User talk:MelanieN/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

→

Archive 35

DJ Klypson

Hi, you deleted the "DJ Klypso" page I created, but it seemed pretty well cited and he's pretty notable in the music industry. Can you give some insight as to what else would be needed to get his page back live again and up? He's working on numerous projects for television and film as well. I'm not sure if I need to start over but I can if you suggest. Thanks!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazer921 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Lazer921, and thanks for your note. I deleted it because of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Klypso. The discussion there explains what people thought was lacking for him to have an article. But here's what I will do: I will restore the article to your private userspace (in Wikipedia lingo, I will WP:USERFY it). There it will be safe from deletion while you work on it and improve it. When you think you have it sufficiently improved that it will now meet the requirements at WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG, let me know. If I think it is sufficiently different/improved from the original version, I will put a note on the article's talk page saying so; otherwise it would probably be tagged for speedy deletion per WP:G4 as soon as you move it into article space. Be aware that even though it would not get speedy-deleted with my note attached, it could still be deleted via another AfD discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I have restored the article. You can find it at User:Lazer921/DJ Klypso. One problem I noticed immediately is the reference sources. I don't think any of them are Reliable Sources as Wikipedia defines it. Most blogs do not qualify as Reliable Sources, and neither does most YouTube material. See WP:Reliable source examples. You will need to find more mainstream sources if the article is to be kept. See what you can do, and good luck! --MelanieN (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so so much! Will work on getting it with revisions up to standard now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazer921 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I revised the article to pare it down significantly to just his accomplishments and basic facts. I can always beef it back up as he does more interviews with distinguished media and we can scour online. Right now I have Billboard.com, LA Times, IBI Times and Wire as sources. Thank you so much for all your help and happy holidays! !xx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazer921 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi MelanieN! I wanted to check in on this to see if it would be eligible to put back to live status with the edits and citations. I do know he's also working on more projects this year which will yield further content and sourcing. Thank you again!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazer921 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@Lazer921: Well, you can try. The article is pretty minimal; that's because he has almost no coverage in independent sources. The article now has a passing mention in the LA Times, a passing mention at the International Business Times, and a photo credit at a non-notable site. We really need SIGNIFICANT coverage, not passing mentions. Being one out of of 20 producers on a Grammy-nominated album is not going to get him very far either. So there is a significant chance it would get deleted again, for not meeting the criteria at WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. Maybe you should wait until he gets some more coverage about those additional projects before trying to restore it.

As you know it was previously deleted per this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Klypso. If you do decide to restore it, let me know and I will put a note on it saying it is significantly different from the original deleted version; that will at least prevent it from being speedy-deleted per G4. --MelanieN (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Re:December 2016

Hello, one of the Polish websites reports that after being sworn father Ivanka president that will take place on 20 January 2017, the current wife of her father was to be the first lady of the United States, but because of the situation in the family, Ivanka Trump will take over temporarily the role of hostess of the White home.

Are you in writing about this website? I greet the Polish and a Happy New Year :) TharonXX (talk) 19:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC).

The Polish website is reporting a rumor. There has been no such announcement. Melania Trump will be first lady. Ivanka may serve temporarily as hostess, while Melania stays in New York so that their son can finish school. Happy New Year to you too! --MelanieN (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

My understanding is that it will be until the end of the current school-year (aka from January 2017 until May-or-June 2017) that Melania will be remaining in NYC, but that after that she will move to DC and find Barron a new school to attend. Ivanka and Jared already have moved to DC, is also my understanding. Whether one or both of them are given use of the office-space in the whitehouse, that would otherwise be occupied by Melania, is a factoid that remains to be seen (cf 1967 nepotism laws). Both are on the transition team, and both are meeting with various cabinet-interviewees and informal economic CEO-advisors and foreign dignitaries, so I expect this situation will generate plenty of well-sourced material. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 07:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

opinion

I see you made comments on ANI about Jennepicfoundation.

This reminds me of the article, Kim Carson, heavily edited by users Kimcarson and Sheri21st (Sheri is Kim Carson's other name). Is Kim Carson even notable?

Opinion from you sought. Thank you. Usernamen1 (talk) 04:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to be out of town for a few days. I can check it out when I get back, or feel free to ask someone else. --MelanieN (talk) 06:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Editor of the Week seeking nominations (and a new facilitator)

The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

In addition, the WikiProject is seeking a new facilitator/coordinator to handle the logistics of the award. Please contact L235 if you are interested in helping with the logistics of running the award in any capacity. Remove your name from here to unsubscribe from further EotW-related messages. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

happy new year  :-)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

MelanieN, you are no beginner, so I am cutting to the chase and giving you the old-fashioned trout, straight up.

• "just because comments are sourced [does not mean we cannot delete them from wikipedia if we personally consider them trivial to the point of nonsensical]"[1][2]
• "notable"[3]
• "notable"[4]

Methinks the reason that our mutual acquaintance, the ostentatious aficionado of title-case and overlinking, Drbogdan, who has been on wikipedia for eleven years and counting, was giving you the definition of WP:N, was perhaps to hint that elsewhere in the vast mass of WP:PAG there is a bit called WP:NOTEWORTHY which directly contradicts what you were saying. Whether some factoid is noteworthy -- aka fit to be mentioned in mainspace somewhere -- is defined by whether that factoid was found in a reliable source, not defined by whether individual wikipedians believe it to be true, or think it is encyclopedic, or whatever the case might be. (Topics can be unencyclopedic, but content of articles about encyclopedic-topic ought to neutrally mirror the sources.)

Notability does not determine article content, only sourcing does, and although consensus can cause tagging of unsourced material, and then deletion of unsourced material, and then deletion in of material that is sourced to unreliable or non-independent entities, that is not the case here. The stuff about Trump's film-faves and politician-prefs, is very well-sourced (at least some of it). So the question really *is* about WP:DUE, and thus *is* about whether we ought to keep it in the BLP-article, or move it to a subsidiary-article where the (well-sourced) material would be more appropriately organized/presented. There are extremely rare cases where even reliably-sourced neutrally-summarized material that meets all the usual policies, is still in fact deleted, but those should only be IAR scenarios and similar.

As a heuristic rule of thumb, any time you have wikipedians trying to argue for deleting well-sourced material -- as opposed to MOVING that well-sourced material to a more appropriate place on wikipedia -- then something is severely wrong. Having seen your editing history for some time, I am under no misapprehension that you personally are pushing a POV, or trying to cherrypick sources, or otherwise doing something naughty via deletion of well-sourced material. But I have seen exactly that, in the past, with other wikipedians that were quite obviously trying to slant what mainspace said, by deleting reliably-sourced material because it did not agree with the POV they wanted mainspace to push onto the readership. Again, I don't think that is happening here: you are legitimately aghast that fave-film 'in pop culture' trivia, might be polluting a series of articles about the presidency of a nuclear superpower. But let the sourcing be your guide -- how many RS do we have about candidates and their film-idiosyncrasies? By contrast, how many about their favorite ice-cream flavors? The former is a significant literature... not as wide as the opinion-polling literature base (but not as shallow either!), and not as deep as the books by historians (but usually broader than most deadtree-historians are willing and able). The latter, the ice-cream thing, is never anything but passing mention.

So, because it can be abused by people doing very naughty things indeed, in my wikibook™ the deletion of well-sourced material without a VERY solid policy-backed reason (to include IAR) is itself naughty. It should not be treated as normal/typical, or as a good/okay idea. When other people see you doing it, MelanieN, they will follow your lead. Edit summaries of "rv irrelevant" and also "rv trivia" and the old chestnut "rv non-encyclopedic" are sometimes necessary and sometimes on-point, just like "rvv" albeit not as often. That said, the sources aren't something we can be cavalier about; if they cover something that we personally consider crap, that does not make what the sources say crap, that just means wikipedia reflects what the sources say, and therefore for the sake of neutrality when it DOES really matter to the mission of building a neutral encyclopedia (e.g. sourcing about Trump's policy-positions on 'building the wall' and his explanations for how 'mexico will pay for it') it is utterly crucial methinks, that the groundwork has been properly laid in past discussions. If the sources fit, you must acquit.

I will also speak briefly, one last aside about what I presume Drbogdan intends, since I share that characteristic; constantly linking to wikipedia policy-pages, is intended to be a way of educating future visitors to the talkpage (or to the talkpage archives), some of whom will undoubtedly be actual beginners that have never heard of WP:BITE. So I pretty much habitually use bluelinks to policy-pages, not as a way of being insulting/sarcastic/whatever to the person I'm replying unto at that moment (they tend to be another long-time wikipedian with no need for the allcaps), but as a way to leave a trail of policy-backed-breadcrumbs for some lurker that is thinking about hitting edit, but has not yet dared to WP:BEBOLD. The man drives a Ferrari, and has a purple-squiggle-homepage-background-image, and was a forensic biochemist for the BATF. Please forgive him for his Xanadu-esque "Textual" Style -- methinks he's just trying to educate omnidirectionally. As for my own style, it also grates on some folks, but it is difficult to satisfy the eye of every beholder, both the observed ones and those which may currently be unobserved.

On that note, wishing you a happy & joyous new year, please indulge in some air-steamed or pan-fried or whatever you prefer seafood delicacy, and see you when you return from your vacation 47.222.203.135 (talk) 09:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for the trout. However, I am inclined to return it, with a nice almond-butter sauce. If you and your logged-in friend are actually saying (as you both appear to be) that everything that has ever been reported by any Reliable Source must be included somewhere in this international encyclopedia, then I think you deserve the trout more than I do. WP:RS is NOT the only criterion for inclusion. There are other criteria such as WP:NOTEWORTHY, which you were kind enough to link to here (and yes, I did say "notable" at the talk page when I meant "noteworthy", but I was following the lead of Drbogdan). Here is what WP:NOTEWORTHY says: "Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." WP:DUEWEIGHT is irrelevant here because this is not a matter of conflicting viewpoints that might affect WP:NEUTRALITY. More relevant, and also found at WP:NEUTRALITY, is the principle of WP:BALASP: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." In other words: We don't have to include everything, even if it is verifiable and impartial. We can and must exercise judgment, as encyclopedists, about what information is worth including here. Some things are simply not important enough to include in any existing article about the subject. Maybe, as someone suggested at the talk page, in an article called Donald Trump's opinions about historical and fictional characters. Or more broadly, Donald Trump's likes and dislikes. However, I doubt if such an article would survive AfD, no matter how many reliable sources were appended to support the various items - because people would simply not accept this kind of trivia as an encyclopedic topic. Anyhow, happy new year to you too, and see you at the talk page. MelanieN (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The trout was for saying notable, and then going back and boldfacing it, when you obviously could not mean WP:N, which is a silly mistake, whether or not some other wikipedian may also have made the mistake  ;-)

Now, although I'm virtually allergic to virtual almonds and thus prefer my seafood a la carte, it is also possible that *I* am making a silly mistake of my own, and if so you are of course free to give me a strong helping of trout, or the more subtle reminder. Or just tell me, though that is a bit boring. You are close to what I mean to say: "everything that has ever been reported by any RS must (eventually) be included somewhere" but more importantly for our mutual sanity must NOT be deleted-in-every-article by mere !votes unless IAR or a similarly-crucial policy applies, is reasonably close to my personal stance. Just like IAR can be abused in the wrong hands, and thus ought be used sparingly, deletion of (as opposed to moving-to-another-article-of) any reliably-sourced material is very susceptible to abuse in the wrong hands, and thus ought be used sparingly. But to be clear, the extended discussion above, about my own idiosyncratic reasons and interpretations of the bit of policy which does apply, the WP:NOTEWORTHY thing (which most-unhelpfully references a lot of subtle policies like due weight and balanced-according-to-RS and 'other content policies'), was not part of the trout. It was just a followup, though it was intended to, if not necessarily convince you, at least prompt you to think about the question a bit. I will dump the remainder of my reply, the followup to the followup if you will, over on my own usertalkpage... if you care to keep chatting I am most happy to do so, but having already filled your screen once this year, I will bid you adieu :-) 47.222.203.135 (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	To the Eradicator-in-Chief. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar. Keep those alerts coming! --MelanieN (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Off topic

Thanks for the comment here. It probably should have been ignored completely from the start. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Melanie, can you rev delete some IP edits on the Donald Trump talk page? I would have asked sooner but I just remembered you're an admin. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC) here and [5] and here and here. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Got 3 more from another article talk page: here and here and here. Thanks, Melanie. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I deleted one edit -- but it still should be revdeled. I don't have an opinion on inclusion of the fundraiser in this article. But, the edit I deleted was out of bounds. Thanks. Objective3000 (talk) 02:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Discussion of the fundraiser is valid, but the allegations being made by the IP were not. I deleted the whole section and revdel'ed it. --MelanieN (talk) 03:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Melanie, I noticed on two of the revdels on my contributions here that the edit summaries seem to indicate they were in the Lede/&Election section on Donald Trump, but the edits look intact on the DT talk page. The edits I'm asking about are at 23:20 3 January and 22:54 3 January. I don't think the IP was in that section. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Right. Your edits are still there on the talk page, but your diff isn't visible in the history. It didn't matter what section it was, or whether or not the IP was involved in the diff. I had to revdel EVERY edit that was made while the offensive material was still live on the page. On the page for a diff, the entire talk page displays below the "what was changed" at the top. That meant that the offensive material was visible on every page until it finally got deleted. Clear as mud? --MelanieN (talk) 05:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Got it. Thanks. Also, thanks for blocking the other IP. I forgot about him. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL: I don't know what that other IP did (before starting a rampage of simple vandalism) but it must have been pretty bad. Their first edit on that page is not just revdel'ed, it is oversighted - so that even I can't see it. I'm surprised that whoever oversighted it didn't also block them. --MelanieN (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN:, you know that's interesting because a few years ago, I emailed the oversight for another BLP vio and they did the edits but didn't block the vandal. I wondered about that and then asked an admin about it and that admin blocked the guy. Yes, that IP was really on a tear. He was inserting all sorts of truly bad comments. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

RfA

I've added my co-nom below yours and the RfA is ready to go. If you have a moment , please transclude it - I have to go out. BTW: Happy New Year! Chris, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Are you about?

@MelanieN: Are you about? The IP is back. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

A little more information would help. Back where? --MelanieN (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

If you mean this [6]: it's probably the same person since that kind of IP address changes often. But so far they haven't done anything wrong. Keep an eye on them, and if they start violating BLP, delete it and tell me. --MelanieN (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but aren't they avoiding a block? Also, notice that they use ( preceding the signature. Remember who I mentioned to you? He does the same thing. It's the same fellow. And he commented on the talk page today. Isn't it the editor being blocked? SW3 5DL (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• (2A00:23C4:638C:4500:F875:52D7:9F51:17C9 (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC))
• (2A00:23C4:638C:4500:B0FC:5CF6:3969:12F5 (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC))

Both appear to track to London. But, that's not absolutely reliable. Objective3000 (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

They are different addresses. One is blocked for BLP violations. The new one has made only two contributions, both so far harmless. Blocks don't transfer from one IP to another even if we think it is probably the same person. And since that type of address changes spontaneously, it is not socking - i.e., using multiple IDs in an attempt to deceive - for them to post under the new address. --MelanieN (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Using ( is not part of the IP address. One has to do that deliberately, and the signed in editor there, does the same in his signature. True, he's not made BLP violations. But he's using multiple accounts on the same page. My understanding is that we're not to do that. They're all 3 on the same page, under the same topic. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

There is a strong feeling of WP:DUCK but I am not willing to block the new ones on that basis. Maybe one of my talk page stalkers is. Background: we are talking about a lot of BLP-violating edits that were made on the Trump talk page yesterday, causing me to revdel a bunch of edits and block the user ‪2a00:23c4:638c:4500:f875:52d7:9f51:17c9‬ for 2 weeks . The new IP is posting in the same section with many of the same mannerisms. I'm not sure we can even file an SPI investigation, because who do we list as the sockmaster? --MelanieN (talk) 23:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I should add that I am very, very conservative (not to say, chicken) about blocking, so my hesitation shouldn't be used as a reason not to block these new users, if someone feels so inclined. In fact I should probably ask for a second opinion. --MelanieN (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Bbb23: It looks like you are around: what can you tell us about this kind of situation? This is the thread of concern: Talk:Donald Trump#Support for Provisional IRA? --MelanieN (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

{ec} I'd list this fellow, (AndyTyner (talk) as the sock master as he's the fellow who got the ball rolling on the entire topic. And he also uses the quirkly ( in his signature as do the IP's using their mobiles. (AndyTyner (talk) 10:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)) Notice how he does the same in the signature as the IPs. This ( is not needed and nobody else does it on WP, do they? SW3 5DL (talk) 23:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll give it a try. --MelanieN (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, I filed it. We'll see what happens. Meanwhile keep an eye on things and let me know if there are any problems. --MelanieN (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Looks good. Should I mention it to the checkuser? SW3 5DL (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

If you have been consulting someone about this, yes, do tell them about the SPI. In fact I requested CU at the SPI report. --MelanieN (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll email him now. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I asked if he will confirm Andy Tyner is in London and gave him the link to the SPI. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

You should realize that the checkuser is NOT going to tell you if either of these IP addesses belongs to AndyTyner. They never publicly connect a registered account to an IP address. --MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I would guess 90% positive. But, I don't like WP:DUCK. I consider this as the same as the misguided concept that "if there's smoke there's fire". I respect Melanie's conservative approach to admin blocks without a noticeboard, much as noticeboards are incredibly slow, inefficient and annoying. But, anyone that is problematic will soon prove themselves as problematic in the future, and receive an eventual block. Objective3000 (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Objective. That was my feeling too: as soon as they become a problem, let 'em have it, but don't block them just on conjecture. Not that WP:DUCK is worthless; sometimes it is enough to establish a sock. But I wasn't willing to apply it in this case. --MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Aaaannnnddd... we have a winner! Turns out they are a long-term-abuse editor known as HarveyCarter. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HarveyCarter/Archive and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/HarveyCarter. Nice work nailing this guy, SW3 5DL! --MelanieN (talk) 01:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but you know it was your hammer that got the nail in. Good job. What a history. I'll mention it to the Checkuser. Yes, I know he can't geolocate. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Woof. That's some history. I always though Elvis was part of the IRA.:) Objective3000 (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

You might want to remove the comments here about his identifying signature quirk, in the chance he reads this page. Objective3000 (talk) 12:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I also mentioned it at the SPI report; he is more likely to see it there, and that can't be edited once it is closed. I have quietly made note of a couple of other distinguishing characteristics and will keep them in mind. But I may not see him again; he seems to favor Europe articles. BTW the good thing about going through the SPI process instead of simply duck-blocking him: the SPI process identified several other sock accounts as well as this one. --MelanieN (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that was most helpful. How did they identify him as this other fellow? Is there an automatic look see by a checkuser at SPI? SW3 5DL (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

It was a checkuser search and a checkuser block, yes. Very useful for finding "sleeper" accounts as well as for identifying sockmasters. --MelanieN (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For MelanieN. You are hereby awarded this Admin's Barnstar for carrying out a yeoman's work on the speedy revdels as well as facilitating the sorting of the sock responsible for the mess. Well done. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, SW3. It was definitely a team effort. --MelanieN (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Why did you remove the page on Billy Ruane?

I worked on that for hours, was trying to contrubute something new with good information which is the goal of wikipeida.. it's my assumption you have no conenction to the subject matter AND DIDN'T TAKE MUCH TIME TO READ WHAT WAS WRITTEN.. I was trying to catch up and had 9 cited sources, and you swooped in and seem to have delted the work done and not justified why.. seems like the people who came in and played god instead of contributing OR DIALOGUING are lost in the details of wikipedia instead of the point, which is to share information.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YesI'msure (talk • contribs) 19:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 01:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump

@MelanieN: I am bothered by that comment. I feel you could have equally conveyed meaning by simply showing the diff and reminding of me what I'd said. I don't think a parental tone is necessary. It comes across as a dressing down, which I don't feel is warranted. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry you were bothered, and I admit my comments did have a "parental tone". (Please realize I was speaking as one editor to another, and did not have my "admin hat" on.) I am just out the door and will reply in more detail later. --MelanieN (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I have hardly been home all day, and during the brief times I did have at the computer, I weighed in at the Talk:Donald Trump discussion since it was moving so fast. But to respond to your comment: On thinking it over, I was wrong to post my criticism of you at the article talk page; I should have taken it to your talk page. I apologize for that. However, I did mean what I said. Your repeated insistence on including something that nobody else had supported was almost on the verge of becoming disruptive. And I notice something similar in today's discussion, where you chose your own version as one of the two RfC choices, even though I hadn't see anyone else express support for it, or for your odd wording "the fourth elected with fewer votes nationwide." "Consensus building" is what JFG, Mandruss, and Anythingyouwant have been doing: listening to what people say, and trying to distill the various viewpoints expressed into a well worded summary. --MelanieN (talk) 02:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh my goodness, that's not at all what's been happening there. If you go back and read everything in the "How About This" section, you will see where I went out of my way to accommodate, not to mention pinging all of you with changes and suggestions. As for this being my version, well, hardly. I changed it multiple times and did my best to make it grammatically correct while attempting to accommodate all the others as much as possible. I changed my own edit in the talkquote multiple times instead of creating a new one each time, and that might be why you don't see all the iterations. This really will benefit from fresh eyes and inviting the larger community to comment brings fresh ideas and solutions. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN:, Also can you do a page protection on Ireland-United States relations? We've got another IP inserting the Canary Wharf bit again. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I was offline. Another admin has taken care of it. --MelanieN (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Trump revdel

Not sure your revdel on Talk:Donald Trump erased everything as your last diff (redacation) is still visible. Objective3000 (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I had to make a null edit before I could redact that one. You can't revdel the last edit on a page. My revdel was only partial, the information is still available in some places if you know where to look. --MelanieN (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi MelanieN, Apologies for the interruption. Would it be possible for you to assess if recent edits at 2016 United States election interference by Russia also require RD2? Thanks in advance. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 02:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look. --MelanieN (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ryk72: Thanks, got it. Good job with the deletion and partial restoration. If you see it anywhere else, let me know. The fact that there re allegations is not a problem, just the specifics. --MelanieN (talk) 03:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi MelanieN, I have just redacted something that might also need to be revdeleted. Regards, - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 10:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

TPO q

One editor has told me that the rules preclude the removal of the five instances of potty humor by anyone but the respective posters. Do you agree? ―Mandruss ☎ 17:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Make that four, I'll remove my own. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think removing it is called for. Hatting is probably more appropriate. Of course, you are free to remove your own. --MelanieN (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The reason I suggested they might be removed was not because of the potty humor, but because they essentially suggested part of the allegations. Pretty obscure though, which is why I only hatted. Objective3000 (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Year In... articles

Hi. There's an editor who has created a mass of articles along the lines of 2003 in Croatian television. Not a single reference. Now, I've been marking them as reviewed, since we seem to have these types of articles, like 1990 in American television, and most of them are unsourced as they are list articles. But when I went to check on the editor's talk page, I noticed you had left this comment, almost 2 years ago. Since that time, the article has had 2 small edits to it. Should I simply continue to mark them as reviewed, and tagging them as unsourced, or take a different tack? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

You know, I'm really not that familiar with this type of article. I see that I did decline speedy, back when I was a brand-spanking-new admin, just because I hate it when people tag speedy-tag an article within minutes of its creation. And you are right, the article was hardly touched afterward and is barely a stub - which is also true of the few other "xxxx in Dutch television" articles. I checked to see if those red links in the grid represent articles that were deleted, but no; they were just never created. The existence of the grid implies that articles for the missing years are allowed and expected. This type of article is rarely looked at (0-5 views per day) and is obviously unmaintained, but clearly somebody thinks they are worth doing, and we do allow stubs. Apparently my (ignorant) instinct to decline the speedy tag was correct. My inclination would be to review and tag as you are doing, unless there is basically no content at all. That's just off the top of my head - maybe a talk page stalker would have more to add? --MelanieN (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. That was my inclination, and my practice, that if there was no content, just empty sections, I requested it be deleted, but as long as there is some content, even redlinks, I was going to let it stand. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

"She's a Trump supporter, I think"

Ha! "[Melanie] is a Trump supporter, I think"![7] You realize what an unintentional accolade that is? Better than a barnstar. You should put it on your userpage with floral wreaths round it. When people can't tell what politician or what ideology you're supporting, you're certainly doing something right. Bishonen | talk 23:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC).

I had the same thought. There are people who think I'm a flaming liberal and people who think I'm a Trump supporter. I guess that means I'm doing something right. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

And when I frame it and hang it on my wall, I should include Bastun's reply to my saying nobody knows who I support: "...er, yeah, sure." --MelanieN (talk) 00:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I think I get it - he thinks I was revdel'ing stuff the other day for political reasons, like maybe it made Trump look bad or something. Of course, he can't see what I revdel'ed so he doesn't know what it really was. --MelanieN (talk) 00:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Same user had a very similar reaction when I pushed for omission of Jane Doe at Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations. I was clearly a Trump apologist. Also, my reason for starting the RfC was clearly to keep the content out until after the election, since it was likely the RfC would run for the whole 30 days. Not only a Trump apologist, but a shrewd manipulator of the system as well. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot, Melanie, you were involved in the ANI that resulted from that, so this isn't news to you. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I do remember that accusation; I don't really remember an associated ANI. It's too bad that we have gotten to the point in this country that everything a person does, everything, is viewed by other people through a partisan filter, or ascribed to partisan motives. At least you, as a regular user, are ENTITLED to use RfC to promote your nefarious ends. If I had used my admin tools for political purposes, I would expect to be reported to the admin police. --MelanieN (talk) 01:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not sure you detected what I thought was obvious sarcasm. I didn't really do anything for political purposes. If I had wanted to, it wouldn't have been that but rather the opposite of that. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

(That was the ANI that was closed in Swahili.) ―Mandruss ☎ 04:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Of course I got it - and for my part I thought it would be obvious that "promote your nefarious ends" was sarcasm. Darn the internet anyhow. Right, now I do remember it. --MelanieN (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

You know, I'm probably a Trump supporter too, because I have indefblocked many newly created accounts with names that abuse Trump — the actual account names, I mean — I won't give examples — admittedly a few that abuse Clinton, too, but there don't seem to be as many of those created. So statistically I must be a Trump apologist. And using my admin tools to manipulate the encyclopedia in his favor. Bishonen | talk 15:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC).

Sounds like you're manipulating the encyclopedia in favor of BOTH of them. What are you, some kind of one-worlder? (and for any onlookers, please realize that this whole thread is sarcastic - so that we don't have to keep pointing it out.) --MelanieN (talk) 16:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Your reversion of my edit

Yesterday, you reverted this edit to Donald Trump. I certainly understand your reasoning, and I'm not going to edit war over it, but I think a strong case could be made that the opinions of Trump's handpicked cabinet members, especially one that has been as controversial and outspoken as Sessions, is relevant to his political positions. He presumably chose his cabinet members to enact his own positions in their respective departments. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Wordsmith. I think it could very well be included in the "Political positions of Donald Trump" article. I just thought it was out of place in his biography. --MelanieN (talk) 15:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

You're probably right. I'll see if the content fits over there. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

U.S. politics

Hi, thanks for your work. As an administrator is it that you don't operate within the scope of U.S. politics? Do you consider yourself WP:involved in that topic. I often see you editing and using your administration tools within that topic? Govindaharihari (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, and your kind words at the AfD. I often edit on US politics articles so I consider myself INVOLVED in most of that area. I do NOT use my admin tools, except in extreme cases - like revdel'ing material that should not be visible, or blocking vandals. --MelanieN (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:ARBPIA sanction breach.

by Towns Hill. Notified of DS here; previously blocked here; now created article Pashtun Atrocities against Kashmiris. Which is pretty fundamentally concerned with the subject, as well as being extremely POV. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 14:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Fortuna, but I am not familiar enough with that area of DS to deal with it. Ask someone who deals with this kind of thing regularly. --MelanieN (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

No worries MN; me too! All the best, O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 14:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump

Hi,

You've been heavily involved with Donald Trump-related stuff, so I thought I'd ask you this. Is this revdel worthy, or is it just a sick joke? Adam9007 (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Adam. I don't think it needs revdel, just deletion - which you have done. But do feel free to let me know when you have a concern like this. --MelanieN (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Here's another one. I'm pretty sure he's never been impeached. Revdel material or bog standard vandalism? Adam9007 (talk) 03:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Standard vandalism. It helped that you reverted it literally the next minute! --MelanieN (talk) 04:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I reverted it because he edited someone else's comment. I noticed the BLP violation afterwards. Now I come to think of it, I've seen a lot of Donald Trump-related vandalism lately. But I suppose that's to be expected? Adam9007 (talk) 04:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately yes. But there are a lot of people watching that page, and the article itself is extended-confirmed protected. (For a couple of days there it was full-protected, which helped a lot during our crazy season here.) --MelanieN (talk) 04:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations

It seems that we must both be doing something right :/ GAB^gab 02:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm actually kind of sorry to see somebody melt down like this. But I am a firm believer in the essay about how to deal with disruptive people and especially socks: WP:RBI. --MelanieN (talk) 05:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Wondering if you could help

I saw edit as inappropriate and I cannot undo it. Am I doing something wrong? PackMecEng (talk) 03:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Pack, and thanks for the note. You do realize that edit is not at the English Wikipedia, en.wiki; it is at Wikimedia Commons. I'm not that familiar with Commons myself, but I don't know any reason why you couldn't edit there. If you tried to use UNDO and it didn't work, it is probably because there have been other intervening edits and the edit can only be undone manually. But here's what I would advise: that inappropriate edit has been seen, and ignored, by half a dozen regular editors there. They must not regard it as that big a problem, and I would suggest you forget it. Removing other editors' comments is forbidden in most circumstances. This one might be an exception but it isn't worth sticking your neck out for. --MelanieN (talk) 05:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah okay makes sense, fair enough. Thanks for the help! PackMecEng (talk) 13:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

It's been two years, today.

Wishing MelanieN a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 16:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Chris and the birthday committee! How sweet of to remember my adminiversary! --MelanieN (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary

Wishing MelanieN/Archive 31 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Draft proposal for moratorium

PROPOSED:

A 6-month moratorium on the infobox image. The current infobox image, File:Donald Trump official portrait.jpg, will not be modified or replaced until at least 22 July 2017. If modfications to the image (e.g. cropping or touch-up) are desired for another project, it should be cloned to a new image for that purpose. At some point before that date, we may decide to extend the moratorium for another period of duration to be determined then.

During the moratorium period, new threads about the infobox photo should be collapsed immediately with a link to the consensuses list, preferably indicating the relevant item number, which will include a link to this consensus. If a thread receives replies before it can be collapsed, it should be collapsed anyway. Use {{Cot}} and {{Cob}}, not {{Atop}} and {{Abot}}.

―Mandruss ☎ 03:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Looks good to me. --MelanieN (talk) 03:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: As a disinterested observer, would an exception if, and only if, the "official" portrait changes be too much? Would it open up wormcans? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ryk72: Hi, see Talk:Donald Trump#New official portraits, a subsection of the proposal, and admittedly a bit of an afterthought. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Full References

I am here for my class on full references. I have been using REfill() and it seems to work ok, but I need to understand what you mean by full references. Octoberwoodland (talk) 04:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to class. 0;-D If you are using ReFill it ought to do more for you. Here is what I am talking about: Your references look like this in the edit window <ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/lawsuit-trump-businesses-violate-constitution/2017/01/23/87c0df26-e174-11e6-a419-eefe8eff0835_story.html|title=Lawsuit: Trump business ties violate Constitution|publisher=}}</ref> and they look like this in the reference list:

This only gives you the title of the article and a link; the reader has to click the link to know any reference details, like where it was published and when. A full reference would also show, at a minimum, the publication and the date. It can also show the authors. Like this: <ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/lawsuit-trump-businesses-violate-constitution/2017/01/23/87c0df26-e174-11e6-a419-eefe8eff0835_story.html|title=Lawsuit: Trump business ties violate Constitution|last=Condon|first=Bernard|date=January 23, 2017|work=Washington Post|accessdate=24 January 2017}}</ref> which comes out looking like this.

This fomat allows a person to see what the publication is, and the date of publication. Those are key indicators that people want to see, to determine whether the publication is an Independent Reliable Source and when it was published. Those in turn are things people will use to decide if the subject has sufficient coverage to deserve an article.

You might want to experiment with ReFill (I'm not familiar with it) and see if it will give you ways to enter the rest of the information. If not, come back for lesson 2 and I'll show you what I use. It's a tool right here in the edit window, but it isn't automated; you have to enter the information into the fields manually, i.e., copy-paste. --MelanieN (talk) 04:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Refill() actually will fill in all of this information IF IT CAN LOCATE IT from tags on the websites content. So I am guessing I need to fill in these field manually if refill() cannot determine it. Refill() is located here -> [8] Octoberwoodland (talk) 05:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I am ready to try your tool. Octoberwoodland (talk) 05:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, it's really quite easy and convenient. When you are in the edit window, there is a row of buttons along the top. One of them is "cite". Click that and it gives you a choice of types of source: web, news, journal, etc. Most of what you will be posting falls under the category of news. Click that and it gives you a form to fill out: url, title, author, date of publication, etc. Fill in manually, or copy-paste. When you have it filled out, put your cursor at the place in the text where you want the reference to go, and click "add citation." That's important! If you don't click "add citation" before previewing or saving, the information will be lost and you will have to do it over. Try it! Choose a newspaper article - here is one you can practice on. Put it in another window so you can go back and forth to copy-paste. Write something here and see if you can cite the article as a reference. --MelanieN (talk) 05:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

And with that, good night. Lessons can continue in the morning if needed. --MelanieN (talk) 05:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I am looking this over on the toolbar. :-) Octoberwoodland (talk) 06:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I apologize for butting in.

You would do well to learn how to use WP:SFN formatting and WP:Citation templates. See also Help:Shortened footnotes.

And you should be aware of (and wary of) WP:CITEVAR. Some of our editors get stuck in their rut, and it is a trap for the unwary. I have had mixed reactions in that. I won't bore you with the details (but speaking of bore, I got positive feedback when I fixed the mess at Smith & Wesson.

And using EFN refs can give your article a whole new dimension. see Yank Levy, for example.

Just a few suggestions. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

3-days is very much appreciated. Thank you so much for granting our request. Whooossshhhh (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the cookie. Sorry it couldn't be longer. Good luck with the article. --MelanieN (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Editing search result subtitles

Hi, I want to edit the subtitle that comes up for an article when I type its name in the searchbar of the main www.wikipedia.org page. The current one is NPOV. How do I do that? NPalgan2 (talk) 03:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Solved - nvmd NPalgan2 (talk) 08:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Glad I could help. 0;-D Thanks for asking. --MelanieN (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

→

Archive 35