Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MelanieN (talk | contribs) at 04:49, 26 November 2017 (→BLP). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

January 2010 to June 2012. July to December 2012. January to June 2013. July to December 2013. January 2014 to June 2014. July to December 2014. January 2015. February 2015. March 2015. April 2015. May 2015. June 2015. July 2015. August 2015. September 2015. October 2015. November 2015. December 2015. January 2016. February 2016. March 2016. April 2016. May 2016. June 2016. July 2016. August 2016. September 2016. October 2016. November 2016. December 2016. January 2017. February 2017. March 2017. April 2017. May 2017. June 2017. July 2017.

My press

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

Oh, and again here (at the bottom). Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow, and here it is again in a separate story about the same issue. Think I'm notable yet? 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

ANI Notification (historic)

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

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

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

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

AN Notification (historic)

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

Recent RfCs on US city names

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Heart Barnstar
		We've never interacted on Misplaced Pages, but I've come across your contributions multiple times, and I'm always impressed by your civility, empathy, and ability to assume good faith. When I saw on your talk page that you're a fellow Stanford-ite (Cardinal? Tree-hugger? I've never figured out what we're supposed to call ourselves), I thought that I should drop by your talk page and say hi. I'm very glad there are administrators like you on Misplaced Pages. SaAnKe 17:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, SaAnKe, how nice! I hope you have the Stanford article watchlisted, it needs attention from time to time. (Maybe we should just call ourselves Robber Barons - which the student body wanted for a mascot but the administration wouldn't allow?) --MelanieN (talk) 17:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Oh, I see you are a chemist! That was my major too. Have they ever figured out what to do with the old chemistry building, or is it still standing empty? --MelanieN (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll make sure to add it to my watchlist. (It's a pity the Robber Barons idea never got further off the ground; I think the student body could have really gotten creative with it.) As for Old Chem, they renovated the inside and renamed it "The Sapp Center for Science Teaching and Learning." It's a really nice facility, but the downside for the Chemistry Department is that they have to share it with the Biology Department. I'll link some pictures in case you're interested in seeing what it looks like now. SaAnKe 19:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, that's good to know! --MelanieN (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Precious four years!

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Disappointed in you

MealanieN, I salute you for your dedication and volunteer efforts on WP, but I think your last comment at firing of Comey was unconstructive, and surprisingly so for an Admin. You appeared to ignore, or at least do not appear to have replied to my clearly stated objections that were met with the snarky response from JFG that you, intentionally or not, endorsed with your last comment. I think you can do better. No need to reply, I just think you can do better. The current version of the lede represents an agreement among a small number of editors who did not wait for broader participation and is, whether you agree or not, POV in the ways that I stated in clear direct, policy-based terms. If there were broad RS narratives saying the stuff I contested, then you or anyone else who agreed to that new lede could simply have cited the sources to move the discussion forward. SPECIFICO talk 00:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, we go back a long way and I don't want to be in disagreement with you. But I still don't know what you want changed. You initially mentioned the "Comey under pressure" sentence and the "Rosenstein memo" sentence. You apparently found them to be problematic. But since then you just keep repeating "POV" and similar acronyms - and you still haven't said (and apparently refuse to say) what it is you want to see done to the article. Do you think those sentences should be deleted? Reworded? Some additional material added? You have given us no clue. Believe me, I want to work with you on this. It's always been my observation that disagreements can get resolved very quickly if people will just focus on proposed wording and not generalities. Would you be willing to try that approach? --MelanieN (talk) 02:19, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Melanie, I still believe that (however concisely) I made it very clear on the talk page -- and apparently it was clear to at least one other savvy&seasoned NPOV editor who corrected the text -- that stating in WP's voice the false and later disavowed Trump assertion that he fired Comey a) due to then-contemporaneous public opinion against Comey (citing a reference from 5+months prior to the event) and b) the statement widely debunked in RS accounts that anyone at the Justice Dept. initiated that memo -- as if, per the new lede it were based on professional evaluation of Comey's performance rather than the implied threat of dismissal by Trump -- are not NPOV, do not reflect the WEIGHT of RS sourcing, and fail Verification. Now, there are editors who pay less attention to broad mainstream reporting and more attention to, shall we say, alternative views and narratives that are easily accessible on the internet (regardless of their source) and frequently on well-designed sites that by any standard of graphic design and user interface appear to be very solid indeed. But that's why WP has the policies that this rewritten lede so clearly ignored. Moreover as I know you are aware, most editors, including many active and thoughtful recent editors of the American Politics articles such as @Volunteer Marek: the one who corrected part of the lede do not sleep with a computer under the pillow and actually didn't even have a chance to comment before the quick "consensus" for the POV rewrite. Finally, it was not well-written English -- another sign that it happened hasty. SPECIFICO talk 14:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to take this to the article talk page where I will summarize what I think you said. Then let's talk about it there. --MelanieN (talk) 23:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Trump

Fair enough. My approach was to let those sleeping dogs lie, after one of them showed a tendency to anger easily, while claiming that the "prior consensus required" clause can be ignored because it was recently discussed with limited participation and the result of that discussion was unclear. We certainly didn't need to invite that battleground mentality and baseless argument into article talk, only to spend valuable editor time defeating it. I fully understand and respect your good intentions. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't clear to me if the dogs were sleeping, or simply waiting for 24 hours to pass so they could revert again. I'm familiar with 1RR gaming. As I said at the page, I always prefer to head off potential trouble if possible - whether by page protection, or a warning, or whatever - rather than end up with people getting sanctioned or blocked. Hope you are right that all is quiet now. One of them seems disinclined to discuss, which leaves them with the only other option - namely, dropping it. --MelanieN (talk) 02:33, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Good point as to 1RR. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Protection on Heather O'Rourke

Can you extend the protection to at least two weeks, to encourage our IP editors to stay away from vandalising? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 05:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, Paul Benjamin Austin. We always try to make the degree of protection be proportionate to the length and seriousness of the problem. In this case, there had been only a few disputed edits and only in the past few days, so I gave it a relatively short protection. If problems resume after it expires, we can look at it again. I see that you did add some wording to the link to explain why you think it is relevant, and that is helpful - but if including it continues to be controversial, I would hope that you and User:Farolif would lay out your reasoning on the talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't care much about whether the reference to Judith Barsi is included, I was just including a possible reason why that editor had added her. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

It was me who added the 'See also' item about Barsi. The deletions were done by the dual-IP editor who left a negative message on my talk page last night, then received a separate warning for it (User talk:47.148.147.81). I agree with Paul's suggestion to extend the protection at this time. Farolif (talk) 00:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

We do not protect proactively. Let's wait and see what happens when the protection expires. --MelanieN (talk) 00:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

P.S. If there are any additional inappropriate edits to your talk page, the page can be protected. Let me know if it happens again. --MelanieN (talk) 00:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

POV Russian edits?

While you're at it, could you have a look at the edits that immediately precede your recent restoration of content in Russian interference? This appears to be a Single Purpose Account and the individual edits don't appear to sustain due weight or NPOV. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, it is wildly inappropriate for you to call Axxxion a WP:SPA—Axxxion has made over 6,000 edits since 2009 to a vast range of articles, thus your comment here is little more than an inaccurate insult. Please review WP:AGF and WP:NPA. You should also be more careful with your offhand references to "Russian edits"; while I am sure that that is merely your shorthand for Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, in light of a recent incident in which you were criticized by several editors for heavily implying that JFG may be a "Russian troll" (and your refusal to apologize to JFG after Objective3000 urged you to do so, stating "I was uncomfortable with your attachment of JFG to some sort of conspiracy"), cavaliar allusions to "Russians" or even "Russian edits" could easily be misinterpreted. After all, while not an WP:SPA, Axxxion clearly is interested in several Russia–related topics. Thanks for your consideration,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Los Angeles bid for the 2024 Summer Olympics

It's been a week since you move-protected that article, and it looks like only DrMargi wants things at the current title. Me, Jmj, PhilipTerryGraham and SuperNintendoChalmers want it as both 2024 and 2028; two IPs want it at 2028 only. I'd have to say consensus is in favor of 2024 and 2028. Would you be kind enough to make the move? pbp 01:19, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Purple, the move protection expired yesterday. The title should be decided on, and implemented, by the regular users at the article. --MelanieN (talk) 02:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

For the record...

If you actually take a look at my contribs, you'll notice I swear a lot less when I'm getting annoyed. A lot. For instance, I dare you to find a swear word in this comment.

Your claim about it being a diatribe is completely and obviously wrong: I literally encouraged Thuc to stop using a poor argument (and explained what was wrong with it) to refute a stance I'd explicitly stated multiple times that I wasn't taking by suggesting that they were more than capable of using a better argument. When I explain something multiple times to a person, I expect them to understand it. I assumed Thuc got, and wasn't seriously incapable of coming up with something better, and explicitly said so in order to frame my judgements as being judgements of the argument, not the editor. Which, I've been given to understand, is something we're actively encouraged to do around here.

Now, if you want to critique my word choice and say I could have said it better without using charged words like "idiot" and "moronic", that's a fair point. But don't tell me it was a diatribe just because you couldn't be bothered to look past my choice of words to the actual meaning they conveyed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I said what I said and I stand by it. I haven't seen this kind of thing from you before so I assume it was an aberration. (Hint: yes, using words like "idiot and "moronic" does tend to distract from the meaning you are trying to convey.) --MelanieN (talk) 17:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I would concur with what GoldenRing said: "Tone it down." --MelanieN (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I think he directed that equally at Thuc and Darouet, unless I missed part of the festivities there. When editors shop to Admins instead of an open forum like AE where a broad consensus can be achieved, it always feels a bit itchy to me. SPECIFICO talk 17:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Look again. It was specifically directed to Pants, followed by a general "go away" comment addressed to "the rest of you" (which I believe included you, SPECIFICO). --MelanieN (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Did I say it didn't include me? Oh. Did I go back for another helping of snark and recrimination against the innocent Admin? Oh. These things need to go to the AE venue, not under the radar to cherrypick Admins. Otherwise, why have WP noticeboards? Of course, if more Admins patrolled like in the good old daze... SPECIFICO talk 19:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

1RR

Please keep in mind that 1RR applies at the dismissal article. You appear to have transgressed it:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dismissal_of_James_Comey&type=revision&diff=794710066&oldid=794709486

• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dismissal_of_James_Comey&type=revision&diff=794708149&oldid=794706498

If you agree that 1RR has been violated, you can easily remedy the situation by reverting one of these edits. Thanks. If you decide to revert the second one, then I can edit to reflect that it was under his tenure as we discussed. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Um, yes, I reverted your addition at 17:16 on August 9, and I made some edits (slight changes in wording, but OK, call it a revert) at 17:29 on August 9, ten minutes later. 1RR, like WP:3RR, defines a revert as "An edit or a series of consecutive edits". That was a series of consecutive edits. So, no, there was no violation. --MelanieN (talk) 19:02, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Obviously, there was an intervening edit by someone other than yourself, between the two diffs identified above. You think "consecutive" means "consecutive edits by yourself only"? I'm trying to be nice here, by letting you fix this. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

IMO "consecutive edits" means edits during a single editing session. Well, looking again I am mistaken about that; the rule says "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." I think that's kind of stupid for an actively edited article like this (does that mean you have to keep interrupting yourself to check the history? Does that mean that as long as you are the only editor doing anything you can keep reverting all day long?) but I will revert the second edit. --MelanieN (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

If you get the rule changed, I'd be glad to follow whatever the new rule is (provided it doesn't require self-immolation!). Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, you offered to restore the edits I reverted, but I don't think you can. You made several reverts yourself on August 9, at 3:05 and then as recently 15:36. (There were no intervening edits so you were OK to make two reverts 12 hours apart; see why I say the rule is stupid?) But it looks to me like you've got to wait. Live by the rules, die by the rules. --MelanieN (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Melanie, you reverted the First of the two edits listed above (they are not in chronological order). If you had reverted the second, then I would be entitled to further edit what I myself wrote. Got it? Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I made my first reversion at 17:16. That was the one where I removed your added phrase that I objected to. That reversion stands. I intended for that undiscussed addition to be removed from the lede, and IMO it should not be restored until consensus is reached at the talk page. I self-reverted the slight tweaks I made to the article body at 17:28 and 17:29, after an intervening edit had rendered them technically invalid. --MelanieN (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

So let's close this discussion now? Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Yep. Looks like we are both forbidden from changing anything in the article except what we added ourselves. --MelanieN (talk) 19:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Indian universities the 3rd

Good morning! Hope you enjoyed your holidays, for Indian cellphone spam is back to haunt you :) Could you please semi the following four, which have just been hit: Sharda University, Swami Rama Himalayan University, KIIT School of Technology, C. V. Raman College of Engineering, Bhubaneshwar. Thank you! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Done. Interesting - the first three had not been hit before, or at least not enough to attract protection. I have this horrible feeling that they are never going to run out of Indian universities to spam. --MelanieN (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Clown town

Special:Diff/794950317

Noted. --MelanieN (talk) 02:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry I forgot to sign. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

A pie for you!

I thank you very much for your edit, by deleting the User boxes which were created under the user name 'The Raven's Apprentice' Sushn345wiki (talk) 10:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for the pie. (Apple, I hope!) --MelanieN (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Revert meaning...

Here SPECIFICO talk 00:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Read it all. Don't know any more than I did before. --MelanieN (talk) 04:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

It was, disappointingly not resolved there. I think the big picture point is that the language in WP:3RR and WP:1RR, while it is very strict, does provide a simple bright-line test that can be applied without getting into any content disputes or nuances unknown to the editors and admins who work the AN boards. Yes, sometimes an edit may truly be a copyedit or a revision of longstanding content, but there's no harm waiting a few hours to make such edits. Are some "good" edits caught as false positives in some sense? Perhaps. But the same is true under any purely behavioral definition of such a rule. But the alternative is to open the door to what we see today -- forum shopping, Admin-shopping for one or the other interpretation, and tenuous or disingenuous claims that this or that edit is a copy edit improvement when it is instead an insinuation of some new POV meaning into the text. This is a big problem for so basic a definition not to have been addressed in a way that everyone understands and accepts. I hope you'll not give this one bit of thought until you're back from holiday. SPECIFICO talk 16:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Sheesh

You again?! :D

Ok, welcome back. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I could leave again, if you prefer. 0;-D But there'd be no point - the eclipse is over. --MelanieN (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Where were you? We traveled 400 miles to the totality but it was obscured by clouds. The darkness was cool though, and it was an excuse for a small family gathering. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:28, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

We had planned to view it from Alliance, Nebraska - but noticed a few days ahead of time the forecast for thunderstorms there, so went to Douglas, Wyoming instead. Found a beautiful state park a few miles out of town. Open fields, plentiful parking, no crowds, beautiful view of the complete corona just like the pictures in the books, 11-year-old relative dancing and literally screaming for joy at the sight - all was great except for the 10-hour traffic jam trying to get out of there. I'm told the population of Wyoming tripled for that day, then they all tried to leave at the same time. --MelanieN (talk) 16:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Glad that worked out for you. Campground at a lake north of Kansas City, Missouri. In a rented monster RV that we (I) drove that 800 miles round trip. There must be something on the web by now that shows at a glance how much was visible along the entire path of totality. Maybe I'll find the time to go look for that. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what to call this thread

Hi there,

Sorry to bother you with this nonsense. You have been involved in the relevant discussions, and I don't know who else to ask. I don't know if you saw the notices on my talk page, but it's difficult for me to have a gay time here with certain things hanging over me. A while ago I said I might write an essay, and I'm finally getting around to doing so (it's not finished yet), but I fear it might backfire and have the opposite effect to what was intended. I've tried to word it in a neutral and non-accusatory way, but have a queer feeling that there's no such thing as being careful enough here (I don't want to give names or point fingers). Do I appear rude or offensive anywhere? Have I inadvertently committed a BLP violation or made a personal attack? (I can't provide links without revealing names, which I don't want to do for obvious reasons) Have I written a load of drivel? Was this a bad idea in the first place? I cannot shake off the feeling someone will look at this and decide I'm throwing my toys out of my pram. And that probably will be the last straw for me. Nor would it be the first time my naïveté caused me trouble.

Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 03:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Adam, thanks for the note. I think you know what my advice is going to be - what I have been saying consistently for months now: Let A7 go. Let speedy tagging go. A7 may be imperfect, but stop trying to fix it. That issue has brought you nothing but grief and frustration. Your talk page used to be full of people yelling at you and arguing with you about speedy tags. Your talk page now is full of collaboration and compliments. Enjoy that. Clearly what you are doing now is working - helping the encyclopedia and hopefully giving you satisfaction. Keep doing that. Reviving the A7 arguments is likely to bring back the hassles that brought you to the brink of quitting so many times. I'm sure you felt some satisfaction, some catharsis in writing this essay - spelling out once again how you interpret A7 and how upset it makes you to see people not taking its criteria as literally as you do. But don't try to make any more of it than that.

To answer your specific questions: No, the essay is not neutral and doesn't try to be. (You could retitle it something like "problems with A7" instead of "Why I hate A7" if you are trying for neutrality. But it doesn't have to be neutral; it's a personal essay.) You have not given names or pointed fingers. You do not appear rude or offensive. You have not accused anyone personally or committed any BLP violations (anyhow BLP refers to articles about people; you meant to say NPA). It's not a load of drivel. But frankly, yes, it was probably a bad idea in the first place. I don't know "what you intended" in writing this essay, except to get it off your chest, but it very well could backfire depending on what you do with it.

The essay is in userspace and you are certainly free to express your feelings there. As long as you just let it stand as an expression of your feelings, and you don't try to use it in any way to go back to the CSD wars that made your life so unpleasant, I think you could keep it if you like. But I strongly advise you against calling attention to it, or trying to get other people's feedback on it, or worse yet using it as a rough draft for an attempt to get A7 rewritten or clarified. That is an issue that has caused nothing but trouble for you. Don't borrow trouble. Don't go there.

You asked my opinion, and I have always given it to you in complete frankness. The above advice does not in any way take away from the fact that I like you and always have. I really, really don't want you to go back to the frustration and unhappiness that this issue has always brought you in the past. I want to see you continue to do productive work and get praised for it, as seems to be the case nowadays. And I want to see the "feeling discouraged" and "considering retirement" banners permanently gone from your page. --MelanieN (talk) 15:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. It's just that I can avoid A7 like the plague and pretend it doesn't exist, but that doesn't change the fact that it does exist, and is all around me. Someone might also look at it and simply give their feedback, and it would probably not be the sort I want to hear. As for BLP violations, I thought BLP policy applied to every page? (that said, I suppose my user page is full of BLP violations: I'm 27; I'm asexual; I play Dungeon Keeper; I play Theme Hospital etc. None of that's sourced.) I also suppose that perhaps it shouldn't be neutral, as it's hard to effectively express if it was (that said, perhaps you're right about the title. I suppose it drew too much inspiration from Misplaced Pages:Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, which is a rather different essay. The combination of the title and content could be seen as an attack, even if neither are independently.). I also mention bullying. Although "I have been bullied" is different to "X editor bullied me", some may see it as an accusation (albeit an implicit one) without evidence, and therefore a personal attack, even though I mention no names. On reflexion, I suppose the purpose is because my tuppence needs to be said somewhere, and of course the "safest" place is in my userspace (my other essay is also strictly speaking my 2p, but that's about a slightly different (although closely related) matter). As for writing the encyclopaedia, I have outstanding GANs, and GA and FA targets, but even if I meet them all (which I probably won't ), would that give me any joy? It should, but it's happened many times before so the novelty and satisfaction are starting to wear off, and past events may come back to haunt me. I fear that will never wear off. Adam9007 (talk) 22:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, I guess NPA could be construed as equivalent to BLP, because "The BLP policy also applies to user and user talk pages. The single exception is that users may make any claim they wish about themselves in their user space." So relax, your userpage is in the clear! 0;-D And your essay doesn't make any personal attacks that I can see, although you do have some sections that are clearly attempts to revive an old argument where you are sure you were right and the other person was wrong. A natural human urge, but generally not very constructive. However, it's unlikely that the other person will read your essay, recognize themselves, and take offense. As you said, you are entitled to have your say, and your userspace is the perfect place to do it. As long as you let it go at that - and don't try to use it to renew the battles.

I wish I knew (I wish YOU knew) why you are so drawn to this subject, which has caused you so much stress. And I'm sorry to hear that you are already at the point of been-there-done-that-ho-hum with GA and even FA. Really? If so, why not create a few more new articles? That always gives me a great feeling of satisfaction (and sadly I am doing less new article creation since becoming an admin - probably no more than two or three this year). Or find rescuable articles and fix them; I rescued several from PROD and CSD, just yesterday. Note that "rescuing" doesn't mean just removing the tag or (in my case) declining the PROD/CSD; it means improving and referencing the article to the point where everybody recognizes it as meeting WP criteria (for example, proving that a person is a member of a legislature, or that a "populated place" actually exists). Definitively rescuing something is highly satisfying. I guess what I am saying is, look for ways to enjoy improving Misplaced Pages that don't involve speedy tagging! --MelanieN (talk) 23:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong: I do get satisfaction from GAs (don't know about FAs as I've never got an article to that level yet), but it's not quite the same as the first few times. I mean, all that really happens is there's a nice badge on the page, and I put a record of it on my user page. Before long, I'm back to my previous gaiety and wondering what to do next. I like succeeding where others have failed (such as this ), which is why MediEvil is a FA target of mine, though I dare say the satisfaction won't be as much as, say, Ridge Racer Revolution (not that that's likely to be a FA ), which I had got to GA all the way from stub. I do create articles, but they take forever to get reviewed (there's around 5 month gap between the creation of Dungeon Keeper (2014 video game) and it being marked as reviewed!), and I'm waiting for 2 of my articles to be reviewed. I also generally write about subjects I'm at least somewhat familiar with, and I can't think of many (one, but with the level of sourcing I currently have, it's possible it won't survive an AfD. I need to wait and see what happens to my current two outstanding ones first) that don't already have articles off the top of my head. Another problem is finding the time to do it: I often find that creating or expanding an article takes all day, if not longer, even if I have planned it beforehand. Same with posting these comments (albeit they don't quite take "all day"). It's also not often I find something I'm knowledgeable enough in to rescue. Adam9007 (talk) 00:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

RE: It's also not often I find something I'm knowledgeable enough in to rescue. Well, that's the beauty of Misplaced Pages: you don't have to be knowledgeable about a subject to rescue its article. What do I know about Indian villages, or members of the state assembly of Jammu and Kasmir? Pretty much nothing, but I know how to do a Google search (also known as WP:BEFORE). Those are still stubs and they are not beautiful, but they meet WP criteria for being here. And thanks for cleaning up after me at Vatnik (slang). See, I bet you didn't know anything about that meme either - but you knew enough to search for and find better sources!

Anyhow, you wrote your essay and you can keep polishing it. People who lurk your page or mine can read it and understand where you are coming from. (Well, they can if you correct the link here!) My advice is simply, let it go at that - don't promote it, don't follow up with attempts to improve A7, and do find things that you enjoy doing and have time for. Sorry to hear you are still having to wait for your articles to be reviewed. Write another dozen or so articles, and I (or anyone) can give you autopatrolled status. --MelanieN (talk) 16:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

you don't have to be knowledgeable about a subject to rescue its article Now I come to think of it, I suppose that, for my GAs, I wasn't that knowledgeable about the subject when I set out to make them GAs: it wasn't until I obtained the sources that I became familiar with the games' development and reception. And you're right: I'd never heard of that meme until I came across it here. Maybe I'm better at searching than I thought? On another website, I gained something of a reputation for using Google (as well as their own search functions) to find shedload after shedload after shedload of spam that nobody knew was there, and much of it had been there for years (maybe I ought to get back to that sometime?). Shame the same technique won't work here . As for rescuing articles, I suppose the reason I'm hesitant to rescue articles is because I'm afraid they'll be deleted before I manage to do anything, so my efforts would have been in vain. Adam9007 (talk) 23:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Grant Cardone

Hi Melanie. I wonder if you'd consider reinstating the protection on this article. As you can see, the exact same type of disruption has resumed. Rivertorch_WATER 16:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think it's quite to that point yet, but I'll keep an eye on it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, it happened again, and 22 hours elapsed before I found it. I haven't warned the IP because it appears to change daily. Rivertorch_WATER 03:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I did see that. I didn't take action because I didn't see it as actual vandalism; I have trouble understanding what the difference is between your version and his (aside from his removing the tags, of course). He seems to mainly rearrange things rather than change what they say; is it the addition of a Scientology reference that you object to? Anyhow, after that second change I began to consider PC protection or semi, depending on frequency. I'd like to wait to see if it happens a third time before imposing anything. --MelanieN (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC) P.S. Forgive me for not taking action immediately, but we are encouraged to be conservative in the use of page protection.--MelanieN (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad of that; I just wanted to make sure you saw it. (I don't know about you, but I sometimes miss things in plain sight even when I'm looking for them. Time to trim the watchlist again!) About the edit: yes, the Scientology source is problematic, so is the primary source above it in the diff, the new wording seems vaguely promotional here and there, and then there's the repeated removal of maintenance tags without explanation. I suspect there's COI at work here, but if they'd be more communicative I imagine it could be resolved. Per EW I'm not going to revert again. Rivertorch_WATER 16:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

As you saw, I eventually did protect it. I also took it to Afd - kind of the ultimate form of page protection! --MelanieN (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I did see. (In the meantime, I had made a request at RPP because I didn't want to bother you again.) Good call on Afd. As you probably noticed, I've already !voted for deletion. I knew the sourcing was subpar, but I hadn't checked closely enough to see that basic notability wasn't even there. By the way, I read the Village Voice piece you linked. Sadly, that's about the most reliable source I've seen on the topic. Rivertorch_WATER 20:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

LOL, that's what I thought too - and it was somewhere between an op-ed piece and a poison-pen diatribe! --MelanieN (talk) 22:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Wood: semi 3 days

Oh god. Not... Not the most carefully considered edit summary ever. TimothyJosephWood 22:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Uhh... sorry, I don't get it. Color me clueless. My standard format for saying that I protected something and for how long. I take it there is some double meaning that escapes me? --MelanieN (talk) 22:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC) P.S. I do know that "wood" has a slang meaning - I'm not THAT naive - but I don't see how combining it with "semi 3 days" is a problem. Hey stalkers - do YOU get it? --MelanieN (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Nope . I didn't know "wood" has a slang meaning, so you're not as naïve as I am. From a Google search, maybe it has something to do with wooden lorries? But I'm really just wildly guessing. Adam9007 (talk) 23:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I... Both "wood" and "semi" are colloquial terms for ... "states of being" of "male anatomy". TimothyJosephWood 23:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah all the mornings I've spent in barracks with 50 other soldiers waking up to 50 versions of "Morning, Wood". You know, but without the comma. TimothyJosephWood 23:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Is this a new admin tool? Irondome (talk) 23:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

(e.c. x 3) ::(talk page stalker) As someone who sees double entendres almost everywhere I look, and as someone who is far from naive about wood of various persuasions, I have to say I don't get it. OK, I did think of that, but it seemed far-fetched. Rivertorch_WATER 23:23, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Alright. No, it's confirmed. My wife got the joke. TimothyJosephWood 23:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, I just typed "wood semi" into Google, and got a load of waffle. Hence my guess. Adam9007 (talk) 23:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

You're lucky that's all you got a load of. Just sayin'.--Jezebel's Ponyo 23:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Waffle? No, it couldn't be. Rivertorch_WATER 23:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. "Wood" I was familiar with. Never heard "semi" in that sense before. Always learning new things at Misplaced Pages. And they say it's not educational here! 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 23:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ponyo Yeah, it was all Semi Solid Wood Flooring, Semi Hollow Wooden Guitars, Semi Trailers for Wood transport, models of wooden lorries etc, none of which seemed to have any relevance. Adam9007 (talk) 23:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Urban dictionary is your friend. TimothyJosephWood 23:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Urban Dictionary says "Gaiety" means homosexuality and "Gaily" means "Gay on a daily basis", which I'm pretty sure are not true. Adam9007 (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I totally agree Mind you, some would pay for a 3 day semi. I suggest we now put this thread out of it's misery. Irondome (talk) 23:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

RAISE Act

If you have a spare moment, can you look at recent edits to RAISE Act? I ask because you have edited the article in the past and I respect your opinion. An infrequent editor, Ecopedia, has inserted material that I view as quite clearly SYNTH and POV. Myself and FallingGravity have both expressed concerns/objections. We have both commented on article talk (and I have additionally posted on the editor's talk page), but the editor has failed to respond and has reverted to re-include the material three times. Can you take a look? Thanks. Neutrality 23:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I see that they have already reached 3RR. I gave them a template warning and will keep an eye on the situation. Interesting - that user hadn't edited for three years, and their only previous edits were to create an article about an anti-immigration organization. Clearly here to promote a POV. You've started a discussion on the talk page, hopefully they will go there to discuss. --MelanieN (talk) 14:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, MelanieN. Before your message, above, a question was sent to Neutrality on whether the objection was based on the lack of relevance for the NAS study in 2016. The research would appear to be directly relevant to the RAISE Act as it diminishes the labor impact inflicted on the underprivileged American worker. If the objection is based on the form of including the NAS research in this Misplaced Pages site, then perhaps we should work on developing the proper language. Thank you. Ecopedia (talk) 14:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, Ecopedia. "Developing the proper language" is exactly what the article's talk page is for, and I hope you will engage there with the other editors and maybe come up with a mutually agreeable way to edit the article. Note that such discussion should be carried out at the article's talk page, rather than the talk page of one other editor. By using the article talk page, all of the involved editors (I believe there are now four - yourself and three others) can take part, and the discussion becomes part of the permanent history of the article. In the meantime, do be aware of the WP:3RR rule and don't reinsert your version into the article. As I warned you, that could lead to a temporary block of your ability to edit the encyclopedia. --MelanieN (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, again, MelanieN. The Talk icon at the top of the RAISE Act page does not seem to access the "article talk page." How is that area accessed?

Ecopedia, it works for me. It might have been some kind of temporary glitch. I'm glad to see you have taken your points to the talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, MelanieN. Clicking on the Talk option at the top of the RAISE Act page has consistently opened this page: "User talk:Ecopedia." This seems to be Ecopedia's page, not the "article talk page." Your suggestion in how to access the "article talk page" is valued. I am pleased to wordsmith this with other interested parties. Simply, Misplaced Pages's RAISE Act page misses the statute's point scoring system. This innovation of the proposed legislation has a long history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecopedia (talk • contribs) 15:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Ecopedia, all those links at the very top of the page are for your own use and refer to your own areas. The links at the very top of the page include your own user page, your own talk page, your sandbox, your preferences, etc. (BTW User talk:Ecopedia is not a talk page for something called Ecopedia; it is the talk page for YOU, where people can give you messages and you can reply. You are Ecopedia.) Links relating to the article are on a different line, right above the article's title. On the left, right next to the "article" link, is the "talk" link which is the article's talk page. You can see other links on that line, on the right, to edit the article, see its history, put it on your watchlist, etc. --MelanieN (talk) 18:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Self- closing html tags

Just a friendly reminder: When you use a named ref, you gotta be sure to close the tag(like so: <ref name=refName />), otherwise everything following the text until the next </ref> tag gets taken to be part of the ref. Or you can surround the tag in <nowiki></nowiki> tags. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I didn't actually mean for those to be references, just placeholders. I guess that was not a clear way to put it; I'll revise it. --MelanieN (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

And in return I have a suggestion for you, MPants: When you insert references on a talk page, please put some kind of template (such as {{reflist}} ) at the bottom of your edit to collect and display the references. Otherwise they go down to the bottom of the page where they get in the way and don't relate to the place where they were cited. My favorite template for listing them is {{sources-talk}}, which not only collects them at that location but also hides them in a "Sources" section so they are out of the way. You may note that I added that under your proposal. We are very busy cleaning up after each other here! 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 22:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I had every intention of doing exactly that, but I got caught up in my self righteous condemnation of your missing backslashes. ;) Thank you for adding it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

LOL, I love your attitude! We all have each other's backs here. --MelanieN (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

What's got into you M?

"...and SPECIFICO immediately started arguing with it..." at

That's just not the sequence of events. It's fine that you've lost track of my proposal and then lost track of the sequence of events or anything else. No problem, but what's with the personal disparagement? Not cool. I edited that bit because new reporting emerged. My edit was in the link I gave you. Then an edit-war ensued following which I, seeing the reverts, stated the issue on talk. I'm baffled as to what's got you so upset with me that it leaks through your otherwise sturdy contributions on that page. No need to reply. Just consider if you wish. Ciao. SPECIFICO talk 22:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm just having trouble figuring out what you are actually proposing. That IS the sequence of events in that thread. Anyhow, Anything started the thread by posting a version which (I think) is the version you are now proposing. Do I have that right? --MelanieN (talk) 22:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Anything was the one who reverted. Then somebody reinstated mine, then another passer-by reverted. Then the talk.

Anyway, my ongoing concern for all these articles is that we're too darn accomodating. We are splitting the baby and treating the highly motivated fringe WP editors as if their proportion on Misplaced Pages were somehow a proxy for the incidence of their views in public media and analysis. But in fact, WP has an undue concentration of ideologues and when a matter is split 50-50 on the talk page, that opinion is still 5-95 in RS accounts. It's just that we have highly motivated editors who like to share their views with us at the talk page. SPECIFICO talk 00:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

AGF Much?

Melanie, I have a problem with the way you've characterized the frank and honest discussion regarding Adam9007's behavior at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Adam9007 as "mean." That goes way beyond a lack of good faith on your part and frankly smacks of bad faith. I find it hard to characterize that discussion as mean. Yes, Adam has some pretty disruptive history. He needs to own it. Your attempt at sugar-coating reality for him and in the process smearing @Iridescent:, me, @Oknazevad:, @Nick: and @Scribolt: is not at all acceptable. Toddst1 (talk) 00:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

There's no other way to describe it than "mean". You're right, I'm not assuming good faith, because that's not what I saw. It's true that Adam is a user who creates a lot of problems. I sometimes get frustrated with him too. But the language in that discussion went way beyond his editing problems, into personal attacks of a particularly nasty kind. Not by everyone, but by three or four people. An offline commenter referred to that thread as "bullying" and I agree. And yes, I know he has "retired" a dozen times before. Maybe he will eventually get over his hurt and come back. But anyone would have been hurt to come upon that discussion, and Adam has personal reasons for being more easily hurt than most. --MelanieN (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, again, you're accusing some of the best admins and editors of improper behavior without any backup. What, specifically was a personal attack? Please provide diffs and explain why you think they were personal attacks. All I saw was a frank discussion of some well documented issues with a troubled editor and you making general disparaging remarks against the group in the discussion, which are personal attacks or at least aspersions, however vague. Toddst1 (talk) 03:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Todd, I agree that the people I scolded are actually good people and good editors. The problem with what they did is, they talked about Adam as they would in a private conversation among themselves; they forgot that he was almost certainly going to see what they said. In a private conversation people free to say things like "one of the most arrogant and objectionable people I've ever encountered on Misplaced Pages" and "complete pain in the ass." I seriously doubt (I hope not) that any of you would say things like that to the person's face. But in effect, that's what you were doing. Yes, several of you also pointed out that he does good work and that NOTHERE doesn't apply. That doesn't make the nasty attacks hurt less. I see that you are not accepting my scolding; OK, you don't have to, and I don't have any particular right to issue it. I am just hoping to call people's attention to the fact that anything they say on Misplaced Pages is almost certain to be read by the person involved. And hoping that the next time you folks feel like bashing a third party, you will keep in mind that you are in effect saying it to their face. --MelanieN (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else, but I would certainly say "one of the most arrogant and objectionable people I've ever encountered on Misplaced Pages" to Adam's face—as far as I'm concerned it's a straightforward statement of fact, and I say that as a former arb and as one of the admins who originally dealt with Grawp. (You'll note, I trust, that in the thread that started this I correctly identified Adam as the cause of the disruption just from a description of the disruption, despite his not being named and the article in question not being linked, since there's nobody else on Misplaced Pages who shares his "MOS:COMMONALITY does not apply to me" beliefs; it's not as if he's the representative of a group of people with a valid minority viewpoint. His refusal to follow this particular guideline—one of the few parts of the MOS with which everyone does agree—is particularly ironic, given that most of the issues about him in the past have stemmed from his demands that policies and guidelines be followed to the letter regardless of common-sense exceptions.) From my admittedly limited observations, everyone who's dealt with Adam eventually reaches a point where the AGF runs out. In my case it just about survived A7 and tourist attractions (in which Boing summed my views up better than I could) and finally ran out when he "accidentally" put a white supremacist userbox on his userpage and when I challenged him complained to you that I had "dragged my political views into it and used them against me", but everyone has their own limit.

If you sincerely believe that you can turn him around and that he's worth the effort of turning around (and you're not alone in that; I know Ritchie333 has in the past tried to nudge him towards ditching the disruption while keeping the constructive contributions) then I wish you luck and would love to see you succeed—Misplaced Pages could always use more editors, and I'm unaware of any issues he causes when he's not riding either the "it's not archaic it's traditional" or "keep, it exists" hobby-horses. That said, when he's wasting the time of substantial numbers of other people with whatever windmill he's tilting at at any given time the rest of Misplaced Pages isn't going to sit around indefinitely to watch; while I certainly won't be the one to file it I've warned him in the past that he's on a collision course with Arbcom, and eventually someone will lose patience with him. ‑ Iridescent 17:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. You are certainly not alone in having lost patience with him, and yes, his eccentricities are easily identified as his. I would have hoped your exasperation could have been expressed a little less personally - knowing he would see it. Even annoying people are still people, with feelings. --MelanieN (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I believe WP:NOTTHERAPY applies. Nobody is here to hurt Adam's feelings, but he has to own the reactions when he repeatedly pisses dozens of people off. If his feelings get hurt as a result of folks accurately describing his actions as being a "pain in the ass" or "BS" or "passive-aggressive, childish "I'm gonna quit" nonsense", I don't see why that is a problem. WP:CIR may apply as well.

My comment to him "Either quit, or change what you're doing here. And if you choose neither, ... many of us will seek long-overdue sanctions" in the diff above appears to be relevant once again. Toddst1 (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Sigh, there's a name I hoped I'd never encounter again (Adam9007, that is, not Iridescent!) That CSD:A7 thing was one of the most stubborn refusals to listen that I've ever encountered, and I can understand the expressions of frustration if that kind of approach is still being seen today. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't have much to say, but I feel like I should comment. If it would have been better etiquette to notify Adam immediately when I raised the initial question on the MOS talk I apologise, but it was really just policy query and I didn't think it was necessary. I had absolutely no background or prior interaction with Adam9007 before this. In the space of a few days I have already reached a point of being moderately frustrated at the behaviour so accurately characterised immediately above as "a stubborn refusal to listen" and having reviewed some of the threads linked above and elsewhere I can quite understand the general loss of patience. For what it's worth, I'd like to thank MelanieN for her concern over someone's wellbeing, but I think that what's been said so far on this topic has been just about within the realms of acceptable comment on someone's on-wiki behaviour, and however well-meaning you may or not be, if you consistently frustrate, upset, offend or simply waste other peoples time, the equally well or non well meaning people who are caught up in it will probably have an emotional reaction to it. Scribolt (talk) 06:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Closing as an involved editor

You closed this discussion while involved? https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Dismissal_of_James_Comey#Merging_Comey_memos I am curious about the rationale of closing it as someone involved. I am thinking of taking this to closure review.01:55, 7 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casprings (talk • contribs)

Feel free. I did say, 48 hours before I archived/closed it, that I intended to close it as merge, based on both the AfD result and the discussion at the talk page. And I did say, back when I was saying it should run for a week, that it didn't have to be closed by someone uninvolved as long as it wasn't JFG. But you are welcome to take it to AN or wherever else you feel is appropriate. See WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. --MelanieN (talk) 02:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Locking Mayoral Canidate out of online recognation

You locked the Atlanta Mayoral Candidates 2017 page for vandalism when the only vandalism taking place being the repeated scrubbing of my name from the list. In essence what you've done is legitimize some vandalism not stop it. Alexbarrella (talk)

FYI, see Talk:Atlanta mayoral election, 2017, where I just found a source stating that Barrella failed to qualify. —C.Fred (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello, Mr. Barrella. Other people at the article are saying that you are not actually a candidate. If you can provide evidence that you actually ARE a legitimate candidate, you should supply it at the article's talk page. I just did a brief search and found an item at the Journal-Consitution that lists nine candidates; you are not on the list. So the burden is on you to provide a reliable source showing that you actually are a candidate. (For example, something from the county registrar showing that you are on the ballot. It has to be a reliable source, not your own website or a facebook page or something like that.) The article's talk page is the place to do it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Comey survey

Hi. Thanks for trying to clarify that survey on the Comey Dismissal page, but I think the whole thing is a giant succotash at this point. Several related disjoint surveys, walls of text that editors may not recognize as related, changing issues and headers. Now we don't know which !votes understand this to be about your new header... What to do? Maybe we should start over. Unless somebody's looking for a dissertation topic, I don't see how we can get a closer to do the reading and research necessary to give us a solid close. SPECIFICO talk 18:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

It started out as just "Survey." Then earlier today Anythingyouwant changed it to "Survey about calls for dismissal," which doesn't at all make it clear that it is about the earlier Democratic calls for dismissal. So I tried to clarify it. There have been no new !votes since Anything's change, and there have been none since mine, so I don't think anyone has been confused. All previous !votes seemed to understand what the issue under discussion was. IMO the real problem is the completely uninformative and POV title for that whole section: "Reinsertion of off-topic POV insinuation of cherrypicked Hillary bit". Nobody can get the slightest idea what the subject is from that title. Would you consider changing it to something like "Should we mention previous Democratic opposition to Comey"? Then people would know what we are talking about. And "Survey" alone would be clear enough without needing additional explanation. --MelanieN (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• I just changed the section title. It really wasn't a very respectfully worded title. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I should have done that the first day. --MelanieN (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Better header, still an impossibly convoluted talk page overall. SPECIFICO talk 02:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Do you hear that? That pervasive, overwhelming sound? That's the sound of nobody disagreeing with you. ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I disagree! PackMecEng (talk) 03:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

You do? So then, that would make you that mysterious figure who messes with Adam We. Well, stop it. I like Adam We. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of this, its true though. Nobody messes with Adam We! PackMecEng (talk) 03:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I changed the header from simply "Survey" because another header had that exact same title, which caused software problems. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Right, and thanks. We should probably always do that with surveys. --MelanieN (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Immunity Project

Hello friend. Rhadow brought up this as an example on my talk page as a org that really shouldn't be on WP but is. I'm doing a general response there to the broader themes he brought up, but I was about to AfD this article, before I noticed that you had worked to save it a few years ago. I tend to agree that under current standards it likely wouldn't survive, but was curious on your thoughts on the article today. In my professional life I've had a fair amount of interactions with the HIV vaccine/cure sector and had never heard of them before, but what Tony has heard of isn't grounds for notability ;-). Anyway, hope all is well with you. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I see that I made a few improvements to the article, back in 2014, but my "keep" !vote at the AfD was mainly in response to the enormous improvements made by Cindamuse. Looking now at the article, and doing a Google search, I don't see sufficient coverage in Reliable Sources and I would agree with deletion. I wondered about a redirect but don't see a good target. Nuke it. --MelanieN (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

September 2017 San Diego Wikiphoto scavenger hunt

You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Meetup/San Diego/September 2017 - 1 . I know that it is unlikely for you to attend, but I am still leaving this message to keep you aware of the user groups activities in your area. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48

Thank you, RightCowLeftCoast - for the invitation and for the thoughtful personalized note. Good to know you are still active in the San Diego Wiki scene. --MelanieN (talk) 03:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Admin confidence survey

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Misplaced Pages administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Legal challenges to DACA

Hey, just wanted to give you a friendly notice that DACA itself was indeed challenged in court. But those challenges didn't succeed. I added the info to the header covering that info. If you want to know more about the different challenges, you can check the footnotes of the Fifth District court ruling against the DACA expansions. They mention some of the cases there. HTH, —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 02:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Palmieri rev del

Would you consider rev deling these? given the claims about a BLPs biological sex and their gender identity, I think they probably qualify under WP:RD2. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the alert. I see the IP has been blocked but only for a short time, so keep an eye out for recurrences or a second IP. If this happens even once more, I (or any other admin within shouting distance) will protect the page. --MelanieN (talk) 23:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism/BLP vio here again: . Gilliam blocked both IPs, but alerting you since you've been the admin most recently involved on this page. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

TonyBallioni : Revdel'ed, and protected the page; there are undoubtedly more IPs where those came from. Normally the frequency of vandalism on that page wouldn't be enough for me to impose semi-protection (maybe PC protection). But these are BLP violations and deserve a stronger response than normal vandalism. Thanks for alerting me. --MelanieN (talk) 03:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External Link at Russians

Melanie, you write there's no indication of who's behind it. But the backers are clearly detailed on the website. Clapper, Reiner, others either professionally involved or well-informed and third-party cited commentators. This is exactly the sort of thing that goes on external links, and the "not notable" reason has no basis either in Misplaced Pages policy or in fact, it's just a miscue by an ill-informed editor. Why edit war? The talk page is available if you feel there's a big problem with this. Thuc made a good-faith mistake, I fixed it. Seems OK. You reinstate the mistake and make a second mistake. Please consider putting it back. It's not article text or referencing, it's EL by notable commentators. SPECIFICO talk 22:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Let's discuss at the talk page, please. --MelanieN (talk) 22:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I came here as a courtesy to you because there is no point rebuking you on an article page. Please consider reinstating this. In fact if this group continues to receive as much RS coverage as has been seen since its launch, it would be NOTABLE and have its own article. As an external link, there's really no question. If I thought there were some issue on which you or others might have disagreed, I would have gone to talk but I thought it was an oversight so I erred on the side of what I thought was the courteous way to handle it. SPECIFICO talk 23:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Whatever happened to "Content stuff goes on article talk pages"? -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Thucydides411, I know that you and SPECIFICO don't get along. But I'd appreciate it if you would not follow them to my talk page to harrass them. --MelanieN (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

You guys are discussing article content here, and referenced it on the talk page. That strikes me as strange, given that SPECIFICO's multiple protests last time I discussed content with another user on their talk page. I'd appreciate it if, from time to time, you'd let SPECIFICO know that the erratic and frankly nonsensical remarks they leave around that page were inappropriate. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I asked you nicely once. I'd prefer not to have to ban you from my talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

As you wish. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Melanie, thank you for your comments at my RfA. I hope that I'll be able to answer your concerns with my actions rather than my words. Cheers, ansh666 23:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Knockbridge GAA

I object to your deletion of this article. The Gaelic Athletic Association consists of many hundreds of small clubs such as this. There are articles about many of these in Misplaced Pages. This club has has some success in Louth hurling competitions and that alone makes it noteworthy. I ask that you re-consider your decision here. Pmunited (talk) 02:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC=

Hello, Pmunited, and thanks for your note! Yes, I deleted the article Knockbridge GAA back in April. I deleted it as "a club, society or group that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject." I could also have deleted it as "unambiguous advertising or promotion". It was full of promotional wording like "Best team in Ireland.Famous for all star hurler wallie who is slapping over points all day." You didn't write or work on that article, and I'm sure you wouldn't write anything like that. There is no way that kind of language can be included in a Misplaced Pages article. But above all, there were no references at all, so nothing was supported by evidence as we require. So it would not be possible for me to restore that article. However, I see that you have created a lot of GAA articles; you might want to see what you can do about creating, or recreating, an article on this subject. Just be sure that it has references to support the information. --MelanieN (talk) 03:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Forgot to ping you: User:Pmunited. --MelanieN (talk) 03:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand and agree. I will do some research and try to create a better article when I get an opportunity. Pmunited (talk) 22:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Gregory Nangle

Hello Melanie, can you page protect Gregory Nangle again? Thanks, Loopy30 (talk) 11:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Loopy30. User:Malcolmxl5 took care of it. --MelanieN (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Calcutta Leather Complex

Hi MelanieN! I noticed that in this edit to Calcutta Leather Complex, you added a citation with a URL value of file:///Users/melewahineOld/Desktop/Status_CLC.pdf. This is a link to a file on your local machine, and thus not a valid URL. Can you provide an updated link? I'm struggling to find one... = paul2520 (talk) 19:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, paul2520, and thanks for your note. I can't imagine how that happened but I can't find a link now either. I hadn't thought about that article for years so thanks for cleaning it up. I have updated it a little. --MelanieN (talk) 20:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Well the good news is, I found it! = paul2520 (talk) 22:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Wow, you get the sleuthing prize! All I could find was mirrors of the Misplaced Pages page. Good work. --MelanieN (talk) 00:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Golden showergate

It seems strange CFCF didn't get a notification. This person created most of those redirects and I just created one because it was another alternate spelling.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:57, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. The automated script I was using only notified the first one and not the "also nominated" ones. I'll notify them also. --MelanieN (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm just here for the eye-catching section title. It's very... Okay, wow, I just searched it and I honestly had no idea this was a real phrase. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

My page is very educational. See #Wood: semi 3 days above. No extra charge for this kind of service. --MelanieN (talk) 14:28, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

These topics make me uneasy. I'm not going back to that RfD page. Yuk. I need a shower. SPECIFICO talk 16:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

What kind of shower? 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Revdel?

Hi,

Do you think this should be revdeled? I've reported it to emergency. Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 22:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Done, although probably a hoax. We do have to alert on this stuff, no matter what we think, because we never know. Their userpage was more of the same and I've deleted it. (Do you want to sent a followup note to emergency, for them to evaluate the user page as well? I assume they have magic goggles and can see the page.) Thanks for the note. --MelanieN (talk) 23:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I sent the first diff of their userpage to emergency too. Do you reckon they should see the rest of it? Adam9007 (talk) 23:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I have revdel'ed two others of their diffs, as well as deleting their user page. Wouldn't hurt to send the whole package to emergency. --MelanieN (talk) 23:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, I can't double-check it, but it's probably a joke as I'm pretty sure I've seen the name "John Cena" here (in vandalism edits) before. We're not qualified to make that determination though, so it probably won't hurt. Not sure if I should be the one to do it though... Adam9007 (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

We don't make that determination. We just send in the links, without interpretation, and leave it up to WMF. I'm not aware of any problem with the name "John Cena". Most of the user page was obvious hoax/vandalism. --MelanieN (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Apparently it's an internet meme used in trolling. See Unexpected John Cena. --MelanieN (talk) 23:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) No idea what the 911 was about, Adam, but John Cena is a WWE (or whatever the current name is) star. I'd suspect he is still popular with high school boys in the States, which would explain why his name pops up. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Apparently it's an internet meme used in trolling. See Unexpected John Cena You learn something new every day! @TonyBallioni: the 999 was about apparent (presumably joke) statements about wanting to die. Adam9007 (talk) 23:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Second Italo-Ethiopian War

G'day Melanie, hope you are well. Please be aware I have adjusted the semi protection you applied to Second Italo-Ethiopian War, upgrading the protection to extended confirmed. Apologies if I have trodden on your toes with this. My reasoning is that there appears to be ongoing issues with sockpuppetry on the article. Happy to discuss further with you, and self revert, if you feel this is unnecessary. Anyway, have a nice day. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

AustralianRupert: Thank you! In fact I had been thinking along the same lines, and had suggested the exact same thing to Favonian who has had earlier dealings with this sockmaster - but Favonian appears to be offline right now. This was now the second time since semi-protection that a sock created an account, made 10 edits, waited four days, and then attacked the same (semi-protected) article with same edits. Extended confirmed protection is the perfect solution. FYI I believe the likely sockmaster is User:Krajoyn. --MelanieN (talk) 04:27, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Cheers, Melanie. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:22, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Why do people...

Just FYI, I wasn't trying to mock your edit summary with mine. Just a weird coincidence, hadn't seen yours yet. But seriously, why? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:29, October 3, 2017 (UTC)

Template help

Hi. Ran into something that I can't figure out. While doing my dab grunt work, I came across this article: Christian Solidarity Party (as well as 2 others with the exact same issue). As you can see their is a dab in the infobox for Elections in Ireland, which should be corrected to Elections in the Republic of Ireland. However, I can't find the actual link when I go to edit the page. I'm a bit flummoxed. Onel5969 14:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Onel5969: I was bored so I looked into that. All three of those links are constructed using the infobox's |country= parameter. Change that from Ireland to the Republic of Ireland and you will change all three links accordingly. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Beautiful, Mandruss - thanks for the help. Onel5969 14:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Also found out that you can use the "|elections_dab1 = " to force that dab to look at the target you want it to, regardless of the country parameter. Onel5969 14:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for handling this, Mandruss! And OneL, that's the beauty of asking someone who has talk page stalkers: if the person you asked isn't available or doesn't know (not gonna admit which was the case this time), there's probably somebody else reading the page who does. I love my talk page stalkers. --MelanieN (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

2017 Las Vegas Massacre - Title

Not sure if you saw the press conference in the last half hour, but they have announced that the official name of the incident will be just "1 October". I have submitted a move request on the article's talk page accordingly for "1 October Shooting" as the official name redirects to "October 1". CycloneGU (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'll respond there. --MelanieN (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

In reply to the thoughts before it closed, I understand you are trying to be neutral here (I noticed you are an administrator, of course LOL). I still maintain the presumption that the name given to the page should include the official name in some way as that's what people are probably going to look up. At the very least, a hatnote should be left on October 1 over time linking to the article, as again, the official name of the incident will be "1 October", which redirects there. If a different name sticks, so be it, but some kind of reference to it is still needed. =) CycloneGU (talk) 19:56, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

CycloneGU: The suggestions "1 October" and "1 October shooting" will be among the choices offered when I set up a discussion of possible names. As for the Misplaced Pages page October 1, this evert is already listed there in chronological order; IMO that's all it needs as far as that page is concerned. --MelanieN (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

A coupla things aside from WP:COMMONNAME. First, looks like the name 1 October was coined by the Clark County Chairman. Well, to residents of Clark County, I expect that date will ring a bell for a very long time. But, this isn’t the Clark County encyclopedia. Besides, I would imagine if I were the CC Chairman, I’d also try to get Las Vegas or Mandalay out of the name as 44% of the Southern NV workforce is in tourism. Valiant effort doomed to failure. Secondly, there are only 366 days. Sad to say, we’ll run out of names pretty quickly if we name these events solely by the month and day. In fact, there is a 50/50 chance of a duplicate in 23 events (See Birthday problem). Thirdly, I can’t imagine that readers will be searching for 1 October looking for this event. Objective3000 (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not against keeping Las Vegas in the name. I just think it should be combined with the "official" name, that's all. ;) I'm not from Vegas and my tourism isn't affected by this. But regardless, I'll let the name discussion to come decide what happens; it's possible the official name might just be mentioned as part of the article prose, and if that's what consensus decides, so be it. CycloneGU (talk) 05:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Did you really think "please do not get into extended or threaded discussion here" would stick? Silly woman. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Valium

Mixing valium with alcohol is bad enough, but see this NYT article from 2015. That link is just for your general knowledge, not for any Misplaced Pages article that I can remotely think of. Not. Cheers. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

It's fair to say that Valium, and benzodiazepines generally, are over-prescribed in the geriatric population. And of course one shouldn't mix sedatives with alcohol. But to imply that 50 Valium tablets per year somehow caused a methodically planned and executed mass murder is pretty foolish, regardless of whether alcohol was involved as well, and betrays a pretty deep ignorance of the subject. I understand the desire to find some sort of rational-sounding explanation for this event, but I'm not sure why getting this factoid into the article has assumed such urgency. Is the idea to focus legislative momentum and popular attention on benzos (rather than, say, the ability to legally stockpile an infinite number of assault weapons)? As a wise woman once said, no matter how cynical you get, it's never enough to keep up. MastCell  05:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

To assume that the prescription did not authorize any refills, or more generally that he bought only 50 pills in 2017, seems a bit of a leap. And if the FBI releases information that he took more than 50 Valium pills in 2017, then I ‘d think it would be pretty “foolish” and “ignorant” to insist otherwise, especially given how addictive it is, and given that he also got a Valium prescription in 2016. That he did take Valium has been very widely reported in very reliable sources, along with a lot of other information that seems worthy of inclusion in Misplaced Pages (e.g. divorced twice, took cruise ship to Middle East recently, had father who was on FBI 10 most wanted, used device called a “bump stock”, none of which says anything about “legislative momentum”). The cynicism apparently goes both ways here. See also.. In my personal opinion, many doctors are little better than drug pushers, and the opioid crisis is a case in point. Well-intentioned drug-pushers, of course. Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

To assume that the prescription did not authorize any refills, or more generally that he bought only 50 pills in 2017, seems a bit of a leap. Actually, the Nevada reporting system is very strong and it is not about doctors writing prescriptions; it is about pharmacies dispensing the medicine. Every time he purchased Valium in Nevada, it would be in the system. I personally doubt that he could even have carried out his disciplined, focused, eyes-wide-open, carefully planned and carried out actions if he was on Valium. IMO (WP:OR) this "let's blame Valium!" approach is similar to the "let's blame Dungeons and Dragons!" hysteria of a few years ago whenever a teen or young person committed a murder. Convenient, but unsupported by evidence. --MelanieN (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC) P.S. Most of the other stuff you cited as "worthy of inclusion" - divorced twice, used a bump stock, father a wanted criminal - is already in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I know it’s already in, which makes exclusion of Valium all the more noticeable. If he played Dungeons & Dragons according to lots of sources, I’d favor including that too. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

And it’s more of a leap to suggest a connection between Valium and this event. Americans take too many prescription drugs in general. But, any problems related to benzos pale in comparison to opiates; and the common result from mixing Valium and alcohol is sleep. Such drugs are enormously popular. Valium was the first drug to hit $1 billion in sales in a year. The new leader in that field is Xanax, with over one prescription per second. So, where are all the shootings caused by these drugs that would lead anyone to believe Valium was behind this shooting? Valium became so popular among housewives that, shortly after its introduction, the Rolling Stones wrote . Objective3000 (talk) 14:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Asteroids are very dangerous, not because they all are, but because of what one asteroid does to our planet every once in a blue moon. As for “mother’s little helper”, I don’t think Mr. Jagger was being entirely complimentary, nor is it likely that this drug invariably improved family dynamics. I go for vitamins and innocuous naturopathic stuff as much as possible, though I suspect Mastcell would recommend a much stronger medicine for my foolishness, ignorance, etc. Anythingyouwant (talk)

As you say: once in a blue moon. I don’t see why we would suggest something so infrequent there don’t appear to be any related examples, whether they be Valium-related mass shootings or asteroid extinction events in Las Vegas. But, I’ll stop bothering Melanie with this here. Objective3000 (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

If Valium only caused disaster this one time, then maybe its use should not be altered. I’ll leave Melanie in peace now too. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Objective3000 and Anythingyouwant: Hey, stick around and continue your interesting conversation. What else are user talk pages for? (Well, Misplaced Pages probably thinks they're only for Misplaced Pages purposes, but we know better.) If nothing else, you need to explain what you mean by If Valium only caused disaster this one time. What other times has Valium caused disaster? If you are talking about that Hinckley quote - that's the kind of thing that defense psychiatrists are paid to say. --MelanieN (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Studies have shown that Valium can cause aggression, that its effects can be magnified by alcohol which should not be consumed, and that older people are more at risk. So one would expect the results of those studies to be reflected in the real world. I’m no expert, but results of valid studies usually are reflected in real world circumstances outside the studies. By the way, we now know he was taking Valium since 2013, and that his prescribing doctor was on yearly retainer. See Glover, Scott and Lat, Kyung. “Exclusive: Vegas killer described his unusual habits in 2013 testimony”, CNN (October 9, 2017). Anyway, I’m going out to lunch now with someone. Cheers. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Hives; difficulty breathing; swelling of your face, lips, tongue, or throat. black, bloody, or tarry stools; coughing up blood or vomit that looks like coffee grounds; severe nausea, or stomach pain; fever lasting longer than 3 days; swelling, or pain lasting longer than 10 days; or hearing problems, ringing in your ears. Heartburn; drowsiness; or headache. Bleeding in your stomach or intestines. Alcohol may increase your risk of stomach bleeding. Overdose can result in rapid breathing (hyperventilation), dehydration, double vision, feeling faint, drowsiness or confusion, bizarre behavior, unsteady walking, and coma. These are the side effects of Aspirin. Objective3000 (talk) 15:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

(EC again; I love lively conversations.)@Anythingyouwant: one would expect the results of those studies to be reflected in the real world Yes, one would. In fact, one would think that such examples in the real world would be well known and easy to come up with. I'm not aware of any studies correlating that tendency with real-life incidents of serious crimes like first degree murder. Anyhow, it's much better known that alcohol can lead to aggression, and we know he was a heavy drinker, so that seems like a better villain to blame. But IMO (WP:OR again) he was way too much in control of himself at the time to have been drunk. I'm betting that the results of his autopsy will show no alcohol (or for that matter Valium) in his system. Have a nice lunch. --MelanieN (talk) 15:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

It was a nice lunch. The guy responsible for the University of Texas tower shooting had a malignant brain tumor, though no consensus emerged that that was a factor (I actually knew one of the psychiatrists who led that investigation). The coroner in Vegas surely has a difficult job piecing together the brain of the Vegas shooter after a bullet demolished it. The Vegas shooter was male, which I’m sure was a significant factor, though I would not favor legislation doing away with males. We have so many offsetting virtues! Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree, let's not outlaw men. They do have some redeeming qualities; besides they are kind of cute. Let's not outlaw Valium either. Or alcohol. Definitely not alcohol. --MelanieN (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

On men and wine: “Men are like wine – some turn to vinegar, but the best improve with age.” ― Pope John XXIII. At least that's what I tell myself. O3000 (talk) 21:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

And as we all know: Wine improves with age. Age improves with wine. --MelanieN (talk) 21:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I’d respond. But, I better wait for the effects on the Aspirin to wear off. Objective3000 (talk) 18:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Xxx Konitaaa123 (talk) 18:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, thank you, whoever you are, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! --MelanieN (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Talk:2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting

Hi, MelanieN. You seem to forget to move Talk:2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting to Talk:2017 Las Vegas shooting. Cheers!―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Huh, that's strange! The script indicated it was going to move it. Thanks for calling it to my attention. --MelanieN (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

It seems that the archives have become disconnected as well, e.g. Talk:2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting/Archive 1. Is there an easy way to rename them all? ValarianB (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a look. --MelanieN (talk) 16:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Morty

Acknowledged

I read everything you said and I appreciate it. All of your points are valid. You're probably the best administrator I've ever seen on Misplaced Pages. You're extremely knowledgeable, make all editors feel welcome and appreciated, give others the benefit of the doubt whenever reasonable, and are very courteous to everyone even when you find the need to reprimand someone in your admin role. Thank you for getting your message across to me in such a non-hostile, professional manner. You should teach a course on deescalation. You are truly a great example to all other administrators. Thanks, again. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 14:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I was disappointed that you decided to stick with your usual practice of immediately deleting every comment someone makes on your talk page. But I will look forward to seeing productive input from you at the Shooting page and elsewhere. --MelanieN (talk) 15:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. Sorry about immediately deleting. Please don't be disappointed because it's nothing personal towards anyone. It's just that I'm the opposite of a hoarder. I'm more of a minimalist; I really have an aversion to any unnecessary clutter. It's a great stress reducer (not kidding, Google it). But just for you, I'll restore your message if you really want me to. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

No need. It's your talk page, and if you weren't going to reply there and set up a normal conversational thread, there's no point. --MelanieN (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

User's disruption continues. Classic aggressive ignorance of talk page policy and common practice, still inventing rules. Any sign that the gentle touch has had any positive effect? Not that I can see. Do you think any user talk warnings by other editors will help? I don't think so, because this editor won't listen to anybody but you. We should be ignored because we lack sufficient de-escalation skills, the merits of our arguments being irrelevant. Sigh. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Sheesh! I go away for a quick weekend trip and my talk page fills up. Sorry for the delay, everybody. Mandruss, I had already specifically told them that I was OK with leaving out the "badgering" comment. (That comment from me would have been visible on their talk page, if it wasn't for their peculiar habit of deleting everything from their talk page. I'd still like to see them stop that, and this is one of the arguments against it.) Moving the other editor's comment at Talk:Shooting was defensible; better than deleting it as some people would have done citing NOTFORUM. I checked their recent edits at other pages and I don't see a problem there. I'll keep an eye out to see they don't resume the badgering, that was definitely getting disruptive. --MelanieN (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Templates

Hi,

I hope you or a talk page stalker knows the answer to this. I encountered a weird categorisation issue with a couple of templates ({{Dicdef}} and {{Copyvio links}}), that made my twinkleoptions.js (which doesn't actually use them, only mention them) appear in Category:Flagged dictionary definitions and Category:Articles containing links to copyright violations. I have edited those templates and the issue appears to have been fixed. However, I am not sure how to completely test the templates to make sure I haven't broken anything else (such as the nocat parameter). I tried using my sandbox, but the functionality I needed to test didn't work there for some reason. Is mainspace the only place where such tests are possible? I don't want to have to make test edits there and revert them. Or am I being a twonk and missing something obvious? Cheers. Adam9007 (talk) 02:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Adam9007: It depends on what you want to test. WP:TESTCASES has some information on sandboxes and test cases. I like Special:ExpandTemplates for testing categorization. The categorization parameters for {{ambox}} (|cat=, |all=) only apply to articles. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, JJMC89! Adam, I hope that answered your question because I wouldn't have a clue. --MelanieN (talk) 19:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@JJMC89: Thanks. I didn't know about Special:ExpandTemplates. I didn't know what I was doing at first, but I think I've figured it out. The nocat parameters seem to be working as programmed. I did notice they're programmed a little differently though, and it would be nice to have some consistency. I also think that "yes" would be a plausible value for it in {{Copyvio links}}. Is there some "or" parameter for #ifeq, or do I have to use #switch? @MelanieN: yes, that answered my question, I think. Adam9007 (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@Adam9007: You would have to use {{#switch}} or one of the {{yesno}} family of templates. I added {{yesno-no}} to that one. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Hagiography alert

Hello MelanieN,

Please take a look at Robert Stewart (saxophonist) and its talk page, where the autobiographer demands that every bit of puffery be maintained forever. And he thinks that male editors are out to get him while female editors are probably much fairer. Are you willing to take a look? I will express my opinion tomorrow, if my house doesn't burn down. Cullen Let's discuss it 07:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Cullen. As you can see, Mr. Stewart himself came here to ask for my help. (I do qualify as a female editor, and from his same home town, too!) I have replied to him below. I will continue to send good thoughts to you, and all my other Northern California friends; things seem to get scarier by the day. Keep us posted how you are doing. --MelanieN (talk) 20:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I very much appreciate your kind response in the section below.

The wildfire catastrophe has eased in the past two days, and fire never came closer than five miles from my house. The misery and destruction is mind-boggling though. My wife and I drove to a point yesterday where we could see half a dozen helicopters fighting the fires, returning repeatedly to a little reservoir to fill their giant buckets. It was an amazing spectacle. Thanks for asking. Cullen Let's discuss it 21:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Very glad to hear that! I know you said earlier that refugees from the burn areas were coming to your city for shelter. I was alarmed to hear you hint just now it might not be far enough! And I'm sure the smoke is awful. My brother lives in Marin County and other relatives in San Francisco; sounds like the whole Bay Area is under siege from the smoke. --MelanieN (talk) 21:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Don't know if you saw, Robert Stewart has just been indef blocked. My efforts may have been too little, too late, but I don't give up easily. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Please, please help me :-(

I'm extremely discouraged by the systemic bias & dismissiveness that I've encountered from all who've addressed me on my talk page. My comments & concerns are completely ignored. I have nowhere to turn, for all are in collision (evidence on my talk page) against me even after I complied with the demands of previous editors.

I've been trying for days now to reason with an editor. He's obsessed with removing my actual fact history as one of the premier saxophonist in Jazz. Two previous editors approved an article about me Robert Stewart (saxophonist) almost a year ago now. EddieHugh has come and attempted to delete most of my actual fact history with over 100 citations in the article as evidence. My talk page is filled with my attempts to reason with him and resolve without issue. But, I need the help of an authority as soon as possible. Please help me; please :-(

I sincerely thank you for your time. Professor Reason (talk) 13:26

Hello, Robert, and thanks for your note. (Hey, I'm from Oakland too! I see you went to Fremont. I went to Tech.) I will answer your question but you're not going to like the answer.

First and most important, you should not be editing this article at all. I'm sure other people have explained to you about conflict of interest and writing about yourself. The reason is that there is no way you can be neutral in writing about yourself, and neutrality is one of the founding principles of Misplaced Pages.

Second, your article is way too long and detailed. Even the lead sentence lists way too many descriptions of you; it should just list the main thing you are noted for, saxophonist. None of the other stuff is important in making you notable. Critical praise for your work should certainly be included, with direct quotes and citations, but a selection - not everything anybody ever said about you.

Third (after looking at the article's talk page), calm down. There is no conspiracy here, nobody is biased against you or your music, nobody is trying to put you down, nobody is singling you out. We are treating your article the same way we treat every other article. We don't usually have the article's subject come here and try to write the article to suit themselves, which might cause some people to be a little short with you; if they are, I apologize. But we are just insisting that you accept Misplaced Pages for what it is: an encyclopedia. People don't get to write their own encyclopedia articles. Other people write about them.

I appreciate your asking me for advice, and I certainly would have "helped you" if I could, but the bottom line is that you need to back off. Let people who understand Misplaced Pages edit your article. It will be a much better article that way.

Now with that said, congratulations on your distinguished career (playing with Wynton Marsalis must have been a thrill). It's nice to see a local person make good. But you should not be editing the article at all, and you certainly should not be cramming every possible bit of data into the article and arguing with experienced Wikipedians about what belongs there. Misplaced Pages has rules about who can have an article here, and you do qualify to have an article, thanks to mainstream news coverage like this. But we also have rules about what kind of material can be included in the article. Those rules will need to be interpreted by people who understand how Misplaced Pages works. Sorry I couldn't help in the way you wanted me to, but maybe this will help you to understand where everybody is coming from. --MelanieN (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Beautiful explanations for this editor, Melanie, congrats on your diplomatic skills! @Professor Reason: we do love jazz around here, nothing personal. Keep the spirit! — JFG 16:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hi, I agreed with your initiative in: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Rachel_Maddow#Scandals Could you comment on this? https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Rachel_Maddow#Scandals_2 Small thing perhaps, but I think it is the same thing. Anton AntonHogervorst (talk) 13:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar, and for calling my attention to this. I have commented at the talk page, and restored what used to be the consensus version in the text. --MelanieN (talk) 16:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Just so you will know...

I NEVER, EVER do ethnic humor. I am a victim of it. My humor was more about his doping the people (alotofus) by lying to the FBI. 23:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. I guess it can be easy to do things that are MISTAKEN for ethnic humor, and we all accidentally do that sometimes. --MelanieN (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Regarding questions concerning review procedures

Hi, TonyBalloni suggested in this thread that I reach out to you regarding questions about review procedures before (as is usually true in my case) bumping into the furniture and knocking over the ornaments and generally doing it all wrong. So this is just a note by way of introduction and explanation that if you hear from me in future, it will probably be regarding the above. Many thanks! Edaham (talk) 04:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm starting an RfC for the first time. Did I make any mistakes here or could it have been done better? Also is there a way of checking who the RfC has been sent out to by legobot/watchers etc. Edaham (talk) 05:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Edaham, welcome! I will be glad to help you whenever I can, although I think Tony has grossly exaggerated my (ahem) expertise in such matters. About the RfC: It is opened correctly, but I think it would have been better to wait until the previous RfC you started is closed, or possibly to add it as a sub-thread to your original RfC. As Tony said with regard to the proposed move: we usually try to avoid having multiple discussions at the same time on a given subject.

As for "who it has been sent out to," there are no automatic notices sent to individuals regarding an RfC. Interested people may be watching for RfCs in that category. Also, if there have been previous discussions on the same subject, it is OK for you to ping the previous discussants, or to put "you may be interested in" notices on their talk pages. If you do that, be sure to include ALL previous discussants, not just those who felt one way or another, to avoid bias. --MelanieN (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

shall I close the original thread where I made the proposal with a notice to see the RfC below, in that case? Edaham (talk) 01:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, how would you close the original thread? The secondary thread depends on it. If it is "no consensus" to change it as you suggested, that kind of kills the premise of the secondary thread, doesn't it? That's why I moved my comment to the original thread - it's all part of the same thing. But, yes, you could close the first one - after all it has been almost a month, with little participation. That may suggest you are not going to get much interest in the second one either. But you could, if you want, close the first, as "no consensus", and then see what happens with the second, more specific one; that's up to you. And if nobody goes for it, don't feel bad. That happens to a lot of us when we think we have a great idea and it just doesn't seem to grab anyone else. --MelanieN (talk) 01:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok. I don't really have the feeling of having had a great idea, so much as having felt uncomfortable after reading one or two BLP related articles which seemed unwarrantedly accusatory. It could well be that I'm over sensitive and my sensibilities are not serving me well in assessing the suitability of the language used. I actually joined and made an account because I was cringing every time I saw bands named after scientific phenomena sticking their names on hat notes of said articles in a way I thought was overly promotional. It turned out nobody cared too much and gently told me to sit down and go back to doing something else. Such could be the case here also - after all, it's not a huge difference is it? Edaham (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)″

Maybe try a simpler approach, rather than trying to get a change in guidelines: if something bothers you at a given article, just fix it. Insert the word "convicted" before "criminal" and see if it sticks. After all, you are a Misplaced Pages editor now; you don't need permission to make an edit; you can boldly make it, per WP:BRD. If your edit stays, then that one article is improved the way you want it. If someone removes it, discuss at the talk page. If it gets consistently removed, you can take that for consensus that it shouldn't be there. And if a BLP article seems too accusatory in other ways, just fix it. --MelanieN (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

P.S. And in the meantime, just leave your request at WT:BLP alone, watch it, and see what happens. --MelanieN (talk) 14:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Alright! Sounds like a good plan

Organizing off wiki workshops related to wiki-project feminism.

Regarding this: Misplaced Pages:Consensus#Pitfalls_and_errors And any other related policies, Can you see any problems or pitfalls with my plan listed here and at meta-wiki (gender gap) (in progress), to introduce and coach new users at Misplaced Pages-themed workshops aimed at bringing new Chinese users to the English and Chinese projects via locally-based feminist discussion forums and symposiums? Edaham (talk) 04:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Edaham: Wow! That is ambitious and you will need a lot of help and advice. I am not the person who can give it to you. You will need to talk to people who have organized such events (there is probably a Wikiproject that coordinates them but I don't know what it is). You will need to recruit some local partners, and possibly coordinate with the Wikimedia Foundation. About local collaborators, I had a look at Category:Wikipedians in Shanghai, and nobody grabbed me as the kind of high-powered help you will need. But there might be others who have simply not put that tag on their userpage. I suggest you ask User:Rosiestep for advice. She is very well connected and experienced in this kind of thing, and she can tell you if this is a reasonable proposal, who would need to help you with it, and what is needed to make it happen. --MelanieN (talk) 15:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Any stalkers care to chime in or advise here? --MelanieN (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

reply to you and/or stalkers: At the moment the only local partners I have are not regular editors, but people who organize feminism related events and forums as well as theater and exhibitions etc. Those events are preexisting and I don't need to arrange spaces and so on or handle tickets or set up. I simply pitched the idea to these contacts and found that they would be willing to allocate time to the workshop. At present I just have to work out content and make sure insofar as possible that myself and attendees do not infringe policy in some fashion.

• I'm addressing this by limiting the explanatory talk to:
  • A brief summary of the gender gap page followed by a short discussion including:
    • A quick explanation of the source and visual editors
    • 5p
    • Account creation
    • Chinese Misplaced Pages
  • keeping things technical/instructional and not intentionally pointing people to contentious or controversial stuff
    • providing some source material on (non-politicized/uncontraversial) Chinese culture or person, requiring an article
    • writing up the article in a sandbox as a draft
    • moving it to the mainspace.

I'll run through this process, get some screen shots ready etc. If anything like that's been made before, that would be awesome. Would plan to create something a bit like the Misplaced Pages adventure, but add points concerning both gender gap and local Chinese site use issues.

Edaham (talk) 16:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Megalibrarygirl also might have thoughts on this. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Edaham my sister lives in Beijing. I can see if she has any suggestions. Thanks for pinging me in, TonyBallioni. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, Tony and Megalibrarygirl. Edaham, I suspect there is already a lot of material available on this kind of project. We just have to find it so you don't have to re-invent the wheel. I'll snoop around and see what I can find about similar projects. --MelanieN (talk) 17:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Edaham: OK, here's a site that could be very useful: Misplaced Pages:How to run an edit-a-thon. The talk page of that article could also be a resource for you to find people. Here's something I found on that talk page: Misplaced Pages talk:How to run an edit-a-thon#Edit-a-thon Training on the Programs and Events Dashboard. That is from a WikiMedia Foundation person, User:Astinson (WMF), who has created training material and could be very helpful to you in other ways. --MelanieN (talk) 18:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Edaham. In addition to the helpful links which MelanieN pointed you, too, you might be interested in Primer for creating women’s biographies and Writing about women. I know some Chinese Wikipedians but not in Shanghai so I'm going to ask on our social media pages and get back to you on that. When are you thinking of facilitating your workshops? --Rosiestep (talk) 19:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Rosiestep not for at least a month as some of the organizers are either traveling or have other commitments. I have a favor to ask, during these planning stages, it would be great to demonstrate that this idea has gained some traction within Misplaced Pages, and this thread seems to have done just that. If I direct my friends to view the info here however they may turn up with questions, I'm a bit concerned about the number of alerts the long-suffering MelanieN is going to receive from new users. If she doesn't mind, then that's great. If it would be more appropriate however, could we move/copy this thread to an appropriate project talk page and continue the discussion there? Edaham (talk) 23:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks all for the contacts and info provided above. A list of info I've been given has been placed on my user page I'm going to contact those people and notice boards and go over the info today! Looks great and very informative. Edaham (talk) 23:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict, that's more or less what I was going to suggest!) @Edaham: I have no problem with people using my talk page for this. But it's not a logical place for it, and it's likely to get lost amid the clutter and be unfindable in the future. It might be better for the historical record, and for continuity, if you moved discussion to your own talk page, and let future planning go on there. That would give your project a central location and would keep all the information in your own records where you and others can easily access it. (Of course, the beauty of using my page is that like most admins I have knowledgeable, helpful stalkers. They are welcome to chime in either here or elsewhere.) How about this: why don't you COPY this whole discussion to your talk page, while leaving it here as well - and we can refer future commenters to your place. ("Your place or mine" - did I just say that?) --MelanieN (talk) 23:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

 done! Please continue further discussion here for convenience. Thanks for getting things started! Edaham (talk) 00:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi

I would like for you to at least consider protecting the Talk:June 2017 Brussels attack talk page. The two editors are just going at it, but especially TheGracefulSlick shows no interest in having any kind of fruitful discussion, but seems very eager to continue the dispute and disruption.,,. While E.M Gregory actually tries to come to some kind of agreement over what should be done and not. I just think that the protection of the article will end tomorrow and the two are nowhere closer to an agreement than when the protection tag was added. I leave it up to them or you to make some action. BabbaQ (talk) 23:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

BabbaQ: Thanks for your note. Talk pages are rarely protected, and this one is in no such dire need. However, I noticed that an AfD discussion had been was closed improperly and I reopened it. If edit warring resumes when the protection expires, it may be time for some EW warnings. --MelanieN (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

TheGracefulSlick is sadly starting to show signs of Wikistalking as an reaction of recent events, using baiting techniques. This is not my first rodeo so I will not react but I just though I let you know. ,.BabbaQ (talk) 06:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Paul Deb

Hi,

Do you reckon this COI situation is worth keeping an eye on? I think there's a chance he might try again. I've left him a COI note, but I'm not sure I handled it too well. Cheers. Adam9007 (talk) 03:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Adam9007: Thanks for the note. I'm not really concerned about a COI, because I concur with PROD, and I think all that stuff about long-ago local issues is UNDUE. I have deleted that whole section, pending a decision on the PROD. --MelanieN (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Roy Moore

FYI, there's still a paragraph in the lede on the accusations. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I missed that. --MelanieN (talk) 22:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

MelanieN, would you please reduce the protection on Roy Moore and restore this edit? There is very clear consensus to keep this material in the article. Thank you.- MrX 23:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Already done. The only issue still under discussion is whether to put it in the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 23:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but the article is still locked with a gleaming gold padlock.- MrX 23:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, for another hour or two, while we decide on the talk page whether to put it in the lede or not. I want to get that settled before opening it back up to a possible resumption of edit warring. --MelanieN (talk) 23:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

<-- Use it or lose it to the template police. 22:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations

I think the AFD is clearly going to be a keep. Would you think of withdrawing your nom so it can go ahead and close?Casprings (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

It wouldn't do any good. Withdrawal by the nominator only resuls in a speedy "keep" close when there are no "delete" !votes. In this case there have been multiple delete !votes. So it will have to wait to be closed in the usual way. MelanieN alt (talk) 04:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Notifications...

Just curious... has anyone alerted women-related projects about this? From what I can tell, the bulk of the notifications are going to projects relating to politics, politicians, the state and law. 21:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving

	Happy Thanksgiving
	A little early, but still... Wishing you a day of celebration, relaxation, and happiness. If you don't celebrate, pass this on to someone who does! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, MelanieN. I noticed you've done some constructive editing recently. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines; currently Misplaced Pages needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere 09:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: Haha, not sure why you're giving the standard template to an admin.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. Wasn't aware... She doesn't subscribe to the admin newsletter I guess. Could use the help all the same though ;) — Insertcleverphrasehere 09:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for trying to recruit new reviewers. We certainly do need more. (But I do subscribe to the admin newsletter so apparently that's not a valid screening tool. ) MelanieN alt (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Forgot to ping @Insertcleverphrasehere: MelanieN alt (talk) 16:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holiday Greetings

	Wishing You A Happy Turkey Day!
	A Thanksgiving tale... Two pilgrims go out hunting. One has two blunderbusses (guns). The second pilgrim queries, “Why two blunderbusses?” The first pilgrim responds, “I usually miss on the first shot; with two I can shoot again”. The second pilgrim pauses, then asks, “Why not just take the second one, and only shoot once?” 02:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

BLP

This edit of yours is deeply problematic. If you really believe that the BLP subject did not partly deny approaching or dating teenagers, then that edit of yours is fine. But otherwise it runs afoul of WP:BLP. I specifically said in my edit summary that it was a blatant BLP violation. You could have temporarily revised my edit in various ways if there was something substantive about it that you disliked, but instead you reverted to a dishonest or at least very misleading lead, and that problem should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, which is what I did. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Anything, I've been expecting you. The existing language was not a BLP, much less a blatant one, and you do your own credibility no favors by claiming that it was. I reverted it because you were wrong to unilaterally insert your own, brand new, undiscussed language into a section that is under discussion, with heavy participation, at the talk page. Look, there are things in the lede that I don't like, but I have put them up for discussion at the talk page, hoping to achieve a consensus wording, as we are supposed to do. As for acceptable language, I have proposed a new wording at the talk page. See you there. --MelanieN (talk) 04:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you really believe that the BLP subject did not partly deny approaching or dating teenagers. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) there's a difference between dating 14-year-olds and dating 19-year-olds that the word "teenager" obscures. Constructive suggstions to avoid that ambiguity are appreciated. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

We don't include unsupported allegations in the lede of a BLP, and we certainly don't include them in the body without in-text attribution. Doing so is a violation of BLP and NPOV. There is no smoking gun - it's he said - she said - and if my memory serves, the guy has filed litigation against his accuser. 04:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually he has not filed litigation; he has only claimed he is going to, as people in his position commonly do. (See also Trump "I am going to sue every one of these women.") We do include Moore's denials in the lede as well as the article. The argument is exactly how to word his denials most accurately. --MelanieN (talk) 04:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)