User talk:MelanieN/Archive 75

Archive 70

←

Archive 73

Archive 74

Archive 75

Archive 76

Archive 77

→

Archive 80

Request some protection for Jackie Ormes, linked from today's Google doodle

Some varied IPs are playing with this article about a notable Black woman cartoonist. Can you or somebody set it to autoconfirmed for today, while it is getting traffic from Google? Thanks! HouseOfChange (talk) 16:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the alert. I gave it two days. There was also some constructive editing by IPs, but not enough to cancel out the disruptive stuff - some of it approaching BLP territory. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Arameans

Hello, I want to say that the name ܐܪ̈ܡܝܐ Oromoye should be added to the site Arameans, it’s the perfect translation of the word Aramean and the Arameans are feeling related to this word

Drmartinbey (talk) 00:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Drmartinbey, and thanks for the note. Any suggestions for edits to the article should be made on the article talk page. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion for additional article protection to Lloyd Cafe Cadena

Hi! I just wanted to suggest to you since you're the one who made the article regarding to Lloyd Cafe Cadena semi-protected.

There was this user named JmKissme who reverted my edits regarding to the removal of some of the text that he added and from other users since it may require further verification and some are questionable. At 13:19 UTC, he reverted edits stating that "this is considered his legacy and notable information to his death."

Prior to this, I received a suggestion from an IP address user who wanted to removed some of its content due to indiscriminate information, which I heeded the suggestion and made edits to it. (See Talk:Lloyd Cafe Cadena#Semi-protection edit request on 6 September 2020)

Hours after JmKissme reverted my edits, the IP address user came back and asked that user to remove the text for the same reason. (See Talk:Lloyd Cafe Cadena#Death section)

I am suggesting to you whether to put the article to extended-confirmed protection or to pending changes to avoid any further unnecessary and unverified content in this article, since it also involved the death of an internet personality and more information may be needed.

What are your thoughts on this? Thanks! Jhenny38 ^{(Starters talk, My contributions)} 23:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, Jhenny38. I don't see any need for a change in the protection. You and Jmkissme have a difference of opinion about what should be in the article; to deal with that you need to start a discussion with them on the article talk page. I see several other conversations on the talk page, but not one where you are talking to them about why you feel the material should be removed. We don't use page protection to sort out differences of opinion, and in any case ECP wouldn't make any difference, because both of you are extended confirmed. Talk to the other user, see if you can reach agreement about what does and does not belong there - and of course don't edit war while you are doing that. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you MelanieN for your advice. I already messaged that user before you did that edits may happen and his content may be removed or altered for certain reasons. I'm just doing my job as an ordinary Wikipedia user.Jhenny38 ^{(Starters talk, My contributions)} 01:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

It would be better to ping him to discuss it at the article talk page - rather than try to discuss it on his user talk page. Discussions of content should usually be on the article's talk page, so that they are public and other people can chime in. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello

I'm new editor to Wikipedia. I recently tried to edit the article, but noticed that you canceled my contribution. I would like to know what did i wrong? [1] Y.Silver (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Y.Silver, and welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad you have registered an account; you will find it gives you a lot more ability to do things here at Wikipedia. As for why I removed your edit: several reasons. The source you cited was not a Neutral Reliable Source as Wikipedia requires; it did not seem to meet the criteria for a Reliable Source, and it was very much promoting the use of polygraphs. Also, the material you added was promotional, naming one particular polygraph school, and naming some of its graduates. Do keep editing here and don't be discouraged; you will soon learn what does and doesn't go here. You might want to sign up for the WP:Wikipedia Adventure as a way to learn your way around. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Arameans article

Hi MelanieN, could you please protect the Arameans article due to an emerging edit warring with Assyrian POV editor Mugsalot. He went his own way by reverting previous edits based on his own preferences, ignoring the RFC-discussion with him actually being a minority to revert the article back to its previous form. Would it be possible for you or a team of admins to review the RFC-discussion and make a decision? Many thanks in advance. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Arameans --Optra2021 (talk) 11:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

The RFC has been closed as inconclusive/no consensus. I have changed the protection of the article to Extended Confirmed, because I see it has been targeted in recent days by several sockpuppets with extended confirmed posting privileges. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@MelanieN: User Mugsalot ignored the inconclusive/no consensus RFC-discussion and just reverted not only one source, but the entire article again despite other reliable sources given in the article just to meet his POV to forcely include modern Aramean content in the highly disputed "Assyrian people" article, which the RFC-discussion was all about. Could you please take a look? If you review the discussion, it is evident him doing POV editing on English Wikipedia. The article should keep its current status during the RFC-discussion, edited by non-biased or political driven users, not by POV users such as Mugsalot or personal affected users such as Shmayo who happens to be an Assyrian Wikipedian. By no mean any of these mentioned users are neutral and objective in the sense of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Thank you.

Just to give you an example. When Mugsalot claimed the "Assyrian" terminology to be commonly accepted in academia despite me giving contra-sources, e. g. by professor Sebastian Brock which proved him wrong, another user asked Mugsalot to provide evidences, e. g. through surveys etc that "Assyrian" is really the commonly accepted term in academia which he couldn't deliver and ignored to answer.

See original book cover: https://books.google.de/books/about/Arameans_and_the_Making_of_Assyrians.html?id=9cDyswEACAAJ&redir_esc=y

See Mugsalot's contribution by falsfying the original title from "Arameans and the Making of ‘Assyrians'" to "Assyrians and the Making of 'Arameans'" on purpose to give it a different meaning to meet his POV. http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Johny_Messo&diff=935120057&oldid=908926034--Optra2021 (talk) 21:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

These issues need to be worked out on the talk page. I will not be intervening or expressing an opinion with regard to the content of the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Rose Garden article

Your removal of the new information from White House Rose Garden results in an inaccurate description of the post-Melania garden. If you want to remove the article as a reference, then OK, but your revised article is factually incorrect.--Zeamays (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Zeamays, and thanks for the note. I agree that the article is now out of date, and I started a discussion about that at the talk page a couple of weeks ago, see Talk:White House Rose Garden#Update needed. I said the article need updating but I was not expert enough to do it. The response at the discussion was that we should wait before updating the current appearance of the garden, because it is a political hot topic currently. Feel free to join the talk page discussion.

The reason I removed that one paragraph is that the Newsweek article cited as a reference contained errors of fact, such as the claim that the crabapple trees had been cut down - when actually they were removed intact and will be replanted elsewhere on the White House grounds.[2] (A good example of why we no longer regard Newsweek as a Reliable Source.) We need to be sure that any source we use is reliable. Maybe we could now add a description of the current garden, using the references proposed at the talk page; note that some people were unwilling to regard the White House description of the changes as reliable and that changes should be sourced to secondary sources. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I never wrote Newsweek was a Reliable Source. What I wrote was that you rendered much of the description of the post-renovation garden incorrect by removing my text as well as the reference, and you didn't fix it by providing a reliable source yourself. It was the reference that was wrong, not the facts that the reference cited. This afternoon, I fixed the problem by adding two references and correcting now erroneous legends to figures. --Zeamays (talk) 02:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, it was time to do that. I have added a few tweaks. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Arameans

Hi MelanieN,

I saw that you protected the page Arameans, after you did that an user reverted the edits, which goes against the ongoing RFC on the talk page, that was opened by the same user named Mugsalot, namely;” Should this article only contain information relevant to the ancient people?”

The user removed the information about the modern Arameans while consensus was NOT reached. Could you please revert the user his edit back.

Thanks in regards!

Vullc4n0 (talk) 13:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

These issues need to be worked out on the talk page. I will not be intervening or expressing an opinion with regard to the content of the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I fully understand that, but at the moment I’m not able to revert the edit that was made and as the Wikipedia guidelines are violated by that user while there is no consensus reached on the RFC I kindly ask you if you can revert the edit! :) the user pushed his own view on the article by removing the content and ignoring the opinions of other Wikipedia editors. Vullc4n0 (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh you fully understand--I'm sure you also fully understand why you're blocked, then. God this is irritating. Do you really think you're helping anything? Drmies (talk) 15:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

New message from Shearonink

Hello, MelanieN. You have new messages at Talk:Killing of George Floyd.
Message added 18:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Help please. Don't know quite what to do here, would appreciate someone with a higher pay grade weighing-in. Thanks. Shearonink (talk) 18:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Shearonink. Looks like CFred has taken care of it. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I've just never seen someone massively revert ol' ClueBot or ClueBot III like that... and then after they reverted ClueBot and then me they haven't posted anything to the threads so I don't know what has been gained... Oh well, thanks again. Shearonink (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Tu Jaane Na

Hi, MelanieN, recently you redirected the article Tu Jaane Na. However, I don't think that it should be done so. I'm author of the article and it contains good information and sources. As well as, it took an enough time of me during creating. As I think, it's lot of better than that older one. It shouldn't be redirected in such a way. If you'd not mind then I'll ask you to revert your edit and make it an article again. I'll be thankful. Thank you. Empire AS ^Talk! 01:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, User:Empire AS. Thanks for your note. I'm just about to log off for the night so I'll take a closer look in the morning. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll be waiting. Empire AS ^Talk! 03:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

OK. I made a more detailed comparison of the current version compared to the one that was redirected at AfD. The new article contains more information, and it shows an award actually won instead of just nominated, so I will restore it as an article. However, I noted that a lot of the new information is unsourced or sourced only to youtube, which could be a problem at a second AfD if one is proposed. I will place a note on the talk page saying that I have declined G4 and that a second AfD would be needed to redirect it again. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Empire AS: A problem: when I tried to restore your version, it triggered a filter saying that one of the following sources is a self-published blog, normally not accepted as a source:  Angelfire, Blogger (including blogspot.com), Geocities, Livejournal, Rootsweb, WordPress.com. Offhand I didn't see those sources in your version; can you please point out to me where you used one of them, so I can remove it? Thanks. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC) P.S. I see that you got the same warning about self-published blogs on August 2, but you published your version anyhow. Earlier versions of the article also triggered that warning but apparently the authors ignored it. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I found it. The problem is references 1 and 2 (actually the same reference) cited to thefilmistanconnection.wordpress.com and used to support the lead paragraph. Can you find any other reference to support "The song is sung by Pakistani playback singer Atif Aslam. The song was composed by Pritam Chakraborty and lyrics were written by Irshad Kamil."? -- MelanieN (talk) 16:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I think our time zones are completely different. Would I be able to find more refs about the article and expand it to an FA. But I searched Google to find all possible refs about the song. The sources I found, put them into article. Due to having insufficient sources, I made use of YouTube official sources to cite duration, published year and credits. The ref of filmistan connection was blog, I didn't know. The ref was not being opened by me in my country so I archived it. I've these three sources [3] [4] [5], but they don't seem to reliable. But I'm not able to find more refs for article after a long search. Thank you. Empire AS ^Talk! 04:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your sincere effort. I guess it will have to stay as a redirect for now, since it would likely fail AfD again because of sourcing issues. Sorry. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Please don't disappoint me. What about these three refs. What I'd have to do to return it as article? Thank you. Empire AS ^Talk! 15:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you understood. You are right, those three references are not Reliable Sources, not even close. And when I tried to restore the article as it was, a filter warned me against the wordpress reference - even though it has been in the article all along. Your new version of the article does contain more information than the earlier, AfD'ed version. But the new information (and even the old information) is not supported by Reliable Sources. In fact there is really not a single Reliable Source in the article as Wikipedia defines sources. It is mostly youtube and some blogs. IMO the new version would again be challenged at AfD and the result would again be Redirect. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

So, I think that I'd have to find reliable sources for this article otherwise I'm helpless an unable to keep it as article. It's not easy to find refs for this article. However, I'll still try. Thank you. Empire AS ^Talk! 15:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

William Barr

Hi there. Since you recently made an edit to that article about a statement not directly about Barr, you may want to comment here Talk:William_Barr#These reverted edits should be restored. Trying to reconnect (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll take a look. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Tim Kaine

Hi, thanks for your help on Tim Kaine. However, I noticed that the protection you put in is significantly shorter than the previous protection, which expired only a short time ago. Would you please consider making the semi-protection longer? The page has been consistently vandalized for more than a year despite multiple protections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.87.15.15 (talk • contribs)

You're right. I reacted quickly to the rat-a-tat vandalism and forgot to check the protection log. And I foolishly assumed that since he is no longer a vice presidential nominee, his page would no longer be a target. The protection that just expired was for a year; I will WP:TROUT myself and impose protection for another year. Thanks for pointing this out. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Paul Elias Alexander

Hello! Your submission of Paul Elias Alexander at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Squirrels, again

I don't suppose I can persuade you to pop {{user squirrel}} on your userpage? It was your idea.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

LOL, I'd forgotten about that! It's still funny. But I think I'll pass, on the userbox. Thanks for the suggestion, though. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

People of Praise

Hi, Melanie,

I'd like to ask you for your help with this article. People of Praise is a primarily Catholic intentional community that has been around since the 1970s. It's conservative and charismatic. I happen to know some members, both of them Catholic priests, in Oregon. Because the lastest Supreme Court nominee is rumored to be a member, the article is subject to a lot of editing from people who want the group labeled a "cult". I studied the sociology of religion in school and it doesn't meet the organizational definition of a cult. I expect the bickering on this article to continue for weeks because peope are so unhappy about this SCOTUS appointment. I'm involved already so I can't impose any sort of protection on the article but I did impose a 31 block on the most persistently disruptive editor.

There is no way on Earth this small religious community would be getting any attention at all from our editing community if it wasn't for the barest of political connections to Donald Trump. I'd appreciate it if you could add the page to your Watchlist and, if you feel it is warranted, impose some sort of editing restriction should edit warring continue. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Liz: Thanks for the alert. It certainly does need help. I have given it 2 weeks semi-protection and added it to my watchlist. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Much appreciated! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Even absent Trump (difficult, I know), the article would be an attention magnet because she's in no wise SCOTUS timber and, well, SCOTUS. Definitely needs the protection in any case. kencf0618 (talk) 17:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Trump editsum

Hi there. Re this edit summary, please see Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus item 43. I concur with the revert, but the rationale was invalid and editsum was effectively misinformation; prior talk page consensus is not required for changes to the lead of that article. I'm sure you can see how it's important to be accurate about these things, particularly in the AP area, and I'm resisting the temptation to add a correcting dummy edit (although you might do so). See you around. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Prior consensus IS required for changes to the lead paragraph. It even says so in the invisible comment: "DO NOT CHANGE the first paragraph without prior consensus; see Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus." This was a change to the lead paragraph. Thanks for the note, but I'll stick with my comments at the discussion I opened on the talk page. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Prior consensus IS required for changes to the lead paragraph. Yes, but that is not what your editsum said. The editsum did not contain the word "paragraph" but referred to "the lead", which most reasonable editors will take to mean the entire lead.

This was a change to the lead paragraph. Debatable considering that this scenario was never considered during the discussions to my knowledge. But moot anyway, since my concern was not about the rationale but about the incorrect and misleading assertion in the editsum. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:41, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the Prompt Response

Thanks for your prompt response suggesting speedy deletion for the irrelevant redirection related to my request at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_September_28#Enola Homosexual.Amit Dash (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome. I happened to see it mentioned at User talk:Cullen328. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

That's nice, cheers! Amit Dash (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Paul Elias Alexander

—valereee (talk) 00:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Archive 70

←

Archive 73

Archive 74

Archive 75

Archive 76

Archive 77

→

Archive 80