User talk:MelanieN/Archive 28

This is an archive of past discussions with User:MelanieN. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Barnstar

		The Donald Trump Barnstar
		For all your work on articles related to Donald Trump and his 2016 campaign. MB298 (talk) 04:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, not sure if this barnstar is an honor or not. But thank you. --MelanieN (talk) 10:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Just saw this and couldn't help it. Samsara 11:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The election is everywhere, it pervades everything. A bird-watching friend recently commented at Facebook that he had seen an Orange-crowned warbler, and somebody immediately asked if he was talking about Trump. --MelanieN (talk) 14:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

That's a very nice anecdote I can't hope to compete with. :-) One sometimes wonders if the political implications shouldn't be discussed more than they generally seem to be - major topics of the elections seem to have included the authenticity of hair and complexion, the size of hands, and the relative frequency of coughing or sniffling. That alone makes me think something unhealthy (no pun intended) is going on here. Samsara 14:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Not to mention the enormous amount of energy devoted to which photo should be used in the infobox. I'm afraid that kind of shallowness is the nature of political coverage nowadays. After the debate, it's not about what they said, it's just "who won?" News coverage is all he-said-she-said, even when one person's comment is factually true and the other false. And in spite of (or maybe because of) the enormous attention paid to the presidential election this whole year, only 60% of eligible voters will actually show up to vote. --MelanieN (talk) 14:58, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

12% less than the Brexit referendum, whose outcome has been blamed on locally low turnout... We doubtless have an interesting month and week ahead. Samsara 22:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Harry North

Hi Melanie. You declined the BLPPROD on Harry North (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) saying Declining BLP PROD; article has references. Other avenues of deletion remain available. WP:BLPPROD requires a reliable source after the notice is placed. None of the sources cited are reliable. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

You're right. Sorry, I forgot to check when the references were added. --MelanieN (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. — JJMC89 (T·C) 14:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

AfD misclick

Thanks for that, indeed it was an accident, my apologies. It's finally prompted me to find out how to turn off tapping on my new(ish) notebook's touchpad. Qwfp (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

No problem; happens all the time. Big fingers, little buttons. It's why I had WP:Rollback disabled. --MelanieN (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Some copyedits

Here. :) Jim Carter 18:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Done --MelanieN (talk) 00:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC for page patroller qualifications

Following up from the consensus reached here, the community will now establish the user right criteria. You may wish to participate in this discussion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey

Hey thanks for actually explaining things to me. I appreciate it. Also would you mind supporting the photo? It seems good to me :) User1937 (talk) 14:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Recent deletion

Per your recent deletion of the "pussy grabs back" meme on the trump page Trump, (old version permalink): doesn't the current events exclusion allow for primary sources until trusted secondary sources arise? I was reffing primary sources. Wikipedia:Use_of_primary_sources_in_Wikipedia#Current_events Still getting the hang of editing but I really thought I was in the clear! --Fightclubber (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Fightclubber, and thanks for your note. I hope you don't mind, I have moved your comment here to the bottom of the page. I know you made that edit in good faith, but IMO it cannot be included in the article until it has at least some mainstream/reliable source recognition. The sources were Facebook, YouTube, and a product catalog. Those are not simply primary sources; they are things created by the same people who created the meme. There is no way to know if the thing has any actual notability, or if it is just them and their friends. In a brief search just now I still found only social media, except for a mention at Democratic Underground, which doesn't help. As I said, if mainstream sources start to take note we could add something then. But for now it is a little too obscure for Wikipedia, which after all is an international encyclopedia. Don't be discouraged; it may get better known, and if it doesn't, there is lots of other editing that needs to be done here. --MelanieN (talk) 00:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, Fightclubber, that didn't take long. The Guardian mentioned it and it is now in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 05:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Please strikethru your edit warring warning on my talk page.

I did not violate the 3RR rule as I only reverted twice. So please don't accuse me of editwarring. Someone Not Awful (talk) 19:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The # of women

Up front, I have no problem with specifying how many women. I just wanted to point out to you that I intentionally did not give a numerical indicator (some, many, a few, several, etc) to stay away from a constant battle over which one should be used. At the time I made the entry I favored just saying "women" because I thought the specific number (now 7) would be changing daily. Anyway, enjoy the unexpected nice weather. Buster Seven Talk 19:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

About "which number to use", I hear you. "Women stepped forward" was awkward but justifiable. Since it specifies the time period - "during the week after the report" - I thought it would now be safe to give a definite seven since that week is now history. (Some outlets claim ten, but they seem to be counting three old reports.) If others come forward we can update, but I suspect not many more women will volunteer for the kind of treatment those seven women have been getting. :-(

Unexpected? What's unexpected? This is San Diego, we ALWAYS expect nice weather! 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I live in Chicago. It was 80 degrees today and the same for tomorrow. Normally, it would be in the mid-50's...with the "Hawk" right around the corner. Buster Seven Talk 21:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Now that IS unexpected. 80 degrees is warmer than it is here. Enjoy it while it lasts, I'm afraid. --MelanieN (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Ted Chapelhow

Could I please ask that the article for Ted Chapelhow that was deleted be sent to my sandbox, so that I might merge my current efforts with the previous article that was deleted.Fleets (talk) 11:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Fleets: Done. You will find it at User:Fleets/Ted Chapelhow. --MelanieN (talk) 14:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Much obliged.Fleets (talk) 15:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Seeking page protection for Mira Gonzalez

MelanieN wondering if you might consider page-protecting Mira Gonzalez, a biographical article about a poet that is getting repeatedly vandalized, in violation of WP:BLP such as here and here and here and here by different mostly-IP addresses, including cases where an IP prodded the article which led to an AfD (2nd AfD decision was keep -- but the second AfD review was unnecessary and time-wasting in my view), since the article had gone through AfD (and kept) not long ago. It is much fuss for responsible contributors to keep reverting the vandalism, so I'm hoping there's a remedy here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the request, Tomwsulcer. Vandalism isn't recent enough or frequent enough to justify semi-protection. However, since there have been some problem edits that violate WP:BLP, I put it under PC protection for two months. Hope this helps. --MelanieN (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks MelanieN.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Request

Can you semi-protect Take It Off (Kesha song) and Your Love Is My Drug to persistent disrutive editing? 183.171.183.238 (talk) 00:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for your note. No, I'm afraid I can't. It appears that problem edits have not been frequent enough, or recent enough, to qualify for semi-protection, per WP:Protection policy. Sorry. --MelanieN (talk) 03:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Recent closer based on mere votes

"The result was keep. A divided discussion. However, the "keep" comments have not only a numerical advantage, but also better, more policy-based reasoning."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cymbal_(app)

Just my opinion: I wish you read the commentary and discussions made by contributors there. Every Keep vote has been discussed and given ample reasoning for being non-notable coverage. Still you preferred to close like earlier 2 close with "questionable close". Same method are used " Vote counting". Where are the efforts put by contributors. Keep vote came as Passes GNC and Move on? where are the substance and discussions require for notability. If this is how we close articles. Then Wikipedia is nothing more than a directory or PR host for such companies. Each and Every Keep vote is countered with reasoning and substance. Light2021 (talk) 08:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

"...the "keep" comments have not only a numerical advantage, but also better, more policy-based reasoning."" --MelanieN (talk) 14:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Ya, I read that too.. but have you really read discussions made by Delete Vote contributors. Each and every Keep discusisons has been contradicted for its notability, still only the numbers mattered at the end. That is my question. If we can make this Trend any better or improve. I would love to do that. There are two kinds of dangerous Close Happen these days. :

1. No-Consensus Close: It simply means article has become so long by unnecessary details, that it becomes tiring and borting to even the read the facts from garbage. and no one has time to put efforts, so results come out as " Keep" with no consensus. Keep votes wins. All contributors efforts gone. 2. Vote counts: Where most of the people comes and cite GNC and neglect all the discussions and arguments made by Delete. There are no efforts made to counter the delete discussions. Just cite Passes GNC and move on. end of the day Lazy wins the vote game. Article is kept because majority "voted" keep. Where as per Wikipedia only, keep votes are not the criteria for keep or delete anything. Discussions are paramount and must be substantial. Else every one's time is wasted. Who make Afd, who participate and even who close it. highest degree is misuse of Wikipedia policies used merely for citing. Hope we can improve this dangerous trends and make Wikipedia Better together. Thanks. Light2021 (talk) 14:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd have voted Keep for Cymbal (app) also, agreeing the MelanieM's decision. I think the Keep decision was well-reasoned and sound.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

My only intend to make the process better together. not a particular Keep or Delete page as I wrote above. 2 Major ways of misusing Wikipedia. Any suggestions on that? thanks. Light2021 (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, Light2021, Deletion review is always an option when you think a discussion was closed incorrectly. Personally I don't think anyone would have closed that discussion as "delete", but "relist" would have been an option. As for your campaign to "fix the process", to fix what you feel is wrong with AfD closures, I don't think this article would serve as a particularly good example. --MelanieN (talk) 15:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

ANI - advice re: executive summary

To your point about not adding a lot more to the ANI incident regarding Soham321 and Bastun,

I am very happy to do the executive summary and believe that I understand what you're looking for. It will take me awhile, but it may very well be a worthwhile effort
On the other hand, I don't want to do unnecessary work. I had an edit conflict and comments from Mandruss and James J. Lambden were posted at about the time I posted mine. See this.

What would you advise?--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Never mind, I am withdrawing from the article. It's just not worth it - I became quite upset when I started pulling the information together, realizing what a struggle it's been. It's taken a toll and it's just not worth it. Thanks for your help, I totally get your points about writing an effective ANI and should I ever be in such a situation again, I will know better what to do, based on your comments.--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Carole. I totally understand your feelings. ANI is a frustrating place, and getting involved in a case there can be quite consuming - not just in time but in psychic energy. I rarely participate there myself, for that reason. I honestly have no idea what will be the outcome of that discussion. Based on what appears to be the reluctance of neutral parties to get involved, it might just die out with no closure. But hopefully one or more neutral parties will step in, after the shouting dies down a little, and make a decision. Personally I won't have much more to say there. (Not that I have had much to say up to now!) --MelanieN (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

No action, as I predicted (and close in Swahili, just for comical effect). Apparently, admins are not able to read prose reasoning. Nobody had to read and absorb the whole thing to know three things: (1) they were acting out-of-process, (2) their actions continued for days on the talk page, and (3) they were in a persistent minority of two as clearly evident in Bastun's challenge subsection. That should have been enough. The AGF failure and competence issues were very problematic, but not essential to action, and I think a competent admin like Dennis Brown should have been able to sort that out without our help.
I have given some thought to the problem, and my only solution is to establish a group of editors who are good at putting together the kind of evidence that ANI appears to require for any action. Call them WikiLawyers if you like, since they would provide a similar service as real-life attorneys, but I don't think they would need to actually argue the case beyond presenting the evidence. The question is incentive/compensation, but many volunteers already do tough and thankless jobs just for the sake of the project (e.g. admins). ―Mandruss ☎ 21:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

That was what I also predicted, days ago. And it wasn't because I didn't bother to read your charges. In my case I read every word of the ANI, although I did not research it elsewhere as you seemed to expect. I can assure you that Dennis Brown, one of our most respected and thoughtful admins, did the same. Bottom line, three very experienced admins looked at what you were charging him with and concluded there was nothing in your charges that warranted admin action (or even a closer look at the evidence). Probably a lot more also looked at the thread, reading at least your introduction to see if it sounded like a situation needing action, and decided there was no need for them to comment. It wasn't a matter of needing more evidence or better presentation; even assuming your charges were all true, they simply did not amount to sanctionable offenses. If there had been serious offenses alleged, multiple admins would have looked into it and taken action. But as it was, you couldn't even get a "second" for your proposal for a ban or block. You just now spelled out again, here, the actions you felt were the problem, and they are still not sanctionable. This situation that seemed so terrible to you, just didn't seem that out of the ordinary to most of Wikipedia. I know that is frustrating and I'm sorry about that. --MelanieN (talk) 22:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, and thanks for the clarification. So out-of-process minority disruption of article talk is not sanctionable at en-wiki. That will be my take-away from this experience. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:DE's nutshell: "Disruptive editors may be blocked or banned indefinitely." And all I asked for was a (quite preventative) temp ban or block. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

And you would have gotten it, if they had actually been disruptive. Which they were not, in the experience of most of us. --MelanieN (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Again fair enough. Two fairly experienced editors were increasingly frustrated with the baseless argument and AGF-failing WP:BATTLEGROUND for days, until one of them was frustrated enough to try an ANI complaint with the full knowledge that any action is very difficult to get at ANI. Both reason and warning failed, and hours of valuable editor time were lost with no end in sight. That clears my disruption threshold. Which is one reason I would fail RfA if I even wanted one. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

If that is not enough, Brown said nothing to indicate he considered the merits of the complaint. What he said was: "This is too much of a mess to try to solve. Everyone please go back to writing articles." The accused managed to lay so much smoke that the result was beyond anyone's ability to process it, and it was ignored that they repeatedly misapplied policy right there in the complaint. I find that completely unacceptable, and I probably always will. But consider the stick dropped now, as I know deaf ears when I see them. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Apology

I sent the following to Bbb23 this morning:

I woke up and logged on this a.m. to find a note from GAB that I'd posted to a closed SPI discussion. Somehow, the closed discussion had popped up on my watchlist as if it were current. I wrote this to GAB and will include MelanieN and the other editor whom I'd pinged on my edit.

Thanks. I somehow didn't realize that the discussion was closed. I apologize. Activist (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC) Activist (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, but your ping auto-erased after I read it and I couldn't copy or review it. I appreciate your comments, but I can't imagine that CF has "retired" or whatever, but may be exercising more caution in the last month and the ten forthcoming days to avoid detection, once more. I'm attempting levity here, so please don't take this as criticism, but I think that my circumstantial evidence that CF has been editing exclusively on very specific Wikipedia articles as a professional occupation is better than yours that CF is a "he." Did CF admit to peeing while standing up, or something like that which I've missed? Have you looked at CF's edit summaries? I did, a couple of years ago when the weekend work was absent, and drew my conclusions from them. When I looked at them again yesterday, there was absolutely nothing there to change my opinions, but instead they reinforced them even more. My impression is that CF's presence on Wikipedia is 100% "on the clock," and that whomever is paying CF is getting their money's worth. You are aware, I presume, that certain actors have long been hiring organizations and/or personnel to do exactly that. This seems like a particularly blatant case which I concluded without my ever being previously aware, as of yesterday, of the sockpuppetry. Activist (talk) 16:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I should have known better to reply in an archive. As for CFredkin, I say "he" because of the name Fred (and because he seems very much like a "he"). Normally I would say "they" in a case where they do not identify a gender, as CF did not. And as for your speculation that he is a paid editor, it is just that: speculation. Without actual evidence this accusation could be taken as a personal attack, and I would prefer you not share it with me to any greater extent than you already have. The sockpuppetry is a matter of record; so is the disruptive POV editing. The motives for both are undetermined. --MelanieN (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, "he" seems very much like a "he" to me as well. As for the name, an uncommon family name, I doubt it has anything to do with CF's actual identity, just as "his" presumed prior main identity likely did not as well, but Edward Fredkin possesses one of the most prodigious intellects in the U.S. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Fredkin I'm hugely strapped for time, and expect to be through the end of the year, but perhaps I can find some to do a little detective work to expose the "man" behind the curtain. Have you an IPN for "him," which might help to establish that? I think the task, if successful, would be productive to Wikipedia. Oh, lastly, because of your familiarity with the DeMaio situation, I presumed you might be from San Diego county. Did you go to the Wikipedia conference? Activist (talk) 04:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I strongly advise you against conducting "detective work" and "trying to expose" this editor. WP:OUTING is a blockable offense. "Threats to out an editor will be treated as a personal attack and dealt with accordingly." Asking for an IPN is way out of bounds, and even if I knew it (which I don't; I am just an admin, not a checkuser) I would not reveal it to anyone else. If you insist on doing this research, do it off-wiki, and do not post any of your results publicly. Instead, IF AND ONLY IF you find unimpeachable evidence of COI paid editing, email it to the WMF. "Nothing in this policy prohibits the emailing of personal information about editors to individual administrators, functionaries, or arbitrators, or to the Wikimedia Foundation, when doing so is necessary to report violations of confidentiality-sensitive policies (such as conflict-of-interest or paid editing, harassment, or violations of the child-protection policy). Only the minimum information necessary should be conveyed and the minimum number of people contacted. Editors are warned, however, that the community has rejected the idea that editors should "investigate" each other. Posting such information on Wikipedia violates this policy." As for me, I do not want to hear any more on this subject, and I will delete any further posts about it. --MelanieN (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)