User talk:MelanieN/Archive 59

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 55

←

Archive 57

→

I am utterly flabbergasted

By the Shenanigans at Collège-Lycée Léon l'Africain, especially this! Clearly something is very wrong here, and I don't know what to suggest... Obviously this should never have been allowed to happen, and it could easily happen again at any time. Could this be a pending changes candidate? Adam9007 (talk) 23:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

It looks OK now - with the nonsense removed. Better a one-sentence stub that makes sense, than something twice that long that doesn't. (Clumsy machine translation, you think?) You're right, it is scary that it was so bad for so long - and then in French for a long time! No, I don't see it as a candidate for protection. Maybe a candidate for watchlisting? -- MelanieN (talk) 00:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, it's on my watchlist (and presumably M.Bitton's too), but we're not on here all the time, so this (and other things) could easily slip through the net again. I'm far from fluent in French (it's very rusty because I haven't really used it in years), so I wouldn't know if it's a pants machine translation but it wouldn't surprise me if it was. Adam9007 (talk) 00:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@Adam9007: Yes, it's on my watchlist. I'm not sure what translation you're referring to, but the part that I removed is a mixture of nonsense and vandalism in romanized Morrocan Arabic. M.Bitton (talk) 22:55, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@M.Bitton and MelanieN: It's a shame it wisnae translatit intae Scots. Gin it wis, it micht hae been unnerstuiden. Awtho there's a Scots version o Wikipaedia, a gey wheen o fowk conseeder the leid tae be a deealect o Inglis. It wad housomeiver aye be conseedered tae be vandalism (a howp this isnae...). M.Bitton, a wis referrin tae the French translation. A didnae notice the Arabic acause a dinnae ken the leid (forby, a wisnae takkin tent tae the text). Gin it said 'Adamu9007 wa baka dazo' a wad hae unnerstuiden it. Adam9007 (talk) 00:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I dinna ken you were bilingual! 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 00:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Awtho a gey wheen o fowk conseeder Scots tae be a deealect o Inglis, Scots is afttimes conseedered tae be a separate leid. The feck o fowk that talk Inglis are mair bilingual than thay ween

. (daes this need tae be translatit acause o WP:SPEAKENGLISH?

) Adam9007 (talk) 12:29, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

No, I can more or less follow it. Scots is more like a separate language than a dialect, but it's close enough to English to more-or-less figure out. Kind of like, if you speak German you can pretty much follow what is said in Yiddish or even Dutch. Or like Spanish and Italian. That's when it's WRITTEN. Spoken is another matter. There are people from Scotland that I can't understand even when they are speaking English. 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Yep, all of that is in our article on the subject

(I was going to say that I'm sure I read somewhere that Urdu and Hindi are more-or-less mutually intelligible when spoken, and that it doesn't appear to be in there, but then I read the article again

). Also, even my limited knowledge of Japanese (specifically, Kanji) has given me the ability to, very occasionally, understand the odd word or two of Chinese, but only when written (not that I read a lot of Chinese). Interestingly, there was a proposal to delete the Scots Wikipedia on the grounds that it isn't a separate language. Adam9007 (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@Adam9007:You should have trusted your gut instinct. M.Bitton (talk) 23:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: I think this is the source I was referring to, and it does seem to corroborate yours :). By 'the article', I was actually referring to the Wikipedia article, which does have this information, just not where I expected it to be

(apparently, there's a thing called Hindustani). Adam9007 (talk) 00:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Adam9007: An interesting article (from a pro-Scottish independence activist), though I'm not convinced that "frustrated language" is the correct translation of "langue manquée". M.Bitton (talk) 23:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: I don't think it is either, but what do I know?

Adam9007 (talk) 01:05, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Il y a 40 ans, j'étais un Québécois anglais et je n'ai pas encore tout oublié. I've added the school article to my very long watch list of school articles. Meters (talk) 01:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Meters: Merci beaucoup! Adam9007 (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Il n'y a pas de quoi. Meters (talk) 18:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Spygate move

All I was trying to do was to obtain consensus regarding a possible move. Please let me know if there's anything I can do to help in that respect. R2 (bleep) 22:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to restart the discussion, using your proposal and others. I'm working on it now. Please participate there. Thanks. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Great, thanks. You're the perfect person to cut through the clutter on this. R2 (bleep) 22:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Let's hope. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I've never been a fan of multi-option surveys since they so rarely lead to consensus. But let's see what happens. I guess we could do a runoff if there's no clear favorite? It just seems like this will never end. R2 (bleep) 00:07, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Since the previous discussion was closed with a new one taking it's place do you plan on pinging everyone that voted in the original? PackMecEng (talk) 03:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Maybe tomorrow. It's bedtime here. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with PackMecEng. In addition, MelanieN, would you be willing to request that all participants include at least their first three choices? I ask because there are editors who have a clear preference for options 6 and/or 7 (the ones that don't include "conspiracy theory,") but it would be helpful to also get those editors' preferences on options 1 through 5. (E.g. their position might be, "I object to including 'conspiracy theory' in the title, but if we must, I prefer that we do it in such-and-such way.") R2 (bleep) 18:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but I'd rather just let people express their opinions. A few are suggesting one option, some are suggesting several, some are expressing opposition to some of the alternatives - I'd rather let them do it and see what we get. It might become necessary to hold a kind of "runoff" between a couple of options, but let's see. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Melanie, would you mind closing Talk:Spygate (conspiracy theory)#Change Title to “Spygate (2016 US Election)”? R2 (bleep) 16:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email
Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak
Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Pattern emerging

Hi,

Lately, a pattern of disruptive editing seems to have been emerging across multiple articles, namely Discrimination against asexual people (protected twice recently), LGBT symbols (which I see you've protected several times in the past), and List of LGBT-related slurs (also protected twice recently). The disruption is that editors keep removing content on asexuality for a(ce)phobic (or at least what can be perceived as a(ce)phobic as they offer no real justification for their statement(s)) reasons. It was particularly bad at one point, and when I looked at the history of LGBT symbols, I saw that it has been going on for longer than I had thought (it's actually more widespread than I thought it was until today when I saw LGBT symbols). I think this whole thing is at best part of a wider content dispute as to whether or not asexuality material should be included in LGBT articles. I'm also wondering if these articles ought to be pending changes protected? I'm not aware of any discussion in which a consensus has been formed and I'm reluctant to go to AN or anywhere like that just yet. I'm not sure what should be done here (pending changes is the only thing I can think of right now), but this obviously can't be allowed to go on indefinitely. Adam9007 (talk) 02:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I’m not sure it is a pattern but I do see repeated disruptive editing at all three of these articles. It doesn’t look like sockpuppetry; the IPs, even on similar edits, geolocate very differently. I think it’s just that articles about all kinds of sexual classification seem to be targets - and that’s not recent. Based on the histories, all three of these seem like good candidates for long-term PC protection, and I will impose it. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Lol, I was in the middle of adding to one of those articles when I saw it had been PC protected :). But anyway, all three articles have been targets for a(ce)phobic (or again, what can be perceived as such) disruptive editing lately, and there have been waves of it prior to this one. It could even be a co-ordinated attack of some sort, what with the "aces aren't lgbt" and similar comments... (for the record, the majority opinion out there seems to be that aces are, though I'm not sure what the consensus here on Wikipedia is...) Adam9007 (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Of course, PC requires that people have the page on their watchlist. And if the editing starts coming too thick and fast PC doesn't work. But it should help by keeping the bad edits out of the 'pedia until someone reverts them. While still allowing productive editing by IPs/new users. Hey, I can dream, can't I? 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi MelanieN

I recently made this edit in Wisconsin#Agriculture:

In 2012, Republican governor Scott Walker instituted a program to encourage dairy farmers to dramatically increase production, which resulted in a supply glut and years of depressed prices. This had a crippling effect on the industry, leaving it vulnerable when in 2018 Canada, China and Mexico imposed tariffs on American farm exports in retaliation for tariffs imposed on them by President Donald Trump. The New York Times reported that by April 2019 Wisconsin dairy farmers were facing “extinction.”

sourced from Stung by Trump’s Trade Wars, Wisconsin’s Milk Farmers Face Extinction

This three-sentence edit about Wisconsin's most prominent industry, posted deep in the article, was challenged as UNDUE by an editor. Another editor then challenged it, falsely allegedly my edit was in the lede, and after I explained that it was not, that editor repeated the false assertion, among others. As shown in this Talk thread, the two editors have not been persuasive in their objections and I strongly believe that I have debunked their objections, and I now have reasonable belief that their true motive is WP:WEDONTLIKEIT and the edit is being filibustered.

What is proper approach to resolving such a deadlock? soibangla (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019

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

Administrator changes

HickoryOughtShirt?4 • RexxS

Necrothesp

Bratsche • Kyle Barbour • Kzollman • Madman

Interface administrator changes

Pharos

Bureaucrat changes

Primefac

CheckUser changes

Reaper Eternal

Guideline and policy news

A request for comment concluded that creating pages in the portal namespace should be restricted to autoconfirmed users.
Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.

Technical news

XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.

Arbitration

In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

Miscellaneous

A request for comment is currently open to amend the community sanctions procedure to exclude non XfD or CSD deletions.
A proposal to remove pre-2009 indefinite IP blocks is currently open for discussion.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Pretty Sick Melanie: Tea Pot Dome Scandal

The entire section "Comparisons" has a political agenda. All the "news" sources referenced are notoriously left leaning AND some of the sources actually used literally have the word "OPINION" in their Url but are presented as "News".

Why you insist on rolling back my changes, especially when I presented supporting evidence of the bias of the sources as being my "Opinion", quite frankly leaves me with a strong sense of hypocrisy and underlying political agenda on your part. Really sad what Wikipedia as become....it showed so much promise years ago.....now its just another political tool and you are facilitating that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhawkinstx (talk • contribs)

Hello, Jhawkinstx. I guess you are referring to my edit of April 2,[1] where I removed your addition of opinion to the article. I also tried, at your talk page, to explain to you that you can’t just insert your own opinion into Wikipedia articles and suggested that you read WP:NOR. You didn’t get the message and continued to add OR/POV material to the article. Those additions have been reverted six times by five other editors, and at one point you were in danger of a block for edit warring. You have been on a single-subject crusade here for more than a month, trying to change or eliminate a single, neutrally worded sentence supported by seven references. If you have a serious argument to make about that sentence, make it at the article's talk page, Talk:Teapot Dome scandal. But don't keep trying to insert your opinion into the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Presidency

I object to this, because it misrepresents the context of my comment. You should not have inserted a section header nor inserted your comment out of order.- Mr X 🖋 16:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Agree that's improper because it breaks context. If you agree that a new heading is useful at that point, best solution is to restore the lost context by quoting "Are we good enough now?" at the beginning of your reply, using {{tq}}. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

MrX, you reverted my subsection header so it's moot. The two discussions are now pretty much intertwined. It turns out we did reach consensus on the changes to the Mueller report sentence and it is now in the article, so I guess it doesn't matter any more. However, I would think you would prefer to discuss the addition of the new material under a more informative heading. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't see that a consensus has been reached at all, except among very few editors. If I have not made myself clear, I object to the one sided presentation in the lead. - Mr X 🖋 20:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, MrX, but I'm really having trouble understanding your position. The material in the article's lead - those few sentences whose wording has been under discussion at the talk page - is about the Mueller and Barr reports. You haven't made any substantive contributions to that discussion, but you apparently consider the material to be "one sided". I gather what you want is to add a bunch of other stuff, to the lead no less, about Trump's stonewalling of Congress's requests. How is that going to affect the current content or make it less "one sided"? Are you asking people not to improve the content about the reports until all the stonewalling stuff has been thrashed out - which could take a week or more? I'm not trying to be obstinate, I just really don't understand where you are coming from. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC) I'm going to move this comment to the article talk page, where it better belongs. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

It is instructive to note that consensus is not a popular vote, much like the electoral college. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 01:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Los Angeles

Hi there. I see you just protected Los Angeles. Could you please have a look at this editor just before you on that article? Most of their edits make huge deletions, and the source for this particular edit is a link to a Google page. Warnings on their talk page have been removed. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 19:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

They have been doing the same kind of things on dozens of pages. I gave them a final warning, and I will keep an eye on what they do. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Rashida Tlaib

Have you thought of ECP here? Doug Weller talk 18:02, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Doug! No, I really hadn't. All of the recent vandalism was by IPs - nothing suggesting a need for ECP. All past protections (and she has needed repeated protection) were semi. What I am going to think about, if the attacks continue, is indefinite semi - or at least long-term semi. The article is on my watch list so I am keeping a close eye on it. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I have a kind of rule of thumb for watching the news: Did someone get attacked on Twitter today? Check if their article needs protection. Did a judge make a controversial decision? Check if their article needs protection. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:41, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I only look at the article when my Watchlist notes possible vandalism. I like your rule of thumb. Doug Weller talk 18:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

More at Talk:Jean-Pierre Petit, unfortunately

An anon IP, who has a bizarre personal vendetta against me for implementing a consensus of an AFD is openly lying about my actions. Much as I try to avoid the drama-boards, I figure this is a time for ANI. XOR'easter (talk) 20:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, XOReaster. I have asked another admin to take a look at the situation. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC) P.S. Oh, I see you went ahead with ANI. I'll watch that. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I probably won't have time to participate much this week (and I've probably already wasted more of my ~~finite lifespan~~ hobby time on this than I should have). XOR'easter (talk) 15:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

User:XOR'easter, if we can deal with the IP situation (something I am working on), I would encourage you to stay involved at that article. You and Deacon Vorbis seem like the voices of reason and Wikipedia policy there. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate the encouragement. With luck, my schedule will free up in the next-week-ish interval. XOR'easter (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Burris Laboratory School

Thanks for the semi there. As it was the same size, I'm assuming it's the same content I had oversighted yesterday. School isn't out in Indiana until mid June. Please either extend semi until then or keep a close watch after expiration. That was just reprehensible editing. I'm asking as I will be indisposed around that time and it isn't a closely followed article. There also exists a culture of "screwing with Wikipedia" in Indy and the Hoosier college towns. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 01:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

You mean the stuff I revdel'ed? I don't know if it's the same content since I can't read oversighted material, but it was pretty bad. If you want to ask the same oversighter to evaluate it be my guest. But I wouldn't consider most of the vandalism there to have been college-level screwing-with; most of it was way too juvenile, "we hate the principal" stuff. Of course there's always a lot of that toward the end of the school year. Thanks for your constant attention to that and many other school articles. I'll watchlist this one. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Wasn't saying it was college students...it's high school kiddies in college towns. No explanation...just a pattern I've noticed. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 03:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

A kitten to thank you for your contributions and mostly as a compliment to your inspiring user page!

NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 17:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Nikke, nice to meet you! Thanks for the kitten and the kind words. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

LGBT symbols article

Hello. The "require autoconfirmed permission" user access you added to LGBT symbols on 15:36, 4 May 2019‎ is not stopping IP-only editors from making vandalism edits or adding/re-adding problematic content: 13:33, 14 May 2019, 13:37, 14 May 2019, 15:14, 14 May 2019, 18:53, 17 May 2019, 19:24, 17 May 2019. As with other articles in Wikipedia that have needed it, I think this one also needs to be page protected to only edits by registered editors. Pyxis Solitary yak 04:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@Pyxis Solitary: My understanding (I could be wrong of course) of Pending Changes protection is that unreviewed edits don't become visible until they're reviewed. It still enables constructive edits by IPs, whereas higher levels of protection don't. Adam9007 (talk) 13:51, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

That is my understanding, too. And I reviewed one edit so far. But these ones are not constructive and they're getting through (which might indicate that a Dr Jekyll registered editor is a Mr Hyde troll). Pyxis Solitary yak 15:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Pyxis and Adam! According to WP:Pending changes, pending edits are supposed to be invisible to "the majority of Wikipedia readers" until they are accepted Then it says that logged-in editors can see them. I had thought only PC reviewers could see them, but I just checked with my alt account (which is not a PC reviewer) and I could see pending edits. So apparently they are only invisible to anonymous (and presumably non-autoconfirmed?) editors. You two are able to see them even while they are pending, but casual readers are not. IMO the WP:Pending changes page is very confusing and I may try to get it clarified. In the meantime, I am almost to the point of thinking PC isn't enough for that article and it may need semi-protection. I'll continue to keep an eye on it. If it gets to the point where unconstructive edits are coming really fast, like three or more a day, let me know. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

So kind of like what happened at Asexuality? It was PC protected but now semi protected indefinitely. In fact, if it wasn't for that, I'd have said to keep an eye on that too, for with this, I foresee 'Asexuals are not LGBT' disruption and edit wars. In fact, I foresee more of that at Discrimination against asexual people now because of that. There's already been that kind of disruptive editing at List of LGBT-related slurs. Adam9007 (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Anything L/G/B/T/Q/I/A/P+ related is going to be a hot button and a magnet for ding dongs. (Jeez ... just looking at the alphabet soup I typed reinforces my preference for my personal universe: good ol' homo.) Pyxis Solitary yak 07:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The Lara Logan article has an outdated 1RR rule

For some reason, the article has an Arab–Israeli conflict DS tag which imposes 1RR on editors. Can you or any other admin fix this? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

This was added in 2011 by User:Wizardman, apparently because some of her reporting had become controversial, or because of a 2011 incident where she and her crew were arrested by the Egyptian army while covering the Egyptian revolution; she was assaulted and raped because she was believed (falsely) to be Israeli. Anyhow, Wizardman is only sporadically active these days and I don’t see any real connection now to the Israel-Palestininan conflict since then, so I am going to remove it. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Outing : perhaps due for RfC

Greetings. The question you raised here (about "outing" editors' real, personal details in Wikipedia if they have already revealed them) is evidently quite important. I'd suggest you turn the discussion into a standard Request for Comments so that the result could be of a more binding nature. All you have to do is amend the heading and add an explanatory edit summary. Take care. The Gnome (talk) 10:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Gnome, and thanks for the suggestion! There actually already is an RFC on this. It's at Wikipedia talk:Harassment#RfC: Clarification of OUTING. GMG posted a link to it a week ago, but maybe I should call attention to it again. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer, MelanieN. I'll try and post there as well. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Burnham, Buckinghamshire

Well, it happened again. I wouldn't be surprised if this ends up needing PC protection or a lengthy semi protection too. Adam9007 (talk) 18:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an eye on this. I'll wait a bit and see. It's hard to justify protection over disruption that happens once every three months. But let me know if it happens again. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Eskimo Pi

I just saw your witty sections and now I'm all depressed. Slight Smile 11:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Slightsmile, thanks for the note. What, not even a slight smile? Don’t let a few puns get you down. They’re not intended as punishment. Just be a pundit. Use them as a punch line. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Atleast I know that my cold will be gone in 7 days as opposed to a full week. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Haywood Gilliam

Hi, about your note? Why are you removing the judge's campaign donations from his article? I thought it was standard practice to do this for judges and I took the cue from the Edgardo Ramos page, another judge who donated to Obama and then got appointed by Obama. YouNotSneaky! (talk) 03:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I have posted a note about this at Talk:Haywood Gilliam; let's discuss it there. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

FYI, this was Hidden Tempo. I rolled back the contribs that were the latest, but probably worth someone familiar with our AP2 articles looking through the rest. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:36, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Tony, thanks for the info. I'll check it out. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

		The Reviewer's Barnstar
		This is for your valuable efforts for reviewing articles under pending changes protection. Thank you PATH SLOPU 02:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

�

Thank you, Path, how nice! -- MelanieN (talk) 04:29, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Please review the personal attacks against me on the talk page for Theodore McCarrick

I am requesting that you as an administrator review the personal attacks that have been made against me by Thucyd and Display name 99 on Talk:Theodore_Edgar_McCarrick#Protected_Edit_Request_2. --PluniaZ (talk) 20:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, PluniaZ. Yes, I saw those. They are not personal attacks, and they do make a valid point: when you make a protected edit request trying to get an administrator to add your preferred version to the article, that is indeed an attempt to game the system. I see that you started an RfC with your reasons for wanting particular edits added or removed. That is a good approach; maybe that will generate some more helpful discussion there. In the meantime, be careful not to resume edit warring at the article when the protection expires. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I did not request that you add my preferred version of the article. I requested that you remove a specific sentence with malicious and false claims about a living person, Donald Wuerl. I will report that sentence to the Biography of Living Persons Noticeboard. --PluniaZ (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC)