User talk:MelanieN/Archive 47

Archive 40

←

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Hi M. Isn't funny somebody deleted me for saying "dogged" -- me, dogged SPECIFICO! As if I think Dogged is any kind of insult. What's next? Anyway... Thanks for your concern on my talk page. If the clerk doesn't respond I will address the issue to Arbcom in their mailbox, since I think that's the proper procedure. I don't know how else to handle it. SPECIFICO talk 17:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I made a note of his edit in my section of the discussion. (Started to make my comment in your section, then realized that's a no-no.) --MelanieN (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and I see Mdann has now rolled back his edit. However, it is there in the history. --MelanieN (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Newsletter

Are non-admins allowed to subscribe to the monthly Administrator's newsletter? Thanks! Codyorb (talk) 15:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Codyorb: Yes. You can opt-in here. --MelanieN (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Unsalting Paddy Barrett

Hi, I just went to create an article for Paddy Barrett and noticed you had salted the page after multiple AfDs. Barrett has now made his United Soccer League debut (see the starting lineups here) and thus passes WP:NFOOTY, so I think it is okay to allow the article now. Could you please unsalt the title? Thanks, IagoQnsi (talk) 02:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done --MelanieN (talk) 13:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Long standing material

Just for some clarification on your post here. It is not long standing material cannot be removed without consensus, it is treated the same as standard DS consensus required. An edit cannot be restored without consensus if it has been challenged. The long standing is just a reference for when content that was added is no longer new and cannot be challenged via revision. I mention all this since some are going around challenging all new material because it changes or removes long standing material with the only rational that it is longstand material. PackMecEng (talk) 14:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

The intent of the "consensus" requirement is stability of the article. That means that newly added material can be challenged (by removal) and it cannot then be re-added without consensus. It also means that an edit which removes longstanding material can be challenged (by restoring the material), and the material cannot then be removed without consensus. The default in all cases is the version which has been stable for a period of time. That does not make retention of longstanding material automatic; it makes it subject to discussion, with consensus needed to remove it. --MelanieN (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed if the revision that removed the material is challenged, consensus is required to remove it again. The way you wrote it gave a different impression. But sounds like we are on the same page. PackMecEng (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

That's an excellent summary of the concept. It should be framed and hung prominently. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

But who determines whether or not the article is actually stable, or that the challenged material is longstanding? When material has repeatedly been challenged (including that which was challenged prior to the restriction being added which is usually why a restriction is added), and it remains because editors restore it under the context of "longstanding" who determines what is or isn't "longstanding", especially in these meandering lengthy articles like the Trump articles have become? There is no way editors who are new to the article can keep track of what is or isn't "longstanding". ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

The only time I have heard a definition of long standing is from NeilN on Trump-Russia dossier here. 4-6 weeks of being in the article when the article is heavily trafficked. I am not sure how that relates to stuff that has been in the article that long but over time constantly tweaked and how that may or may not change what is considered long standing. PackMecEng (talk) 16:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Article stability isn't going to be achieved until the subject is no longer "current news" (look at Barack Obama for an article with a similar trajectory). The instruction, "If in doubt, don't make the edit" should be well heeded here. Ask for uninvolved admin input if the situation is unclear. I've always used "four to six weeks" for specific material. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

What does an administrators personal relationship situation have to do with asking for input? It shouldn't matter if they are single or involved in a relationship. PackMecEng (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Who determines? "We" do. For better or worse, the powers-that-be have determined that there are no firm rules, no bright lines, and no referees. At one end of the spectrum are cases that are clearly longstanding; e.g. two months. At the other end are cases that are clearly not longstanding; e.g. one week. Between them is a gray area where there may be case-by-case disagreement that requires discussion to resolve, although I haven't found this to be a serious time-consumer at the main Trump article, where I hang.
There is no way editors who are new to the article can keep track of what is or isn't "longstanding". True, and that's the purpose of the challenge. Using the page history, the challenged editor can decide whether they feel the challenge is reasonable, and whether they want to challenge the challenge in talk. If they lack the competence or motivation to do that, they simply have to defer to the challenger. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Mandruss, I disagree because when actions violate a policy that even editor consensus cannot supercede, there's a problem. Neil - I think stricter adherence to NPOV and particularly NOTNEWS policy would prove beneficial. It is highy disruptive when editors ignore policy that states it cannot be superceded by editor consensus. If editors would simply abide by NOTNEWS, these added restrictions would not be needed and we would be able to do a much better job with editor retention. It's the news source allegations in breaking news and news sources that have crossed the line that are causing the problems. Just look at what happened with the ABC/NBC news embarrassment which WaPo responded to by saying it was "particularly unhelpful to the Washington press corps' collective reputation." ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, WP:CONSENSUS is the sole super-policy; i.e. how to apply policy to a specific case is decided by consensus, not by one editor who thinks they are a better editor than everyone else present. I have proposed making this relationship clearer with no traction. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, WP:NPOV does state “This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.”.O3000 (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

And that needs changing in my opinion. Too many editors use the principle as a weapon, and the cost greatly exceeds the benefit. NPOV is, necessarily, far too vague for such a thing to work. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It would be a good policy if so many editors didn’t confuse NPOV with MPOV (my point of view). O3000 (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

And they will forever do so until we repeal human nature. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

You've been here more than long enough to hear variations of, "my preferred version adheres strictly to NPOV whereas yours makes it obvious you're a conservative/liberal stooge." Half the arguments on talk pages are editors arguing with other editors that their edits are required by NPOV. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

This is one of those cases where the Admins happen to be correct. We just need a rule, even an arbitrary rule, to structure the discussions. SPECIFICO talk 19:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, when it comes to an informal survey, consensus rules. But, when it comes to a contentious RfC. I think the closer pays more attention to NPOV. Then, it’s the closer’s duty to understand NPOV and apply it correctly. Which is why an uninvolved admin should close a contentious RfC. Not convinced there’s a better way. O3000 (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

😂 Admins always "happen to be correct" when they agree with you/me/us, SPECIFICO. ❤️ But seriously...all good points have been made here. Yes, Neil - there are all kinds of strawman arguments - and that is why NOTNEWS should prevail if we're truly unable to determine what is or isn't NPOV (DUE or BALANCE appears to be persuaded by the prevailing POV). Speculation that crosses the NOTNEWS boundary is where the bulk of the problems lie in political articles, especially when important elections are in the wings. If we can at least agree on a timeframe for inclusion of news in political articles (say 2 weeks or a month after initial publication...???), and maybe suggest a respectable limit for how much speculation is verifiably DUE (considering we now have articles based on nothing but unproven allegations which are clearly politically-based here today/gone tomorrow type material) then we will see the strawman arguments, disruption and gaming subside substantially. Maybe it will also force more editors to utilize our sister project, Wikinews, which is where such material actually belongs. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Admins always "happen to be correct" when they agree with you/me/us. That's basically the first axiom of adminship. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Someone logged into my account

Hello, I am the owner of this account. Yesterday someone succeeded in penetrating my account and requested to delete my talkpage!! I have no idea why he did that and who he may be. A few days ago, I also noticed that someone tried to log in. Is there anything you can do to prevent such actions.--Sakiv (talk) 05:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Sakiv. Almost all of us have gotten the same notice this past week. You can read all about it here. In almost all cases it was just an attempt; our accounts were not actually compromised. But are you saying that the recent request to delete your talk page was not actually from you? I see that just before you posted here, someone using your account blanked your talk page; was that you? If either of those actions was not from you, then your account was hacked and you should change your password to something stronger. You can do that by clicking on "Preferences" at the top of any Wikipedia page. --MelanieN (talk) 09:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio

Hi. Quick question, this newly created stub, Kid (1990 film), has as it's one line plot summary, a direct copyvio from imdb.com. Film probably meets WP:NFILM, should I just remove the line, leaving it without a plot summary? Is one line too short to worry about? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

People do this all the time on films. Sometimes we're lucky if that's the only thing they copy! I'm pretty sure we should remove it; not sure if any other action needs to be taken. @Diannaa: what is the standard procedure here? --MelanieN (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Paraphrase it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

That can be hard. These things that people add are not really plot summaries; they are advertising teasers to get people to see the film. --MelanieN (talk) 19:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

On the other hand, here is a real plot summary if someone wants to take the trouble to paraphrase it. Meanwhile I am going to delete the teaser. --MelanieN (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I've done some revision deletion and left a note for the editor. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry all, was in a meeting for the last few hours, so missed all of this. Thanks for your help. And I thought about paraphrasing, but knowing what Melanie said about imdb content, wasn't sure that was the right move. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Request for closure

Hey there, MelanieN!

It's been a while! I was wondering, as an uninvolved editor, would you be able to close the merger discussion at Talk:Donald Trump and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action? Consensus seems to be near-unanimous to merge Donald Trump and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action into United States withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action at this time. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 19:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, DarthBotto, but actually I was involved in early discussions about the viability of the article, and I suggested it be merged elsewhere. So although I didn't chime in on the current discussion (I would have supported the merge), I would not be comfortable closing it. Maybe one of my talk page stalkers might take a look at it? --MelanieN (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Brewery name convention

I'm contacting you as an active contributor on brewery articles and/or member of WikiProject Beer. There is some discussion going on as to how we should name our brewery articles. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beer#Change_brewery_titles? and Talk:Greene_King_Brewery#Requested_move_10_May_2018. If you are interested, please comment. SilkTork (talk)

Never imagined

...I would have missed you as much as I did while you were on vacay. Glad Dayem near ecstatic and relieved that your back. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

LOL, maybe I should go away more! Absence makes the heart grow fonder and all... --MelanieN (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I can't imagine anyone not missing a ^{( Buttinsky)} who does excellent work, even if one may disagree with the results from time to time. ❤️ ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, thank you. It's nice to be appreciated. However, I should add to your illustration the same disclaimer I have on my user page: "Despite rumors, this is not me." 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

To strike or not to strike

It occurs to me I'm unclear as to when a sock's comments should be struck. My initial inclination was that it would most effectively deter sockpuppetry to strike all of a user's comments in active discussions (i.e. not on archives, in hatted threads, etc.). Rereading WP:SOCKSTRIKE, however, seems to suggest it should be more selective. !votes in XfDs, RfCs, etc. are obvious, but beyond that... ? (Obviously this comes from my striking of Mr. Daniel Plainview's comments on a few pages, then unstriking in favor of a note). What's your take? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Also pinging Doug Weller, who I see struck some on other pages. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, see WP:TPO's last bullet. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Rhododendrites. I'm not a functionary of SPI so my comments are just one person's opinion. I'd be glad to hear comments from stalkers with more experience or a better understanding of policy. My own preference is to strike all their active input AND to make a comment explaining why - either at the end of the struck comment if there is only one, or somewhere in the thread if they made multiple comments. IMO striking the comments both deters the sockpuppetry and makes it clearer to the other participants in the discussion which comments they can disregard. When I added that note, I was intending it to be explanatory, not to replace the striking. Thanks for all your work cleaning up after this sock - which survived for months and made more than 500 edits before getting caught. --MelanieN (talk) 16:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Mandruss, that's helpful. Although it seems to apply only to !votes and doesn't really give any guidance about extended discussions. --MelanieN (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Hence, FWIW. :) ―Mandruss ☎ 16:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be clear guidance here, but I usually strike through sockpuppet comments. Banned/blocked editors aren't allowed to edit, and we need to make that explicit and to show other editors that a banned/block editor has been evading their block. Otherwise we find other editors quoting them sometimes, and of course they feel they've gotten their point again. I'm annoyed he got away with it so long, but it does mean he's not going to be allowed back, he'll have to sock. And hopefully we'll find him faster next time. Doug Weller talk 16:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for all the work. I suspected HT. But, I didn’t think the quacking was loud enough. I’ll contact a CU next time I think he appears. O3000 (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The whole sock thing, and tracing it down is impressive work. I feel so naive but I guess the latter has a positive side, too. It's just sad that editors feel they have to resort to such tactics. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I just figured out this is the guy whose user talk comments I worked my butt off copying to WP:AN because I felt he deserved a chance to defend himself. Now he's shown that he did not, and I regret doing that. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Don’t regret it. IIRC, his own words sealed the case against him. O3000 (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

We were all fooled, Mandruss. I won't be next time, though, now that I know more about his writing habits, interests, and other "tells". I hadn't heard of the sockmaster until today. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:00, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Trying to help someone is kindness, Mandruss - never regret a show of kindness. Well, that makes 2 disappointments for me this week but the positives still outnumber them. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

To expand on my initial comment, WP:SOCKSTRIKE includes this text (importantly, that page is an essay, not the policy page, but it's the one that's typically cited when this sort of issue arises):

If an account has been blocked specifically for sock puppetry, then removing some of their edits is acceptable. [...] In discussions such as WP:AFD, RFCs or other !voting discussion, you should strike their contributions using one of several available methods. Sometimes, a combination of these methods is best. [...] Don't worry about their comments on their own talk page, small article edits, or every single comment on an article talk page. Don't be "nitpicky".

Emphasis mine, of course. "Nitpicky" is completely ambiguous to my reading, sufficient to make me want to ignore it completely, but the preceding sentence is where all of the practical confusion is, as far as I'm concerned. The advice isn't saying "you should not" but seems to advise against striking non-!vote comments on talk pages. If anywhere, clarification should probably be made to the bulletpoint Mandruss linked to. Do you think there would be pushback to a change like this:

Original:

Removing or striking through "support" or "oppose" comments of editors subsequently blocked as socks. Comments with no replies may simply be removed with an appropriate edit summary. Striking through with a short explanation immediately after the stricken text is done when other editors have replied to the comments. e.g. Support per nom. (Striking !vote by blocked sock.)

New:

Dealing with users blocked as sock puppets editing in violation of a block or ban. Comments made by the sock with no replies may simply be removed with an appropriate edit summary. If comments are part of an active discussion, they should be struck instead of removed, along with a short explanation following the stricken text or at the bottom of the thread. There is not typically a need to strike comments in discussions that have been closed or archived.

Obviously this is not the place to actually propose such a change -- just getting some feedback to see if this is the impression other people are under. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

That looks like a good summary of my preferred approach. --MelanieN (talk) 17:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

My ear wants that to read, "should be stricken", but I can't cite the grammatical rule. Just in case you want to actually propose such a change. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Eh. I just went ahead and boldly changed it. I've not actually heard any objections, so won't bother making a formal proposal unless it's controversial. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Reverted by edit.[1] ―Mandruss ☎ 05:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. NewsAndEventsGuy opened a thread about it on the talk page here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

HeeHee

Hi M. I figured that this was a misclick. I sometimes think that we could write a lyric to this tune along the lines of

misclick misclick

crazy little misclicks

misclick misclick

drives me nuts - dumb

On the plus side your edits gave me a chance to stop by and say hello. Cheers and enjoy the week ahead. MarnetteD|Talk 23:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I have always hated rollback for that reason, and in fact I had it disabled - but when I became an admin it came with the package. Anyhow, thanks for the jingle and I hope I don't need to sing it too often! --MelanieN (talk) 23:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome. For me the main culprit is the screen jump that happens for no sound reason just as I click my mouse. Grrr :-). Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 23:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Nice work adding "material" back into article

Hi MelanieN, Nice work. Do you know when that "material" was added to the Trump article? Didn't think so. So editor boldly adds garbage to article. Another editor removes it while discussion about it starts. You re add it. Ok. --Malerooster (talk) 22:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it was added four days ago. (5/24 at 00:35, by my reckoning) You removed it today, while extensive discussion is already underway, and "remove the material" is not one of the options under discussion; people are simply polishing the wording. Based on that discussion, keeping it in the article appears to have consensus; the only disagreement is exactly how to word it. YMMV. --MelanieN (talk) 22:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

It was added 5/23 by Signedzzz here. Then modified a few times today after a second source was added not long after original insertion. PackMecEng (talk) 23:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

You see it as 5/23 (probably at 11:35 PM), I see it as 5/24 (at half past midnight). I've noticed that about WP times, it may be a matter of your preference settings or mine. Call it four days or five as you prefer. Either way it was added at that time, by Signedzzz, and a second source was added shortly thereafter. Nobody objected to its inclusion at the time. It was the modifications (one of which I made) that called it to my attention, as needing work on the exact wording. I started a discussion about that in an attempt to head off any edit warring. --MelanieN (talk) 00:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Clearly Wikipedia should use US central time for everything, none of that left coast nonsense. Mostly just wanted to give the link to it. PackMecEng (talk) 00:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

No good deed goes unpunished. PackMecEng (talk) 15:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Couldn't resist...

In response to this diff and the confusion of others.

"It's About Time"

If you lose track of time, and don't know the hour, That you posted a comment, it may make you sour, At the UTC expanded in plain text, Leaving you confused over what to do next. Just ask Ritchie333, he's the one with the key, To fix your clock the way it should be. So if your clock doesn't work, and you don't know why, You just need a hand from the clock-fixing guy. Atsme📞📧 01:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey, MY clock works just fine. It's PackMecEng's clock that's messed up! 0;-D . Thanks for the poem! --MelanieN (talk) 03:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Mine did, too - I just didn't know how to read it. Ritch fixed something, and I still don't know how to read it. I look at times on a TP, but when I try to find them in view history, the times are different. I really don't have the time for this... ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Revdel?

Hi,

Do you reckon that this and this need to be revdelled? I don't think I've ever seen the likes of it before! Adam9007 (talk) 02:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Holy crap - yes. I've nuked it from orbit. SQL^{Query me!} 02:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you. --MelanieN (talk) 14:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Spirit Airlines Response

Hello!

Thanks for taking a look at everything. I work for a different airline (regional not affiliated with Spirit) and have mainly made contributions to aviation related topics I am knowledgeable about. I removed those sections because when compared to articles such as United Airlines or American Airlines for example, there is no section for things of that nature and felt that it was biased due to the airlines reputation. Plenty of people despise them but why would information such as that be acceptable for Spirit Airlines but not with others? Just seemed unfair.

I didn't feel the information presented was acceptable since legacies have had their fair share of mishaps and that information is consistently removed from their articles. It appears biased from my point of view. For example in the about section at the top of the page "In recent years Spirit has been embattled by a number of class action lawsuits and punitive actions by the US DOT, including allegations related to deceptive advertising practices[4], the airline's non-ticket passenger fee policies[5], data security[6], and handling of complaints by customers with disabilities. [7]" appears but when visiting any other airlines wiki that information would be irrelevant and does not represent the company. It's vague and if it was retained shouldn't be the representation of the airline in it's entirity.

If that was the case someone could go into United Airlines and state "The company employs over 86,000[18] people while maintaining its headquarters in Chicago's Willis Tower.[19] Through the airline's parent company, United Continental Holdings, it is publicly traded under NYSE: UAL with a market capitalization of over US$21 billion as of January 2018.[20]

They have been embattled with many lawsuits throughout the previous several years including incidents related to passengers being forcibly removed from aircraft and multiple instances of animals dying" obviously more thorough if posted but I'm sure you get the jist.

I have other ideas but would like to know why it's acceptable for those edits to exist on Spirit Airlines but are not listed with other airlines in the United States first and foremost, as well as why the about section would be deemed professional considering the comparison to other airlines?

I just want the website that everyone goes to, to be balanced, fair, and educational.

Thank you for your response in advance. Angryfa (talk) 20:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

You also inserted inaccuracies back into the article such as bases that don't exist for example. Am I allowed to revert before we come to an agreement? (I'm still newer to contributing and want to make sure I'm following the rules) Thanks. Angryfa (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely - about the bases. I noticed you had removed them but I didn't know why but obviously you have knowledge I don't have. Let me look at the other issues you raised and I'll get back to you. --MelanieN (talk) 22:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Angryfa: OK, you make some good points. For starters, I agree it’s WP:UNDUE to mention the lawsuits and such in the lede paragraph, and I will delete it. That kind of thing is only done with really horrible companies like Trump University. Also, if we are going to mention a lawsuit or incident in the text, I think it should have at least two sources to show that it really did attract significant coverage, so I will evaluate them and I will remove anything where I can’t find a second source. Sound fair?

Now about your comparisons to other articles: Wikipedia articles are not all alike - they depend on who has added what material to them. And problems with an article cannot really be resolved by comparing with other articles, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. But looking at United for example, since you mentioned it: they don’t have much information about individual incidents and lawsuits because there are whole separate articles about their individual incidents , e.g. United Express Flight 3411 incident. American Airlines has a whole separate, highly detailed article, List of American Airlines accidents and incidents. Both United and American have multiple separate articles about accidents and crashes; I think Sprint can be glad they don’t have any of those!

Comparing it to other cut-rate airlines: Allegiant Air doesn’t have a controversies and lawsuits section, but maybe it should: I see there was a “60 Minutes” report last month that criticized them heavily.[2] It looks as if no-one has tried to add info about it to the article, but it was heavily enough reported to deserve a mention. Let me think about that. Frontier Airlines doesn’t have a controversies and lawsuits section, but that's probably appropriate; I couldn’t find much in a search.

So, let me get to work on this and then we can talk some more. --MelanieN (talk) 00:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

"Your haughty scolding"

MelanieN it was clearly, both by the indented format and the timing of the content directed at @Mandruss: who took a rather bizarre tone in his response to my straightforward comment there. Needless to say, when you (MelanieN) use words like "haughty scolding" to refer to something in the context of conceding that you don't understand what it is or to whom it's addressed you are not helping to sustain the tone of the talk page. Mandruss took a rather sharp tone. I ignored the tone and replied to his concern. We both realized there was a misunderstanding and it was over. Until you (MelanieN) decided to go haughty-tone. Which is undue and too bad. SPECIFICO talk 21:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

My tone was not unduly "sharp" under the circumstances, and "it was over" only because I refrained from escalating that further than you already had. I had already backed off the statement[3] prior to your scolding for it. I will have no further comment on this. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You were talking to MANDRUSS? OK, I can see how it relates to the indenting and to your “case closed” comment. But it’s hard for me to see his comments as anything but straightforward, especially when he withdrew them after your reaction. But you took his comment as “instant arousal to an indignant and insistent tone”? and chose to scold him for his comments even after he had graciously withdrawn them? OK, well, that’s hard for me to follow but I apologize for the misunderstanding. --MelanieN (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

No. As I think I made clear, I graciously ignored his nasty tone for the purpose of straightening out the essential issue which was not his nasty tone by rather the DS wording. So that's why my reminder to him came after he withdrew. And here he's making it sound as if he withdrew and apologized for his snippy tone, which of course he did not. At any rate thank you Melanie for your quick, friendly resolution to his molehill. As you know, I've admired your ability to craft clear NPOV language that has resolved several tough issues in the Trump article recently. SPECIFICO talk 22:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Archive 40

←

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50