User talk:MelanieN/Archive 69

This is an archive of past discussions about User:MelanieN. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 65

←

Archive 67

→

Thanks

Thanks for the pointers Melanie. The bit about Twinkle in your page protection guide needs a tweak now that its behaviour has switched to ensure CSD is a two-handed process for everybody (techy bit in the newsletter above). The guidance is much appreciated. Cabayi (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, Cabayi. ~~A question: Tell me what your Twinkle has as the default under CSD. I immediately changed my default to be "tag, don't delete" so I can't tell what Twinkle's is now.~~ Sorry for the ping, need to do more research. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

OK, mine now works as described above. That was a sore spot for me because my very first action as an administrator was to accidentally delete a page I had only meant to tag! -- MelanieN (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

my very first action as an administrator was to accidentally delete a page I had only meant to tag! You think that's bad? Just minutes after becoming an administrator of a wiki on Fandom, I made a right dog's dinner of a page move that was actually rather difficult to put right. Yep, my first action after becoming the admin there was to demonstrate for all to see that I did not, in fact, have a clue what I was doing!

I'm just bleeding useless aren't I? Adam9007 (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the club! 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 03:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

It's not a particularly big wiki, but still, the evidence is there in the logs should anyone go looking. I say the move went badly. The move itself went fine; what happened was I needed to edit it to remove a deletion tag, but it couldn't be edited where I had moved it to, and there was no easy way of moving it back. It took me several minutes to get it sorted, but of course I was supposed to know what I was doing, but I clearly didn't. Adam9007 (talk) 04:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

You were very aware of the problems you were having, but I bet most people didn't even notice. Not something to dwell on, since I suspect you have done a lot of things perfectly since that bad start. I still laugh at myself for my bad start, but I don't let it bother me since I have done a lot of helpful things here since. So have you. -- MelanieN (talk) 05:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Please LOCK the main Kayastha page

Hi Melanie(administrator),

Please lock the following page

https://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Kayastha

It's the main page of Kayastha and the information present there is very important.

People have already started to vandalize this page. The rights to make edits to this page should only be given to reputed and recognised editors here who have been contributing to that page since years. Not to people like me. I'm a greenhorn here.

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Brahmin

Similar to the page mentioned above WHICH IS LOCKED,the page http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Kayastha

was also LOCKED till a few days ago but since 2-3 days, it's been unlocked.

HOW?

I think that it's an error made by you guys!!

So,I hope that you LOCK that page to prevent vandalism!!  The pages like Brahmin and Kayastha are very important. People of wrong intent in their mind can easily vandalise this page.

Since the administrators like you don't have any idea about the content that can be added or deleted in this page,it'll be very difficult to retain that page's "correct information" once it's deleted by miscreants!!

I hope that it makes sense to you.

Awaiting your reply at the earliest! Dinopce (talk) 09:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I added this separate discussion again as I was not able to access the previous discussion page on your Talk page.

The several discussion topics were not being shown due to some reason.

Something should be wrong with your talk page settings. I am not sure. Thanks Dinopce (talk) 11:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok Melanie. Thanks for the reply.

You're the admin(boss).:) You'll know better!

It was my work to inform you regarding the politics behind it.

There are people who would like to mess with the contents of this page in future,similar to the Brahminpage.

There are people who write wrong articles about Kayasthas.

Eg: https://peoplegroupsindia.com/profiles/kayasth/#:~:text=From%20Chitragupta's%20two%20wives%2C%20Eravati,and%20Balmiki%20from%20the%20second. If you'll see the 3rd para of the origin section section in the link. The Varna or class status of the Kayasth has been a matter of controversy and they have been classified as Brahmin (highest Hindu priestly caste), Kshatriya (2nd highest warrior caste of rulers) and even Sudra (4th and lowest class of peasants and serfs). Despite their own high self-perception, the common view is that they belong to the Vaisya, or 3rd highest caste of traders.

Our reference in scriptures is that of Brahmin varna(The learned) or Kshatriya varna(The warriors) if you'll go through the recent changes in the main page that I made with references.

Kayasthas were not able to prove their Brahmin varna(The learned) status under law but they've proved their Kshatriya varna(warrior or ruling class)status in Calcutta and Patna high court.

Under law, Kayasthas are purest of Kshatriya! Once upon a time,Kayasthas ruled more than half of entire Indian subcontinent.

Swami Vivekananda (The man who established Hinduism as a major religion in the Parliament of World Religion in the year 1893) was a Kayastha(caste). Not a Brahmin(caste).

VID-WAAN(Extremely knowledgeable regarding scriptures, religion etc )- In the old days,only Kayasthas and Brahmins(caste) could become a VIDWAAN. It's all a game of genes! Note: I hope you'll not think of me as some crazy person or anything after this. It's just that I wanted to share what I know!

You can clearly understand the politics behind it now. If any site or person is writing other wise,then he's messing with the history for vested interest. Wikipedia articles are considered credible! Messing with the information here regarding anything means people will acquire wrong information about a topic in their mind. Wiki-pedia means Quick Encyclopedia! That quick part shouldn't contain half-baked knowledge,if you can catch the drift.:) Just keep this in mind! The rest you'll know better.

Also,just checked the following page. Somebody has messed with it. It'll require a revert,I think. It's hotch-potch.

https://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Panipuri

Ciao! Dinopce (talk) 05:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Melanie. Understood. As an admin,you'll know better. Dinopce (talk) 05:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Protection of the page "Kayasthas"

Hi Melanie(Administrator),

Please lock the following page

https://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Kayastha

It's the main page of Kayastha and the information present there is very important.

The rights to make edits to this page should only be given to reputed and recognised editors here who have been contributing to that page since years.

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Brahmin

Similar to the page mentioned above WHICH IS LOCKED,the page http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Kayastha

was also LOCKED till a few days ago but from a 2-3 days ago, it's been unlocked.

HOW?

I hope that it's an error made by you guys. So,I hope that you lock that page to prevent vandalism!!

Note:The rights to make changes to that page should be given to TRUSTWORTHY USERS. If Wikipedia feels that I'm not a trustworthy user,then don't give me access to make changes in that page.

Note1:The page "Brahmin" & "Kayastha" are prone to get vandalised by people of other castes as these two are one of the most hated castes here in India by people of lower castes. Wanted to give you this information. Kayasthas are more or less like the "protestants" of Hinduism(similar to the Protestants and Catholics of Christianity). Protestants=Kayastha Catholic=Brahmin

The above is for your knowledge as you're a foreigner.

PS: Please LOCK THE "Kayastha" page and give access to genuine users only.

Awaiting your reply at the earliest! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinopce (talk • contribs) 10:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Dinopce. If you're wondering why I didn't reply earlier: I was offline all day yesterday. About the page Kayastha: it has been semi-protected since 2012 and still is. That prevents editing by anonymous editors and brand-new users. I don't see any disruption in the recent history that would call for a higher level of protection. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Implementing a manual of style change in US politics

If I wanted to propose a Wikipedia policy / rule change, what would be the best / most likely way to get it implemented? The rule change / guideline I want to propose is something along the lines of: "When possible, use aggregate polling rather than individual polls". I think this rule would get rid off some pointless arguing and edit-warring. Usually, sensible people can agree that aggregate polling is infinitely superior and that it solves the problem of cherry-picking polls to fit certain narratives, but after seeing editors on Trump-related pages forcefully argue for individual polls in 2016 and most recently editors on Bernie Sanders-related pages fight for the inclusion of individual polls in this election cycle, it's clear that making a rule-change would solve some unnecessary headaches. This problem sometimes also pops up on pages for individual congressional candidates. Page watchers can chip in. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Snoogans, thanks for the note, but I'm probably not the best person to ask. I rarely get involved with meta issues or general discussion pages. Offhand I would say what you are seeking is not a policy or rule - possibly a guideline, or possibly a consensus applying only to U.S. politics. I'm trying to think of a well-traveled site where this could be discussed and a definitive consensus reached. This is an issue of content, not style, so not an MOS page. One possibility would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/American politics. That is not a heavily trafficked page, but with notices at multiple appropriate talk pages it might be possible to have a valid discussion. Another might be Talk:Opinion poll, but that is an even more obscure page. I'm going to ping some other admins who might have better suggestions for where to hold this discussion. @Neutrality, Muboshgu, and TonyBallioni: Any thoughts where to take this question? -- MelanieN (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Seems like it would be a sensible change for all politics, not just US. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics, 336 watchers? Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums, 151 watchers? Cabayi (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans:, sounds like a case for the Village Pump. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Maybe an MOS issue? From a practical standpoint, I doubt it will gain consensus unless it already has it. RfCs exist more serve to document pre-existing consensus that no one bothered to write down than anything else. Trying to change policy that way rarely works without significant buy-in before. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Protection of US universities

Hi MelanieN, I see that you've semi-protected a whole bunch of US universities due to vandalism taking the form of "X university is an online university". It's a good idea to get a jump on the ball. I just wonder if two weeks of semi-protection is rather extreme, since it looks like it's usually vandalism from 1 or 2 IP addresses, which doesn't strike me as heavy, persistent vandalism. I would think that a couple days would be more appropriate, and then extensions if need be. Ergo Sum 23:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, Ergo Sum. I agree that two weeks is more than I would usually give for something like this. (Violates my own guidelines at User:MelanieN/Page protection!). The reason I am giving them all two weeks rather than my normal two days is that I think it is likely to continue for at least that long and I don't want us to have keep re-protecting them. Yes, I guess I was using IAR and thinking a little bit pre-emptively, but I feel it is justified in this case. I was also installing protection when that particular edit had been done and reverted twice; normally I would want to see three vandalism edits before protecting, but this is clearly a pattern, probably being promoted via social media somewhere. The exact same edit is being done by different people at dozens of pages. When we get a Wiki-wide onslaught like this, I think we need to be more aggressive in combatting it. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Parkdean Resorts

Thanks MelanieN, you did a really good job of cleaning up that article and streamlining what I had written. Thank you for making the text tight and concise. Great job. Appreciate your time and input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.190.111 (talk) 01:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome. I saw it at RfPP and decided I would edit the article and let someone else handle the protection request. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

P.S. One thing I didn't do is expand the references into proper citations instead of bare urls. I'll let you do that. If you don't know how, see Help:Referencing for beginners. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:39, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Thanks! That's a good bit of practice for me to get used to this. Thanks for taking the time to signpost the how-to. I'll do my best to tidy this up! Great to collaborate :)81.187.190.111 (talk) 02:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Discuss first for Trump lead

Greetings. I can't find the talk page thread, but I'm fairly certain I recently flat out told Markbassett he was wrong to revert for that reason. I don't recall any disagreement with that. If that's a thing, I wonder what the twelve "do not change without prior consensus" hidden comments in the lead and infobox are for.

If we're going to make that a requirement, I think we should have an explicit consensus and it should be in the consensus list. Otherwise the lead should be subject to BRD like anything else that's not in the list. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I've often heard things like that said at the talk page - "you shouldn't have changed this, you should have discussed it first". And in any case removing it is an application of BRD. But since I reverted, I should discuss, and I will. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

2020 Olympics

Hi Melanie. Just wanted to drop a quick note to let you know that I have unlocked the Olympics given the official confirmation of the delay. I reset protection to semi-pp x 48 hrs. I hope you and yours are well.. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Ad Orientem, I was hoping someone would do this as soon as it was official. (I had figured I might be in the wrong time zone, and sure enough I was!) I suspect we may need semi for longer than 48 hours, but we can wait and see what happens. Also, let's keep an eye out in case people start moving the article; it is currently not move-protected. Right now they are having a nice civil discussion at the talk page about the article title. If they reach consensus and do an agreed-upon move all will be well; if people start renaming it outside the process we will have to move-protect. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Muhajir people

User:Gotitbro was constantly removing reliably sourced content and replacing it with unsourced made up content. The user seems to have an old history of edit warring across multiple articles. Please review the edits. I can provide the sources for the edits he removed so they can be reviewed and verified.76.69.44.222 (talk)

Thanks for your note. But the place to discuss content is Talk:Muhajir people. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I have repeatedly explained in edit summaries and cited all the edits, including from Oxford University and the Encyclopedia of Asian and Oceanic peoples.76.69.44.222 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Don't explain in edit summaries. Explain on the talk page. Show your sources, with links. The talk page is where discussion happens. That's where consensus can be reached. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	I'm awarding this barnstar for your tireless efforts at WP:RFPP. Clovermoss (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Clovermoss! My guilty secret: page protection is my favorite area because it's the only admin action that you ever get thanked for! -- MelanieN (talk) 19:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

We can all use a little humor while we shelter in place

I probably shouldn't do this, but hey, it's MY talk page! This is the funniest thing I have seen in days. Somebody named Daniel Matarazzo has rewritten the words to Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious for our current situation. [1] -- MelanieN (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I've petitioned the OED to include this new word. Liked the comment to next do the song: Don't Stand so Close to me. O3000 (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

By "new word" you mean superbadtransmittablecontagiousawfulvirus? I'd be in favor of that. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Not as long as pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis. But longer than floccinaucinihilipilification which I managed to use once. O3000 (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Well done! Hey, here's another song they should adapt for current use: Every Breath You Take. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

See, we were warned. By British rock musicians. O3000 (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

And Duke Ellington. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

"The only truth is music. Music blends with the heartbeat universe and we forget the brain beat." --Kerouac. Well, he forgot wine. O3000 (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Happy to be able to report that humour is also good for treating the actual symptoms (rather than just our moods)....spewing hot tea out of the nose is good for clearing nasal congestion. Meters (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Now the tea shelves will be empty in the markets. O3000 (talk) 21:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

And the Kleenex shelves. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

"Long time passing...When will they ever learn?" O3000 (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I thought I was the only person that remembered that song. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm a child of the 60s. Now, I'm going to have that song going through my head all night long. O3000 (talk) 21:37, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

BTW I forwarded this to a friend, and she replied "Superclevereruditeinfectioussongdelightsus!!" -- MelanieN (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Robert Campbell (California politician)

On 29 March 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Robert Campbell (California politician), which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Temporary protection

Yesterday you declined temporary semi-protection at Arthur Rudolph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), saying it was just one IP and issuing them a final warning. They are still at it, and now have moved to a mobile device, causing the same disruption. All together, there have been 4 IP's involved in this disruption, all of them using the same edit summaries, all causing the same disruption, and all locate to the same area. If you believe the article is not a candidate for semi-protection, what would you advise? Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, User:Isaidnoway. I have semi-protected the article for two weeks. If they resume after that expires, let me know or list it at RfPP, and we can re-protect for a longer period. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

User talk:Lomita

Hi, and thank you for your action on User talk:Lomita. Since my request at RFPP is archived, I'm replying here. (Poke @Lomita: )

The last vandal on her page was dealt with at AIV and indeed it was some spillover from fr.wp. What I'm concerned with is, since Lomita is the most active admin on fr.wp, this kind of abuse is bound to happen again sooner or later once the protection is lifted. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 07:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@Comte0: OK, I've slept on it and you have convinced me. I will make the semi-protection indefinite. I was close anyhow. This is kind of IAR, but I can see her situation is unique.

I can pretty much follow your conversations with her - I haven't forgotten quite ALL of my high-school French - and I can see you have been a good friend to her, so thank you for that. I have no idea what the vandals are saying. Is any of it bad enough that it should be revdel'ed? -- MelanieN (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. Actually I patrol the en.wp user pages of the admins and RC patrol people on fr.wp, this is how I found out about her situation. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 12:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)