe I'll ask for opinions at WikiProject Schools. Do you have any other thoughts where I might publicize the discussion? I suppose I could make it into a formal RFC, what do you think about that?
BTW I realized that part of the problem was that our treatment has been inconsistent: the USDHS article said it "was" a school and had "closed", while the CCHS article describes USDHS as predecessor and lists it as "another name" in the infobox. So I BOLDly changed the lead of USDHS to say that it moved to the new location, rather than being dead. That situation is actually pretty straightforward, although how to handle the alums is unclear.
Yikes, those other schools sound messy! Can they just both be allowed to claim the history? Or do they each insist that it's minemineallmine? -- MelanieN (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a member of the Schools project and I watch more than 2000 high school articles I'm.embarrassed to say that I had forgotten that this issue had cropped up before on this page. Rather than continue making changes (and possible mistakes) I decided to leave it as was while your thread settled. I don't know if there is a hard and fast rule that determines that a school that is replaced by a new school is a continuation of the original school even if the name changes vs a closing of the original school and an opening of a new school. Either way the articles have to be consistent. We either have one school which moved to a new location and changed its name, or one school which closed and was replaced by a different school. In the former case we should have one article and one set of alumni, and in the latter we should have two articles and two separate lists of alumni. I'm not a local so I don't know the history of this case, but I'll do some digging looking for refs. Sometimes in cases like this there is clear evidence the schools are separate entities (e.g., an overlap period where both schools were in operation while grades were gradually phased out at the old school and in at the new school) or that they are they same entity (e.g., the school board's stated intention to "move" the school).
I'll do some fact finding to add to the talkpage thread, and t'll check the school project archives to see if this has been dealt with before. If not it's worth getting the project involved both for the input and to formalize the decision for future cases. Meters (talk) 07:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am a local so I'll see what I can find in the way of contemporary sourcing. It is my recollection that the Diocese (rather than a school board) intended all along for the schools to be regarded as a continuous entity - first it was a high school for boys, then a girls school was merged into it to make it co-ed, then they needed a bigger campus so they moved it to North County - changing the name in the process. Some evidence: the entire faculty, adminstration, and student body moved together to the new campus; the "new" school maintained the same traditions (mascot etc) as the old school; I would bet money (not having seen it) that all the old athletic trophies and such from USDHS are on display at CCHS. Your logic suggests that the school articles and histories should be merged. That would certainly settle the alumni issue! Merging would be a big job but I might take it on if that is the decision. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me with vandalism on Cousin marriage law in the United States by state

User [[user:|] keeps vandalizing Cousin marriage law in the United States by state. I am undoing the edits. But I am not sure what to do if the user persists. Thank you in advance. HoldingAces (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, the user appears to have stopped. HoldingAces (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
HoldingAces, thanks for being on top of this and deleting them so quickly. The user stopped, even though nobody had warned them. In the future if you see this kind of activity, you might post warning notices on their talk page. If you use WP:Twinkle, you can use its phased warnings (level 1, 2, 3, 4). If you don't, just create a section heading "Month, year", such as "March, 2019", and use templates listed here. The reason to post the warnings: if they continue to be disruptive, the warnings make it easier for an admin to block the user. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Thank you for the links. I will study up on them and be prepared for the next time. HoldingAces (talk) 15:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BLP violation


I just saw this edit summary. Does this need revdelling? Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 00:42, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess so, because somebody already has. Thanks. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing about it in the deletion log, so it must have been suppressed, not just revdelled. Adam9007 (talk) 02:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Right, because I can't see it either. Whatever it was certainly must have needed to be outtahere. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Page

Sorry to bother you, could you check out the LONG thread on my talk page and let me know your thoughts / weigh in? I know you know this topic. Nicholas Nastrusnic (talk) 16:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just out the door for an overnight trip. I'll check it tomorrow. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Nicholas. I took a look at the article and the discussion. I'm sorry to say that the other user is correct: we can't keep that as an article because there aren't independent reliable sources about it. I know that is unpleasant to hear; nobody likes to see their hard work criticized or even deleted. The other person suggested putting it through proposed deletion; that's not terrible, because even if it gets deleted, it can easily be recreated later. The alternative is Articles for deletion, and if an article gets deleted by that process it is much harder to recreate. What is clearly really needed is an article about Jeff Berry. If you feel like you can't tackle a BLP article, maybe I could try; you have some good sources there about him. Here's what I'm going to do: I'm going to suggest that the article be taken out of the encyclopedia for now and moved to your private namespace. That will preserve the information and the references, for possible use in a Jeff Berry article. And if you later find more references you can add them and move it back to mainspace. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Wannabe Demagogue"

I'm not as familiar with you as others seem to be, but I found your argument for Trump being a "wannabe demagogue" absolutely superb. That whole [Talk:Demagogue] page is pretty fascinating. And I admit I went there knowing Trump would be a major topic.

Anyway, the way your argued for this particularity is worth further consideration. I think you should totally write up an essay on it and submit it to a news service that might be receptive. You see, the thing I like about the "wannabe demagogue" concept is that it is both a negative and a positive. The negative is obvious. But it's also a bit of a positive because the foundations of the US have this far successfully prevented full blast demagoguery.

That is a perspective that fits reality more than most others and I just think it is worth being communicated to the masses.

Cheers and thanks for your contributions :) lethalenoki (talk) 05:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, lethalenoki, nice to "meet" you. Thanks for the suggestion but I think I'll pass. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

Information icon Hello. It appears your talk page is becoming quite lengthy and is in need of archiving. According to Wikipedia's user talk page guidelines; "Large talk pages become difficult to read, strain the limits of older browsers, and load slowly over slow internet connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." - this talk page is 132.2 KB. See Help:Archiving a talk page for instructions on how to manually archive your talk page, or to arrange for automatic archiving using a bot. If you have any questions, place a ((help me)) notice on your talk page, or go to the help desk. Thank you. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]