User talk:MelanieN/Archive 54

Archive 50

←

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

→

Archive 60

Hello

I have the habit of reading various controversial discussions here on this website and saying nothing because I do not think I have anything unique or useful to say. But I must say to you at this time that your contributions are an enormous asset to this encyclopedia, and I regret that negativity has come your way. You are a great editor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I second that emotion. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 08:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I third it. Thanks for all that you do here at the 'pedia M. MarnetteD|Talk 08:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I regrettably am not sure what this is about, but you are definitely a valuable editor. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 10:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, all. I'm touched. But hey, getting blocked by a troll is not negative. It's kind of a badge of honor. Or an initiation rite. Or something. Anyhow, I was more amused than bothered. But thanks for the sympathy. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Ha, Cullen made it seem like something more serious had happened. It is a badge of honor—how many people have been blocked by a compromised account? :) (granted, that number seems to be rising by the day..) Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

LOL. I got blocked once as an April Fools joke. My first block was by a now blocked editor who couldn't even explain why he blocked us. He couldn't define a revert, yet he blocked two of us. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

What was someone like that doing with tools??? That was in 2006. I'm glad we're a little more careful nowadays who gets a block button. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Damn, I’ve been trying my utmost to get blocked for a couple years. Frankly, I don’t understand how some folk find it so easy. There’s probably a name for this in the DSM-5. Just came here to pile on the kudos. And thanks for co-nominating an editor in an RfA with a short history involving DS articles who is clearly worthy. O3000 (talk) 01:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Objective3000: It really is easy. Do four reverts within 24 hours and make sure User:MSGJ is aware of it. Any article will do. :D (I grin, but only because it's been 3 years. I wasn't grinning then.) ―Mandruss ☎ 01:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• You know I'll be happy to block any one of you at the drop of a hat. Drmies (talk) 04:14, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Good thing I don't wear hats! -- MelanieN (talk) 04:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Protection question

Hi MelanieN. You added ECP and PC to Donald Trump. Does that mean that those protections are somehow combined? Does it mean that an EC user can approve a pending change, or does it require an admin to approve it?- MrX 🖋 14:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi MrX. We've been using PC in addition to whatever primary protection is in place because we have been switching back and forth between full protection and EC protection - due to the recent vandalism by compromised accounts. The idea is that the PC protection would remain in place to cover any gap between the expiration of full protection and the resumption of EC. PC is a lesser protection, equivalent to semi-protection, but the feeling was that it is better than nothing. However, I'm glad you asked, because just now I added it automatically (it's been that kind of couple of days) and now I realize that we don't need to worry about covering a gap as long as the EC protection is indefinite. We only need PC when we are under temporary full protection. So I will go back and remove it, and thanks for the nudge. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

OK, I see. Thanks for the explanation. I didn't realize that it was possible to have an article under more than one type protection.- MrX 🖋 15:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Have a glass of AleSmith Grand Cru for your efforts to stop this tirade of vandalism. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I can sure use it. MelanieN alt (talk) 15:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Image vandal

I wonder if anybody has noticed the image vandal did some prior vandalism to Roblox? Is someone trying to make a roster of the accounts they used? Maybe for a checkuser? ☆ Bri (talk) 03:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

There may be some logged-out edits also ... pls ping me if you want me to post it here. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:11, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

DYK for David Bennett (opera director)

On 3 December 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article David Bennett (opera director), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that David Bennett was hired as general director of the San Diego Opera after his predecessor tried unsuccessfully to shut the opera company down? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/David Bennett (opera director). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, David Bennett (opera director)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 12:08, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Matthew Gordon Banks

Please go back to the above site and read the Talk page.

Read the only paper item 10 in relation to "Failing to Stop" - you've never read the it properly before have you?

Mr Gordon-Banks was not charged with "Failing to Stop" yet repeated Editors' fail to read the evidence properly. Here is the key quote from the paper. "Mr Ryman told the court an officer found Gordon-Banks 'stumbling' along the road 'so intoxicated he had to steady himself against a garden wall.' The garden wall was his own garden wall. Mr Gordon-Banks is disabled. He had not walked anywhere neither does the paper say he was charged as such. Mr Ryman deliberately misused words. I am after accuracy here. Everything positive MGB has done has been removed. Your actions are therefore wrong and should be undone.62.128.217.97 (talk) 13:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I gave the page brief semi-protection because the arguing at the article was getting disruptive. This is a content matter and properly belongs on the talk page, where you have repeated this point several times. I note that after you wrote this, someone removed the entire section you were objecting to, so presumably that solves your issue. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Cheers! Flipswitch5 (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

International Lady of Mystery

Re:[1], feel free to be less vague in private email. I have a solid technical background and may be of assistance in weighing existing options or devising new ones. — JFG ^talk 02:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the updates; I appreciate the good news. Curiously, apart from this recent bout of egregious vandalism, the Trump page has been exceptionally steady over the last couple months. The age of agonizing talk page debates about "losing the popular vote" may be gone. Still some tensions about the persistent lying and the purported racism: I expect those will get paused during 2019 and eventually re-emerge in full swing for the 2020 campaign. Allegations of mental illness may even make a comeback whenever convenient! — JFG ^talk 19:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, things have been pretty calm lately. Maybe the vandal took all the oxygen out of the room, or maybe the midterms took people to other articles, or maybe people just haven't realized that the full protection is gone. My own prediction: at some point, well before 2020, something (I have no idea what) will happen with regard to the Mueller investigation, which will cancel out all the old arguments (how many times have we had to deal with "put birtherism in the lead"?), and ignite wars that will make the past ones look tame. When that happens, fasten your seatbelt. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Nah, the Mueller probe is petering out; even Flynn's sentencing guidelines failed to create any wikidrama. Now, when the next Supreme Court Justice retires or dies, we'll surely be in for a ride. — JFG ^talk 00:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

If I were a betting person I would challenge you on that. The Flynn sentencing guidelines clearly indicated that in addition to the Russia/collusion investigation, Mueller is working on two other still-top-secret investigations - one a criminal investigation, and the other a complete dark hole. Anyhow, the past 2-3 years have taught me the wisdom of a very old saying: Expect the unexpected. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Things will get exciting on the Democratic side before they get exciting on Trump's article, I think. There's probably going to be an RFC soon at Talk:2020 United States presidential election about whether Andrew Yang (entrepreneur) is a "major candidate", and the floodgates for candidates declaring should happen over the next two months. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Those Dem primaries will likely suck all the energy out of the regular political process. Sad! — JFG ^talk 00:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Umm, aren't the Democratic primaries part of the regular political process? Anyhow, it's entirely possible there could be a challenged primary on the Republican side as well, and that would REALLY generate some action here. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Indeed they are part of the political process, but American politicians seem to spend their whole 4-year mandates fighting for re-election or horse-racing to pick a challenger, and that's not healthy. Switzerland just elected two women to the Federal Council, to replace retiring members, and nobody made a fuss about it. They're just quietly doing their job. — JFG ^talk 09:37, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I certainly agree with you on that. American politics has been described as a "perpetual election". Recent example: The night of the recent midterm elections, the media coverage was at least as much about "what does this mean for 2020?" as it was about the actual results. I agree this is not a healthy way to run a democracy. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Assault Suit Leynos 2

Restored article which was deleted via unchallenged PROD. There's multiple reviews and previews in the game in magazines and websites all over the world including:

• Online: IGN, Gamespot,
• Print magazines: Sega Saturn Magazine (UK), Sega Saturn Magazine (JP), Japanmania, Game On! USA, Gamefan.

These are only the reviews I've found today, and there is no doubt others (especially Japanese sources). This page was tagged with PROD by the same user who has been going around tagging hundreds of JP only games. This user mass tagged pages, and then proceeded to do zero research on any of thee games to see if they were notable. I have been slowly going through pages and restoring as many of them as I can. Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Harizotoh9, I have no objection to this restoration. The previous article, which was called Assault Suits Leynos II, had no references and was only a few sentences long. This one is much better. Be sure to add some categories. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:30, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Re: Daft Lucario

Would G11 be better?

The logo uploaded on Commons by the same user refers to it as being "my band". It looks like someone's just trying to promote their amateur vanity project. ViperSnake151  Talk  04:38, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

User:ViperSnake151, you are free to re-tag it with whatever you think is appropriate. I wasn't arguing for it to be kept, just pointing out that it didn't meet G3. (You really should do a Google search before tagging something as a hoax.) Many admins would agree that it meets G11. Personally I tend to have a high bar for G11, but I am in the minority, and anyhow I would probably not be the admin evaluating the next nomination. If no speedy criterion seems to fit there is always PROD. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Nothing in particular about the draft looks like it merits any speedy deletion criteria (even in mainspace, signing with a notable label probably scrapes them past A7), even though it is quite unacceptable as a vanity page (although yes, some admins would probably delete it). You can wait 6 months for WP:G13 to sweep it away or MfD it. (also Melanie, no PROD for drafts :)) Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

LOL, Galobtter, an admin for one day and already you are teaching me! 0;-D I KNEW you would be a great admin. Thanks for the lesson; please keep it up. You are correct. I had never noticed that before, but although WP:PROD doesn’t say directly that PROD cannot be used for Draft namespace, it does list the types of pages it CAN be used for - drafts not being on the list - and then says it may not be used in “any other namespace”. So, no draftspace. Learning all the time at this place. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

BTW I just proposed at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion that we add drafts to the list of namespaces where it cannot be used. Just for people like me who don't read the instructions very carefully. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

The Cutting Room Floor (again)

Hi,

Did we ever actually reach a consensus regarding his name? By reading the discussion on the talk page, I don't think we did. Was I right to revert its removal on those grounds? If so, I can see this becoming a long-term edit war, much like the one on Father Ted about whether the show is British or Irish. Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Adam. Yes, I think you were right to restore it. It was mainly Xkeeper himself who was asking us to leave out his name, but he seemed to grudgingly accept our decision in August.[2] And then in early November he actually went to the article and corrected the spelling of Xkeeper.[3] It seems he is no longer raising an objection to the way we are doing it. So I think our decision (which was based on discussion at two talk pages as well as Reliable Source usage) stands. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Do you reckon what we've got is enough justification for putting a note on there? Adam9007 (talk) 04:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary at this point. This was the first attempt to change it since August. If it becomes a problem we could do something, but for now I think we can leave it as is. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, they say prevention is better than cure (not that it did much good on Father Ted...) :) Adam9007 (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

And it just so happens he's gotten rid of the request on his user page. Do you reckon he's watching this? Adam9007 (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

It's quite possible. We know he doesn't log on to Wikipedia often, but he did in November, when he fixed the spelling of his handle. I do get the impression he has accepted the article the way it is. IMO we should just let it ride unless it becomes an actual issue at some point. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Merry

		Happy Christmas!
		Hello MelanieN, Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?" My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk 03:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Cute anecdote, and inspired me to order this book from the library. (I have never read it but it looks like I am missing something.) Happy everything to you too. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad this as inspired you to read the entire story M. You might try reading it aloud. I do that each year with friends or family or even just myself on the 24th. The words are somehow richer when I hear them. However you experience Dylan's work I hope you enjoy it. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 02:33, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Muangthong United F.C.

The 5th protection period ended today, and was quickly vandalised again. Please add another period. 2 more months should be ok, as the league will start then. SveinFalk (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done I agree. This is an unusually long protection period, but this article has been on virtually continuous protection since October, and the problems always resume as soon as the protection expires. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

User:68.47.64.121

Melanie, this guy above just came off a 24 hour block for edit warring, and is right back at it again. He's arguing all manner of assumptions/original research regarding the status of Murphy Brown, and doesn't appear to have the competence to understand what the sources he's using actually say. Would you want to swing by his talk page and give him a warning about edit warring before it all gets out of hand again? Thanks! ----Dr.Margi ✉ 23:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I ask of you not too. I am editing what reliable resources say. TV By The Numbers has acknowledged that "“Murphy Brown” ending will make room for the Nina Dobrev-led freshman comedy, “Fam”"[4] CBS is also advertising Fam on its website.[5] I ask of a compromise which doesn't involve fanpage bias, which I feel has been strongly shown.68.47.64.121 (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Blocked again, for 48 hours this time. I explained on their talk page about consensus and Reliable Sources. If they can't get the message they are going to find themselves blocked for longer and longer periods of time. If they are correct in their assertion, they should be able to find lots of sources, not just tvbythenumbers. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:04, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Melanie. He's not correct, either in terms of the status of the show, or in terms of what the source he's citing says. He's going by a tertiary source that's mis-reporting TV by the Numbers, and we can't seem to get it across to him. Happy Holidays, and thanks for the quick action! ----Dr.Margi ✉ 06:22, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar

Hi MelanieN! I'm a brand new Wikipedia user - was browsing user pages to get ideas on how to get started customizing my own 'user' page for the 1st time. Thought yours was well done and wanted to send a star! Now I think I have some ideas on how to describe some interests, and maybe even throw in a few puns for good measure :) Thanks for the inspiration! AdidasZRO AdidasZRO (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Question

Dear MelanieN, I am not sure if I am following the correct procedure so apologies in advance is this is incorrect. The page I was editing was protected. I have left a comment on the Tempted Talk page explaining why I believe an edit should be made which restores the page to a neutral basis and adds back ratings data that was removed. Is there anything else I should do? Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tempted_(TV_series) Circle999 (talk) 00:35, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Circle999! Yes, that was exactly what you should have done. The other person has already replied, and the two of you should discuss and work out what the article should say. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your help. I have tried to reach a consensus and offered a couple of versions in the talk section. I will await for their response. If we cannot reach a consensus is there anything else that can be done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Circle999 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

It's usually possible to work out a wording that satisfies both of you. If you can't reach agreement, you need additional opinions. One thing you can to is to WP:ping other people who have previously edited that article, to get additional opinions. If you get to that point, ask me and I'll tell you how to do that and who to call on. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Archive 50

←

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

→

Archive 60