I refactored part of a post by Writegeist that seems to be a clear BLP violation. I understand that this is a talk page, but BLP applies to ALL pages. I will not revert again, even though BLP violations I believe allow more that 1 revert. I appreciate your post that the talk page is not a forum. Thank you, --[[User:Malerooster|Malerooster]] ([[User talk:Malerooster|talk]]) 22:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I refactored part of a post by Writegeist that seems to be a clear BLP violation. I understand that this is a talk page, but BLP applies to ALL pages. I will not revert again, even though BLP violations I believe allow more that 1 revert. I appreciate your post that the talk page is not a forum. Thank you, --[[User:Malerooster|Malerooster]] ([[User talk:Malerooster|talk]]) 22:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
:Lol! [[User:Writegeist|Writegeist]] ([[User talk:Writegeist|talk]]) 23:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, JJMC, and thanks for your note. Redirect might have been the best outcome, but only one person suggested it, and only at the last minute. They didn't even name the target they wanted it redirected to. So IMO the closer correctly interpreted the discussion as no consensus. Remember, closers are supposed to interpret the consensus and implement the result of the discussion - not to impose what they think would be a good idea. The other option would have been a third relisting, but third relistings are discouraged. Of course, there is nothing to prevent us from boldly redirecting it now! IMO that could be done without reopening the discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 00:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and redirected it to the artist. (The album was deleted at AfD.) The problem with redirecting it outside of AfD is that the creator will likely revert/recreate the article (as he has done for many articles that get deleted/redirected at AfD, most recently So Good (Bratz song)(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)). — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's his privilege. If he does you may have to renominate it at AfD, this time recommending redirect. With a no-consensus close, there is no rule against an immediate renomination. BTW that template {{R from song}} looks like a great addition to this kind of redirect - and could even be quoted in your nomination if you renominate. --MelanieN (talk) 13:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It has been almost 3 months that the article for AWK Solutions was deleted from wikipedia. You then helped me to have the article copied in sandbox, so that it cane be improved and updated with notable references. although it took some time, but i think we do have some good references for this article. I have already updated a few refences and will add more in the day to come.
So i would request you to please review the article and let me know if i can now submit this in wikipedia. URL provided below
Hello, Startupindia, and thanks for the note. I'm sorry, but the article is not ready for Wikipedia - not al all. The language is virtually identical to the version that was deleted as a result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AWK Solutions. You have added a few references, but they are either directory listings or press releases. Please look again at WP:CORP. There has to be INDEPENDENT coverage of the company from RELIABLE sources like newspapers etc. Directories and press releases are not independent and do not help the company meet the requirements of WP:CORP. --MelanieN (talk) 23:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Libertarian Convention Results
As a consistent contributor to political topics I am curious as to your thoughts on including the Libertarian Convention results by state for Template:Libertarian Party presidential primaries, 2016 and re-ordering the candidates based on these results. Being that the delegate votes at the convention ultimately decide the winner of the Libertarian primary I believe they should be the results displayed in the template (or at least alongside the votes from the previous state primary ballots which give the official popular vote). I have begun a discussion on the template talk page and would like to have a few users involved in the discussion to come to a good consensus instead of a consensus based on the opinions of only two users (myself being one of them). Appreciate any feedback and if you respond here please give me a ping. Acidskater (talk) 02:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I generally tend to bend over backward to educate new editors, but in this case it's a waste of time and effort to get this IP to cooperate. They're spinning out of control and simply not listening. Moreover although they're already at 4RR the edit warring boards will accomplish nothing since they're using dynamic IP addresses. The simple solution is RPP, which would probably be inevitable anyway due to the recent high level of disruption by other IPs. I requested temporary semi-protection. Cheers. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Trump
I got blocked for a freaking week for removing contested BLP material from that article that still has not been restored. And it won't be. We're not pushing bullshit into the article. Don't care if you're an admin that hates Trump. Get in line. Doctalk06:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea who blocked you or why. And you are not very good at explaining what you are talking about. After some research, it appears you are probably talking about this addition, which you reverted. Let's take it to the talk page - and let's stay civil, shall we? --MelanieN (talk) 10:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you get what a "firm consensus" is on an article under ARBCOM sanctions. 2 people commented for, and I commented against. 2 days passed, then your "decision".[2] Are you confident that a firm consensus was established before you added that? Please explain how.
I'm sorry if I come off as uncivil - I know you're a good admin and have had good interactions with you in the past. I'm not even a Trump fan, really: but I see how his stuff is being treated differently. It's against the very nature of a "neutral" encyclopedia and it should not be happening. Doctalk05:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, I am not the one who inserted the part of the Gonzales column about speaking fees for the Clintons. That firm was appointed before trump announced his presidential campaign, and I agree it's generally a good idea to avoid guilt by association stuff. So, I will not object at this time to your removal. We'll see if anyone else does, such as the person who inserted it. Thanks, and I just wanted to make it clear that I am 100% innocent, not guilty, and didn't do it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I never thought (or suggested) it was you. On the contrary, you seem to bend over backward to be fair and impartial, and to respect consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 03:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Melanie, WP:Blockquote says quotes of 40 words or more should be blockquoted. I have no objection if you'd like to cut some of the quote so it is less than 40 words. Maybe paraphrase the rest.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. BTW, we now Wlink twice to NCLR. Per MOS:QUOTE, "As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader."Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this edit of yours, I was not aware that any discussion anywhere at Wikipedia had concluded that the boycott information should be completely absent from every article at Wikipedia.I have long observed an increasing tendency at Wikipedia for political articles to degenerate into one-sided propaganda based upon the political views of a majority of editors, and then that slant is maintained by sanctions against any editor who has sought NPOV. But maybe you were already well aware of all this.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Becky, and thanks for the note. It is actually very different from the previous article and so is not eligible for G4. However, it is not an improvement; in fact it contains far LESS material than the previous article and fewer references, and does not really make any claim of notability. I think it may be eligible for A7, if that's allowed after an AfD (I haven't encountered this situation before). The alternative would be another AfD. Feel free to quote me. --MelanieN (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sebastian Solano
Hi Melanie, I wonder if you wouldn't mind moving the deleted Sebastian Solano info to a draft for me? I'd like to reuse somem of the research on other toipcs. Thanks! Earflaps (talk) 12:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Borsoka has taken advantage of the protection of the article to enforce his POV and has again added his edits here. Also please note that my edits were well-sourced with highly reliable sources. Both John Man and Peter W. Edbury are reliable scholars that I've added for my edits. Please revert Borsoka's edits as he is breaking the rules to enforce his ill-informed POV. 117.241.118.76 (talk) 21:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The place to work these issues out is at the talk page. And the deciding factor at the talk page is consensus. I see there is a prolonged argument (I wouldn't call it a discussion) at the talk page. And I see that you do not appear to have consensus on your side. If you are sure you are right and they are both wrong, you could take it to WP:Dispute resolution. But you'll need much better arguments that what I see there. --MelanieN (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Hmlarson, and thanks for your note. I have no opinion on that; it would depend on the results of an AfD. As administrator I don't personally judge the worthiness of the page; I just evaluate and enforce the consensus at discussion. The discussants at another AfD might or might not come up with the same consensus as they did at this one. --MelanieN (talk) 01:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Request for feedback
Hi, there. You and I have differed concerning edits on an article a couple of years ago, but I respect your opinion. Could you take a look at my edits this evening of the Turner/Doe case and let me know what you think? My feeling is that some editors are trying to retry the case by mischaracterizing the evidence presented in court. I hope my objections and modifications are within Wikipedia guidelines. Activist (talk) 03:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you're talking about the minor tweaks you made - to make it clear that this is him talking and not a fact - I don't see anything controversial about them. I was puzzled by your edit summary Remove contentions that the jury did not believe and witnesses contradicted - See talk. Did you mean to actually remove some material? Or just to clarify that it was according to him? --MelanieN (talk) 03:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I meant that the contentions were solely Turner's, and should not be put on a par, remedied I hoped, via the language I tweaked, with the physical and witness evidence and the jury's conclusions. Thanks. Activist (talk) 09:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Activist: But you might want to tweak your latest addition, about the Swedish graduate students. The way you have it now - "Turner was arrested on January 18, 2015, after police arrived and encountered him pinned by two Swedish graduate students, Carl-Fredrik Arndt (sitting atop his legs) and Peter Lars Jonsson (tripping him and holding his arms). Two others, Beau Barnett and Nicholas Sinclair, then aided Arndt and Jonsson." - seems to muddle the time frame. The sentence starts out describing what police found when they arrived, but "tripping him" and "then aided" are describing the earlier actions by the grad students - rather than describing the scene when police arrived. Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 12:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upon rereading, it needed substantial tweaking and corrections. I think it will work better now. Regarding the DDA's trial statement at the end of the retitled "Incident Details" section: Do you think it should be located below, above the D.A.'s post-sentencing statement? Activist (talk) 19:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for deleting that redundant sentence fragment. As I tried to clean up the section and post changes, I ran into edit conflicts that had me exhaustively redoing it, and I left it in while rushing to finish before I encountered still another. You may agree that when many editors are somewhat contemporaneously involved in a complex story, the changes can get confusing and disjointed as the article grows organically. Activist (talk) 05:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree. That kind of situation can be really frustrating. All you can do is make small edits one at a time, and hit "save" quickly before someone else beats you to it. And things get by you. Happens all the time. For that matter, I gave up trying to follow the history, who-did-what, and just looked at the final result. --MelanieN (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is a discussion
Thanks for your input on the Ed Catmull article. I actually did more than say "go to the talk page". [3]. It's a continuation of an earlier discussion of the material. Also, biased, contentious material in a BLP is one of the few enumerated exceptions to the 3RR. I'd consider saying that the subject "violated the Sherman Act" and that he'd done other unlawful things is quite possibly biased. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I missed that; your recent comment isn't date stamped so it appears to be part of the 2014 discussion. You may very well be right about this entry, and I guess you could take it to the BLP board - but your best bet would probably be to find some other person to help you with the reverting. BTW I gave a much more severe warning to the other party, and if he resumes it could be grounds for a block. --MelanieN (talk) 03:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Niteshift36: One other thought: I took a closer look at the disputed entry. If it was neutrally written - just to say that he gave a deposition in that case - it could be acceptable. But I noticed another problem: the material is copied verbatim from the source, including the parts that are NOT in quotes. If they add it again it could be removed as copyvio, as well as questionable from a BLP standpoint. --MelanieN (talk) 14:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Good to know regarding the copyvio. I'm not too convinced on the inclusion, even if neutral. I just feel that since he wasn't personally sued or there wasn't a court finding that he did anything wrong, including it is really not the way to go. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kai, Canadian Singer
Hello, I work for the management of Kai (Alessia De Gasperis Brigante), the Canadian singer. Can you please tell me why you would delete her wikipedia page? She is a well known singer with a song on the radio and has just signed with Warner Brothers in the USA. So a Wiki page for her is something essential? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magusmusic (talk • contribs) 17:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to have the page re-instated in order to add additional information to the band's page. They meet criteria #1, #4, and #9 on the music notability list, including the following links which I offer as additional sources to the ones that were already on the page: newswire, Tour info, New Years concert with Canadian band Sloan, CBC Radio 2 Top 20Write up about CMW, and This Review (if it counts)Admittedly the band is still new to mainstream Canadian music, and they are an independent band, but that shouldn't limit their presence on Wikipedia and I know with time more sources/information will become available to add to the page. Bananarama10101 (talk) 00:58, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Removal at Donald Trump Presidential Campaign 2016
First, thank you for your input in the Talk for this article. Second, I wanted to clarify this edit where you removed some content as unsourced in the article. I see the following sentence in the Huff Post article that's cited: "They are fed up with politicians." Wouldn't this support the statement?CFredkin (talk) 00:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I took out the sentence where HuffPost focused on just one explanation for why business owners feel the way they do - "fed up with politicians" - out of four or five explanations that are given in the lengthy article (including Obamacare, immigration, etc.). It would take a paragraph to explain the "why" based on that HuffPost article. And in any case the important thing in that article is the fact that business owners are his second-biggest donors. The "why" isn't needed. Do we say "why they do it" for every fact we cite? --MelanieN (talk) 00:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the next paragraph, we say why the business leaders cited are endorsing Clinton. Similarly, it seems fair to explain why small businesses support Trump.CFredkin (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Something like "they are fed up with politicians and opposed to Obamacare and immigration"? We could source that from the article. There might have been some other reasons that I missed. --MelanieN (talk) 05:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Funny thing is, most people don't EVER get told they are attacking, or told to stop it. Does it seem like there might be something different about the way you post, since people keep telling you that? --MelanieN (talk) 00:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You people just don't like to be told when you are wrong. Are you done yet? I'd love, just once, for a wikipedia editor to say they are wrong. Good god. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.228.159 (talk) 13:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I added a second warning to their page. My hunch is that they are smart enough to string out their vandalism so that they never do a batch of it at once and get caught. But I'll watch them. --MelanieN (talk) 01:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to discussion board but not sure it materialized. Someone edited other than myself. How do you monitor to have it exclusively to myself. Appreciate it and need no more threatening notices. Stnicklaus3 (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see it as clear provocation, having nothing to do with the RfA, and possibly even racist. These are the kind of users who possibly do not understand our Anglo-american culture and the special global nature of the English Wikipedia. The sooner we can introduce a 90/500 rule for RfA, the better. Anyway, that's my opinion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything wrong with that question, and it could have a perfectly innocuous answer. Perhaps JJE got scared of de-wiki by the SuperProtect scandal, perhaps he prefers to improve his English by working on this Wikipedia, perhaps he likes to work on the Wikipedia that has the most traffic ... throwing around accusations of racism is really not on. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)09:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the recent Trump Tweet Star of David kerfuffle, I see that the Wikipedia article on Badges notes (albeit without citation) that Sheriff's badges may have five, six, or seven points. If have no idea if any research has been done on this, but if there's not a blog, there should be. kencf0618 (talk) 03:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Trump campaign edit
I agree, I did not hear Lewandowski say it was supposed to depict the shape of a sheriff's badge- however, you also removed what I added which was correct. In the source I cited, the video shows Lewandowski saying nobody would be talking about it if the money was absent from the background. Ghoul fleshtalk16:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ghoul flesh: I see. We normally cite the transcript or report about a speech, not the actual video (which is a Primary Source). How about this: let's wait and see if that part of his comment gets significantly reported by independent sources. If it becomes noteworthy per coverage by independent sources, we should include it. If not, it is not an important or notable part of his comments, and we should not include it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ghoul flesh: I actually doubt if it will get picked up, because it was kind of a weird thing to say. The dollar bills were actually the LEAST controversial thing about the image - compared to the star and the legend "Most corrupt candidate ever". --MelanieN (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly why I included it, it seemed like a really odd comment. But you're right, if it gains more notability it should be re-added. Ghoul fleshtalk19:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, USConservative, and thanks for your note! I took a look at the article and made some changes. I made it clear the company appears to be out of business. If you want you could renominate it with a stronger argument for deletion; your original argument (lack of recent sources) was not very convincing. You should point out that the company was never notable; that it appears to be out of business; and that there currently is another company, FreeWire Technologies, which could cause confusion. --MelanieN (talk) 15:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Noticeboard post
Greetings, I noticed that you called me out on the Edit Warring Noticeboard for not discussing my edits in Talk before making them. I don't believe Rockypedia discussed his edits before making them either. In fact, I don't believe anyone there, except for you and even you don't do it all the time, has done that. I agree that that would be preferable, but in my experience that rarely happens anywhere on the project. Given that, I'm curious why you chose to call me out on it.CFredkin (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To point out that the edit he reverted had not been discussed - in other words was potentially controversial which would give him every right to revert it. And also because you were calling HIM out on the Discretionary Sanctions without following them yourself. --MelanieN (talk) 01:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to be gone for the next 10 days, but I have an ongoing situation at the article Huy Duc. Could I ask some of you to keep an eye on it? The article, created in April 2015, was calm until about a week ago, when the original author (who actually wrote only about one-fifth of the current article) suddenly started trying to delete it. They say they regret writing it, and their argument for deletion seems to be that the guy is pro-communist; they also claimed "factual errors" but did not point any out. They do not understand the systems here but they have tried everything. So far they have tagged it with PROD three times and db-author four times. After the second db-author I sent it to AfD, where it was kept - but they have tried twice more since then. I have posted notes on their talk page but they don't respond. I have warned them they are getting disruptive. I'd appreciate some eyes on the situation while I'm gone. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 03:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC) P.S. I have really tried to be gentle with this person, because I believe they are in good faith and just don't understand how Wikipedia works. Also their English seems to be very limited. --MelanieN (talk) 03:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is a journalist who often works in the Middle East, a married heterosexual, and his page has been repeatedly vandalized, such as here and here and here. Problem is, incorrect information about Wedeman's sexual orientation can cause him real trouble in the Middle East. I am not an administrator but I'm wondering if you might intervene with some kind of page protection?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw them. I would probably have removed them too. They struck me as original research and synthesis. And in a way they are irrelevant; the article doesn't claim that the corporation made any money. But if you want to argue for the inclusion of this information, do it on the article's talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sock
MelanieN=melania kNavss trump
Stop protecting Trump's page from White supremacist/Fascist/Anti-Semitic/Racist/fraud/ponzi-scheme references. It's a conflict of interest issue. Thanks.63.143.196.114 (talk) 16:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Edits using my user were not done by me. Instead of threatening notifications, please advise how I can monitor editing to only be done by myself. Stnicklaus3 (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are saying that your account has been compromised - that is, someone else was able to edit under your user name. That is a serious admission and you need to make sure that never happens again. It is up to you to make sure that no one else uses your account; that security happens at your end. You have two choices. One is to fix whatever caused someone else to have access to your account. If someone knows your password, change it. If someone else uses your computer while you are still logged in, restrict access to your computer. If you can't do one of these things, you should report that the account has been compromised and ask to have it blocked. Then create a new user name for yourself, one that you DO have adequate security for. If your account is used again for vandalism, and you again claim that it was not done by you, this account will be blocked permanently as a compromised account. MelanieN alt (talk) 23:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say that's the "official" site? Please prove the source is reliable. Please show the the source is a recognized expert in this area by providing their full CV and five independent sources attesting to that fact. Is the source [insert unpreferred ethnicity]? If so, they're obviously bias[sic] and can't be used. In fact, trying to use them as a source shows you are incapable of being neutral. Please recuse yourself from this entire area. --NeilNtalk to me21:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Melanie, for the lovely barnstar! Thanks in turn to you for your always-equanimous work - both editorial and administrative. Neutralitytalk02:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Trump's tax returns
Melanie, I really like the controversy paragraph you added, but I honestly think that this issue is not equivalent to the other listed controversies. I presented my argument on the talk page for the article and hope you and others consider it. I believe that half of the other controversies listed are created to keep people from talking about Trump's problem with his tax returns. I am not sure if I am using these pages correctly, but I see a lot of positive comments for you as an editor. Pmacdee (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can we just get indef-semi protection on this article? It has been routinely vandalized by IPs for four months now. I know it isn't the best decision but I get the feeling the article is linked to some kind of a 4-chan type of forum somewhere. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm afraid my analysis is that it's not to that point. I usually look first at the protection log: has the article needed increasingly long periods of protection? How soon after the protection expires does it get reinstated (suggesting that vandalism resumed as soon as the protection expired)? What the history shows here is intense bursts of vandalism, treated with a very short period of protection (my two days was actually on the long side), and then many weeks of calm. I know this pattern can be frustrating for the page watchers, and I encourage you to request protection immediately when it starts up again - because of the rapid-fire nature of the vandalism when it occurs, and also to establish a track record to see if indef is ultimately needed. Personally, if it isn't a BLP problem (that's another situation), I impose indefinite protection only if the article has needed months-long periods of protection, with very short intervals before another months-long period is needed. --MelanieN (talk) 00:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
I just wanted to say that I really admire the work you've done on Donald Trump related articles. Not a fun or easy body of articles to edit, I'm sure, but I think you've done a great job! Safehaven86 (talk) 18:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Safehaven86! I don't usually work much on political articles, but I found that to be an area that really needs help to stay verified and neutral. I'm not the only one trying to keep it that way, but I appreciate your comments. --MelanieN (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apology
I wanted to apologise for exaggerating the explanation for mistake made by the Trump speechwriter: She was not placing full blame on Ms. Trump. I have corrected both the one mistake you found here and another one that you might have missed. Again, on my honour, it was an honest, good faith edit mistake. Is my revision more accurate? Thx.96.59.186.103 (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize; simple difference of opinion or emphasis. Yours was based on what the AP article said so nothing wrong there. But I still think the AP article goes too far in saying the speechwriter placed any blame on Melania; at most it was a misunderstanding between them. If Melania says to a speechwriter, "these are some thoughts I like", she ought to be able to rely on the speechwriter to ask if they are direct quotes, and to make sure they don't get used verbatim. The speechwriter is a professional; Melania isn't; she shouldn't be expected to know these nuances, and I don't think the speechwriter meant to imply that she should have. IMO the speechwriter took all the blame on herself, but that's not how the AP reporter read it. BTW you added that material in a separate place in the article from the speechwriter's apology and statement; don't you think it would go better there? --MelanieN (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible that I placed this update/clarification in the wrong place, and, if so, you're welcome to move it around as needed. However, I think that I was balanced in my description of "shared blame." Nonetheless, if you think it would be possible to put in language about a misunderstanding (which is the obvious situation), that would be good. Neither the writer (McIver) nor the speaker (Ms. Trump) did anything malicious. But, at the end of the day, there was, clearly, carelessness and human error on both parties, so that should be chronicled. ((Oops - ADDENDUM: - I made a mistake - see below: Both articles needed that one edit about the speech mistake, but only the writer's article needed more detail: So, after reviewing your comment, I still think my edits were good, but I'm open to thoughts if you disagree; see below.))96.59.186.103 (talk) 22:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I added the speech quote in both McIver's article and the speech article (it belonged in both places), but the fact that McIver is (or was?) a Democrat only belongs in McIver's article, as we don't need all that detail in the speech article. All is well, and the edits pass my last review, and, I hope, you concur, but if not, please speak up. :) Thx,96.59.186.103 (talk) 23:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: I need your help here
Dear MalanieN, I need your help, here, since my final edits (which we both seem to think are balanced and OK) are not able to be added to this "semi" protected page. Thank you for your assistance.96.59.186.103 (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2nd UPDATE: a Holy War edit war has begun: Need help
Viz: this 'diff' - The edit was is just with one other editor, and so it is in the early stages: He or she offered no explanation, so maybe we can talk this out: I need your help, if you would not mind. Thx,96.59.186.103 (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to see that you have taken the war to the talk page, as you should. Discuss it and let consensus rule. I added my own comments there. You seem to think that I am in agreement with you that the "it's her fault" statement should be in all three articles. I actually don't agree. I was just not going to delete it again after you toned it down. But if it were up to me, I would not include that AP reporter's interpretation of what McIver said anywhere. I would just go with what McIver herself said. --MelanieN (talk) 01:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am what you might call an "inclusionist," and wish to include all relevant sides and facts, but, yes, it is not the most important thing. Balance and Moderation in all things - INCLUDING balance & moderation.~ (That's a joke, because if sometimes we're "moderate" in using moderation, then sometimes we do go to extremes - both humourous and also, occasionally necessary, but I diverge. Again, thx for your help, even if you had a slightly different view on things. Your contributions seemed positive.96.59.186.103 (talk) 05:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: Glad you didn't mind my chiming in. The user seems to have taken both of our comments with good will. I have a particular dislike of insta-tagging - tagging something for deletion just minutes after it was created - so that was why I commented. I later was pointed to Template:uw-hasty which I may use in the future. --MelanieN (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've placed (or am in the process of placing) this notification on the talk page of anyone who took part in the original deletion discussion, as the most recent similar discussion, regardless of deletion preference, which is allowable under WP:CANVASS. The only exception being if that person has already contributed, or has indicated on their profile that they are inactive.
Well, IP 217.28.6.255 is now stalking my work and making POINT-y edits, (since you shut down the edit-warring at Palfrey with page protection, and thank you for that!), and is causing some minor problems for other people also. Here's the ones of mine: [4], [5], and [6]. This account just started editing this month (with one prior edit in March), and I kind of suspect a returned user. I've put two warnings up, I really am not ready to drag this user to the drama boards because they mostly appear to just be kind of thin-skinned, but perhaps you may want to keep an eye on them? Montanabw(talk)08:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. They certainly do sound like a returned editor, not a new one. IMO they are not currently disruptive, but worth keeping an eye on. --MelanieN (talk) 14:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hillary truthful in interview
Melanie, hypothetically would you support adding the following to the email controversy section in Hillary's bio:
In an interview with Fox News in late July, Clinton stated “Director Comey said my answers were truthful, and what I’ve said is consistent with what I have told the American people, that there were decisions discussed and made to classify retroactively certain of the emails.” PolitiFact awarded Clinton four "Pinocchios", its worst rating, for her statement saying "While Comey did say there was no evidence she lied to the FBI, that is not the same as saying she told the truth to the American public."[7][8][9][10]
Hi, CFredlin. I haven't been much involved with the Clinton article and I will let the regular editors there deal with that question. --MelanieN (talk) 22:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
recent edit
Hi Melanie, I saw your edit on the Trump presidential page. It fails to mention that Trump started the interview with Stephanopolous by speaking positively and with empathy about Mr. Khan's loss. It's still a page about a living person, and should tell the whole story, not just an edited version of what really happened that leaves off Trump's opening remarks. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment, SW3 5DL. Yes, he did start out by saying Mr. Khan "was emotional" and "seems like a nice guy," and later said "I wish him the best of luck". If that was all he said, there would be no story. It was what he immediately went on to say (his "maybe she wasn't allowed to speak" comment was part of the same sentence) that got all the publicity, and still does. As an encyclopedia, we don't report every word that someone said; we focus on what the Reliable Sources focused on. That's how we decide what to include and what not. For that matter I left out his "Did Hillary Clinton's campaign write that?" comment too, for the same reason. As for "empathy", when he was asked "what would you say to this father?", he replied "I would say, we've had a lot of problems with Islamic terrorism". I wouldn't exactly call that speaking positively and with empathy about Mr. Khan's loss, would you?--MelanieN (talk) 22:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I wouldn't call that empathy. I had that wrong. I think it could be paraphrased for weight, however. This isn't something Trump started, like he did with the Judge. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Melanie, I modified the edit here, for weight and copy edit, and I included the statements Trump released according to the Wall Street Journal. I left it as comments from both men and left out the characterizations by the media and made a note on the talk page. Let me know what you think. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Precious anniversary
Three years ago ...
rescued for San Diego
... you were recipient no. 562ofPrecious, a prize of QAI!
Hello! I have recently started a new WikiProject and am trying to recruit new members. The project, WikiProject Wildfire, focuses on articles that relate to wildfires. There is a lot of work that needs to be done. From updating templates, to classifying and improving articles. Any level of commitment is welcome! If you care to just add some input on the founding of the new project, awesome. If you would like to take an active role in editing articles, that is awesome as well! Knowledge of wildfires is NOT a prerequisite for joining the project. In fact, it would be great to have some members of the project who are NOT fire-buffs. That way we make sure that articles aren't just written by and for people in the fire community. If this is something you have any interest in, I would love to have you join the project! Please feel free to join the discussion or leave me a message on my talk page. (Note that you are receiving this message from me because I saw you made multiple edits on a wildfire related page, specifically Old Fire. Not just spamming you at random.) Hope you have a great day! Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Once properly placed, [a BLPPROD] can only be removed if a reliable source is added." This article was unreferenced when tagged (see diff), and Transfermarkt, the only source currently cited in the article, is decidedly not reliable. Most of its content is user-generated, meaning it's considered a self-published source (see this RSN discussion for more details). Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see what you mean. I didn't notice that the references were added AFTER tagging; in that case, the references must be reliable. And in a brief search I did not find any reliable sources. You are right and I will delete the article. --MelanieN (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
Melanie, I'm doubtless wrong in thinking this, but it seems to me, and I'm not judging, mind, but ever since I changed your edit to the Khan section, you've followed up several of my talk page comments with what seem to be corrective comments. Like I've fallen short somehow. I feel like I can't get it right for getting it wrong. I don't see you doing that to anyone else. In any event, I meant no offense to your edit. In making my edit, I simply asked myself what would I want to know if I were coming to the article wondering what was going on with Mr. Khan and Mr. Trump. I wanted to know what each man said that caused the media to set the world on fire. Literally, I thought Trump must have said something like we should drown puppies, or something. No offense intended. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I actually didn't even remember that it was you who changed the section. I had no idea that you would take my comments personally, or attribute my later posts to the idea that I somehow had it in for you. I'm sorry if you got that impression. Now I understand why I several times saw you apologize for some perfectly innocent comment. The truth is that half the time I respond to a comment without even noticing who made it; to me it is just a discussion about the content. You comment a lot at those talk pages; naturally I respond; naturally I don't always agree. Nothing personal intended. And please feel free to disagree with me, strongly if you feel strongly. That's what talk pages are for. --MelanieN (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
HNBA
Hi Melanie. I was recently looking at the essay WP:Writing for the opponent and it made me think of you. 🙂 I want to include some undisputed factual, reliably-sourced information in Wikipedia, and would be willing to do it virtually however you want. But I don't know how, and would appreciate if you would tell me how.
Two articles at Wikipidia (Gonzalo P. Curiel and Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016) discuss that Curiel was accused of ties to "La Raza" which allegedly opposes Trump, and both of those Wikipedia articles debunk those accusations. However, neither of those Wikipedia articles mention the reliably-sourced fact (reported by the LA Times and CNN) that Curiel is a member of the HNBA which has boycotted Trump.[11] If you would please consider this in as neutral a manner as you can, how can I insert this info somewhere into Wikipedia? I take WP:Preserve seriously, and I cannot remember ever trying to irrevocably banish reliably-sourced factual information from this encyclopedia. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note, Anythingyouwant. Well, let's see. There are four articles that all deal with this to some extent: the Donald Trump article, the Presidential campaign article, the Curiel article, and the Trump University article. IMO the only place where it might logically be included would be the Curiel article, since it relates to his membership in societies, but I see there are sections in all four articles where it could be mentioned. This has been extensively discussed at several of these articles, and consensus was to leave it out - for several reasons (I'm not going to search the archives). I know that you are aware of this, since you have tried to insert it into multiple articles. You tried to insert it into Trump University back in June, and I told you there was "lengthy discussion at other talk pages" not to include it.[12] Also in June you tried to insert it into the Curiel article [13] and you participated in the discussion at that talk page, following which you reinserted a version of it [14] in what was probably as close as you could come to avoiding a "guilt by association" feel. That section stayed in for several days but was eventually deleted by MastCell as a "cherry-picked factoid". I'm really not going to go through and research the whole timeline, but I can see that you have tried to do this repeatedly and it has always been deleted - and it has been discussed on multiple talk pages without consensus to include it. BTW "reliably sourced factual information" is often excluded, for many reasons: Weight, Relevance, Degree of coverage, Neutrality, etc. Bottom line, I do not feel there is consensus to include this anywhere in Wikipedia. So I won't be helping you write it. Sorry. --MelanieN (talk) 00:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for repeating the chronology that we were both already aware of. Should I characterize your "sorry" as sincere? It has a different ring to it. The reasons you cite (weight, relevance, degree of coverage, neutrality) are reasons to exclude from a particular article. They are not reasons to exclude from the entire encyclopedia forever. I truly am disappointed that you feel entitled to engage in the latter activity. I would be glad to describe the policies and guidelines that forbid that activity, but you don't seem interested.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So it's your belief that every reliably sourced fact, reported anywhere, with any degree of coverage, must be included in the encyclopedia somewhere? And that there are policies and guidelines that require us to include, somewhere in the encyclopedia, every single fact in the world - regardless of degree of coverage, neutrality, etc - because we mustn't "irrevocably banish it" or "exclude it from the encyclopedia forever"? That is not my understanding of how Wikipedia works. I believe our job as encyclopedists is to create balanced, readable, accurate articles, and to select what to include and what not to include, based on multiple factors but particularly coverage in reliable secondary sources, as interpreted by consensus. And of course subject to re-evaluation if circumstances change, such as wider coverage in the future. --MelanieN (talk) 00:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's my understanding that every reliably sourced and undisputed fact, with very few specific exceptions, can be included in the encyclopedia somewhere; if an appropriate article does not currently exist then an appropriate article including that fact is not forbidden. This puts editors in a position of organizing knowledge rather than censoring it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned you
... here. You don't have to read the whole thing, just search for your username. Please note that I am NOT trying to solicit a positive comment or support. Comment if you wish, or not, and if you do, please give a straight forward assessment of my editing in this topic area, even if it's critical. Thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't mind...
but I needed to say this somewhere on Wikipedia. I've repeatedly tried to begin the following at the Trump article. I say "tried" because I did 30 rewrites but none were satisfying. I wound up with this and I knew it wouldn't "fly" at the article. I didn't want to get sanctioned from participating...so I thought "where can I say this?" Thanks. Buster Seven Talk08:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Avocating assasination or the power of unification
Todays Trump quotes are troubling. And the fact that no editor (except for that silly troll) has touched this Second amendment story, leads me to believe that its troubling for alot of us. Where do we start? Is it the “dishonest media” for distorting his words or is it my lying ears that hear a real unmistakable call to action...violent action. I'm reminded of the Sarah Palin article and the March crosshairs on a map "targeting" legislators who voted for Obama's health care bill. Months later, some raving lunatic tried to assassinate Gabby Giffords (one of the legislators in the crosshairs). Where do we start? It is numbing trying to help create a fair and impartial article about this guy.....
Buster Seven Talk
Sorry, I've been busy in Real Life and missed your comment - and the whole discussion. I understand your frustration. It looks as if a fair wording was worked out, with commendable cooperation. --MelanieN (talk) 15:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK. First of all, I'm moving your note to the bottom of the page, which is where new talk page messages should always go. Now: A hatnote is a message that goes at the top of the article page. There are various templates you can use. The one you want is explained at WP:SIMILAR. At top of each page you would put {{about|what this article is about|what the other article is about|name of the other article}} Notice that the various parts of the note are separated by a | mark. So at the top of the Edward William Cornelius Humphrey page, you would put {{about|the lawyer and church elder|the physician|Edward Cornelius Humphrey}} which produces a notice that looks like this:
For the other article, the first item is what that article is about, then a description of the similar article, then the name of the similar article. Try it, and be sure to use Page Preview until you get it right. Even experienced editors may need three or four tries. By using Page Preview, you destroy the evidence of all the times you didn't get it right! 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 02:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about placing my message in the wrong place. Thank you for your time and the clear instructions. Now I understand why it's called a hatnote. I'll try it tomorrow. I'm on Eastern Standard Time.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 03:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Typo
"This is to warn you that you are in danger of violating the Discretionary Sanctions on the page Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016...." I think you meant the main Trump article (which I've de-watchlisted by the way).Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not being more clear. Both edits are reverts, falling within a 24 hour time period. It looks like you made them on different days, not realizing you were going over the 1RR. ~Awilley (talk)22:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why not revert yourself on one of them? I'll probably re-do whichever one you revert, since I think they were both good edits. That page isn't on my watchlist, but I can still go there and do stuff.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A trout or self-block would be over the top. It was an accident, and you seem to be one of the few interested in keeping some sort of decorum at the article. A self-revert would be fine, as Anythingyouwant suggested. The important thing for me is that you model the behavior you desire to see in others. ~Awilley (talk)00:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Same or different material
Oh god. See, this is why we need to change the language "whether involving the same or different material" in 3RR. Everyone knows Melanie wasn't edit warring. We end up spending more time bickering over who broke "da rulez" on 1RR articles than actually improving those articles. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link to the discussion, Dr. Fleischman. It was enlightening. I honestly have always thought that 3RR and 1RR referred to doing the SAME revert over and over; that to me is edit warring, that's the kind of behavior I would block for. And I have seen these silly arguments over "you were reverting me!" "no, YOU were reverting ME!" which as Doc says are doing nothing to enhance the encyclopedia. But now I understand, so I will self-revert the POV tag. Thanks for calling this to my attention, Awilley. --MelanieN (talk) 01:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's not the type of thing I'd block for either, but there are admins out there who would. I remember one case where an admin had placed a 1RR/week discretionary sanction on an article. A veteran editor with 80,000 edits and a clean block log decided to try and set a good example by making one edit to the article per week. Not one revert, but one edit per week. Anyway, at some point he made two edits spaced 6.5 days apart that could both be seen as "technical reverts" (for removing some amount of text, or the like). Someone reported him (by email) to the admin, who immediately slapped him with a 24 hour block. Anyway, that's the kind of stuff that really makes me mad, and is the kind of adminning I try to avoid...enforcing rules for the sake of rules. That said, the rules do come in handy when it's time to remove someone who is actually being disruptive or who clearly has an axe to grind. ~Awilley (talk)07:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is a balancing act, all right. Over-aggressive enforcement can turn away a productive editor who made a mistake. On the other hand, problem editors drive away many more productive editors than an occasional overzealous block does. Being the encyclopedia "anyone can edit" brings together both the best and the worst, and one job of administrators is to try to sort them out and keep the project going. Not an easy job, and not all admins approach it the same way. --MelanieN (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not just talking about editors who have been slapped and then leave the project. I'm talking about all of the others who haven't been slapped but are afraid they might be, so they don't touch 1RR pages, as well as the editors who bravely set foot in 1RR pages but who edit much less and more cautiously there for fear of being punished for technical, non-edit warring 1RR violations (myself included). It's true, real edit warriors and POV pushers suppress productive editing as well. But by tweaking 3RR a bit we should be able to mitigate that problem and remove the double whammy of fear of overzealous enforcement of 1RR. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you. Now that I actually understand what the rules are - and learn that I accidentally broke them! - I have started keeping a log of my edits on DS articles, with date and time. I guess that's what everybody has to do if they want to stay within the rules, and it is burdensome. I particularly have trouble remembering that this applies even when there is consensus to do the edit. I do realilze what a mess these articles would be if there weren't strict rules in place. But I would agree with a tweak to the definitions. --MelanieN (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Fleischman, that "whether involving the same or different material" clause is used in idiotic ways in attempts to catch an editor out. I'd much rather have it read, ""whether involving the same or different but related material". --NeilNtalk to me14:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a wording along the lines of "the same or similar material" would work. Also, I would suggest having this modify only the 1RR restriction, not the 3RR. I think 3 is a reasonable limit for non-vandalism reverts, and I definitely wouldn't want to give people a license to unlimited reverts just because they involve different material. ~Awilley (talk)19:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest "related" (meaning on the same subject, or the same aspect of the subject) rather than "similar" (similar how? grammatically? made by the same person?) Related is clearer. --MelanieN (talk) 19:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A key issue is how revert is defined:『An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.』I've had editors ask for a block when their "opponent" reverts something, gets re-reverted, and then improves the grammar/readability of a completely unrelated paragraph. --NeilNtalk to me19:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If 3RR and/or 1RR never apply to material about which there is no recent dispute between editors, then the policies ought to say that, IMO. Also, if the rules for 3RR and 1RR are different (beyond the obvious difference between "3" and "1") then you'd have both policies applying at the same time to a single article, rather than 1RR completely displacing 3RR, and this seems to ask quite a bit of editors who are trying to follow policy.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think the community would go for different ground rules for 1RR and 3RR. The whole point is that the rule stays the same except for fewer reverts allowed. And I don't think the community would go for the "recent dispute" rule, which is certainly good in principle but would be impossible to enforce and subject to abuse. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the ground rules for 3RR and 1RR probably ought to be the same, or else things get too complicated, but (as AWilley said) we shouldn't give anyone a license to unlimited reverts just because they involve different material. Do you think that an editor who is not "edit-warring" should ever be subject to 1RR or 3RR? I ask this because the actual definition of 3RR doesn't seem to say anything about edit-warring, but still that definition exists on a page about edit-warring.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whut? WP:3RR: "Editors who engage in edit warring are liable to be blocked from editing to prevent further disruption. While any edit warring may lead to sanctions, there is a bright-line rule called the three-revert rule (3RR), the violation of which often leads to a block." The rule in the red box just codifies 3RR for simple understanding. --NeilNtalk to me02:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you apparently read the stuff in the red box this way (I insert "edit-warring" in brackets):
An [edit-warring] editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. See below for exemptions.
That's a reasonable reading, and it requires a two-part test: (1) is the editor edit-warring; and (2) is the editor violating the stuff in the red box. Read in isolation, the stuff in the red box (without the bolded words) could easily be read as applying to any edit that changes anything in an article. For clarity, I would make the bolded words above explicit, if that's what is meant.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"easily be read as applying to any edit that changes anything in an article." It is read that way right now. Hence, my suggestion to change the wording. --NeilNtalk to me02:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you folks carry on then. I thought you wanted to make clear that changing content that no one has been discussing or debating or fighting about doesn't count as a revert. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it does. If I add something to an article and no one has an issue with it at the time and then another editor shows up two months later and removes it, that counts as their first revert. --NeilNtalk to me04:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neil, I don't want to detract from this conversation, so we can continue elsewhere if you like. I not too long ago filed a 3RR report at the noticeboard that I subsequently withdrew. Here it is. I described four edits that I characterized as reverts. Admins advised me that only one of them would count for 1RR purposes, and so there was no 1RR violation. But all four of them seem to fit what you say is presently considered a revert. I would support fixing the 3RR definition so that at least some of those four edits don't qualify as reverts. I'm hesitant to define the ground rules for 1RR and 3RR differently, and also don't want to give editors a blank check to alter as much material as they want as long as it's not related material. But I would have no problem at all clarifying the definition so that a revert does not refer to an edit undoing the work of another editor if the edit is not part of a fight.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All I see there is you bickering with DrFleischman over a pointy report you made. Don't do that. I don't even know why you brought that up because that report reflects badly on you. And it annoys admins that have to deal with these games. --NeilNtalk to me04:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neil, if I try my best to abide by a stupid rule, then my view is that others should as well. As far as I can tell, all of the four edits there were "reverts" as you explained above: "If I add something to an article and no one has an issue with it at the time and then another editor shows up two months later and removes it, that counts as their first revert." I think this rule is stupid, and would like to change it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, the "same or different" language has evolved over the years but here is the edit that I believe first articulated the concept. There was no discussion about it at the time, as far as I can tell. Since then there have been a variety of discussions about proposals to change this aspect of 3RR, although none have gotten very far. There has been a fair amount of support for a change in principle, but every proposal has been shot down with arguments arguments along the lines of, "The proposed language is too vague or susceptible to lawyering," or, "If it ain't broke don't fix it." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After having reviewed past talk page discussions and considering the enforceability of various language changes, I'm leaning toward proposing the following language (change in bold): "An editor must not perform more than three reverts involving the same or overlapping material on a single page within a 24-hour period." Thoughts? (I'm veering away from the terms "related" and "similar" as they're arguably vague and susceptible to wikilawyering.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I personally wouldn't oppose this (because I'm so congenial!) but I doubt it will fly for the reason given above by AWilley: "I definitely wouldn't want to give people a license to unlimited reverts just because they involve different material."Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would be interesting to see if it flies. The main response to that argument, which could be included in the proposal preemptively, is that the purpose of 3RR is to reduce edit warring, making excessive reverts to different material isn't edit warring, and such conduct is still sanctionable under other policies and guidelines (most notably WP:OWN, WP:DE, and potentially WP:HOUND). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Does removal equal reversion?
Neil, could I ask you about this? "If I add something to an article and no one has an issue with it at the time and then another editor shows up two months later and removes it, that counts as their first revert," although "not something you should be blocked for". Does that mean that removing ANY content counts as a revert? Because if something has been there longer than a few days (on very active articles, a few hours) it is impossible to tell if it is something that was added by a single editor (which would clearly make it a revert), or something that has been in the article since the beginning. If I am reading you correctly, every time you remove something from an article that is a revert - and if you remove three unrelated things from the article in three different consecutive edits, that is three reverts and you broke the rules. Have I got that right? --MelanieN (talk) 14:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean that removing ANY content counts as a revert? - Yes, per "undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert". Note it's "other editors'" and not "another editor's"
It might be better to leave the red box at WP:3RR alone, and just add an eighth exemption, like "The following actions are not counted as reverts for the purposes of 3RR:...8. Editing different material (rather than the same material) if that different material had not been edited by anyone during the past X days."Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:NeilN, do you think it would be an improvement, or could be improved? I know you suggested above changing "whether involving the same or different material" to read "whether involving the same or different but related material", in the red box. But AWilley responded that it should "modify only the 1RR restriction, not the 3RR." And then DrFleischman objected to "different ground rules for 1RR and 3RR". So maybe we can break the logjam by focusing on the exemptions instead of the red box? I think an additional exemption seems less dramatic than amending the core rule in the red box, and so might be more acceptable. Incidentally, I don't plan on making any proposal myself, at least not without any support here. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
NeilN, think about the logical consequences of that interpretation. That can't be the rule. That would defy common sense, and if it really were the rule then 3RR would say so explicitly. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's not at all the same thing as saying that any deletion or modification of content is a revert, which as Melanie noted is the practical effect of your interpretation. If your interpretation is correct, then 3RR would be much clearer by defining a "revert" as "any deletion, modification, or re-addition of any content on the page." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Either NeilN is correct, or else it's very vague, and in either case it needs improvement. I think it's standard practice at the edit-warring noticeboard, when an editor is accused of deleting material, then being reverted, deleting a second time, being reverted, deleting a third time, being reverted, and then deleting a fourth time (all of the same material) to have the first deletion count as a revert even if that material had not been edited in months preceding the deletions. So I think NeilN is correct.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the report template is not a policy or guideline. Anyway, in practice, I think people in my example situation would typically give either the version following the first deletion as the version reverted to, or else the quiescent version that preceded the whole incident (since that's the version that the other editors reverted to).Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free. Per my user page: Things I've learned at Wikipedia: When you become an administrator, your user talk page gets a lot more interesting. --MelanieN (talk) 18:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If that's your goal then again, not much is going to get accomplished on a user talk page. For the record, I would be opposed to the suggestion that leeway be restricted. Too many edit warriors think they're productively editing and too many productive editors are trapped by edit warriors playing gotcha! Leeway allows admins to address both situations. --NeilNtalk to me18:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Except that there are overzealous admins, and other admins who take the term "bright-line rule" for what it means and block productive editors because they believe that's what the policy tells them to do. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Different admins will always have different approaches - a spectrum of responses. Tweaking the wording is not going to change that. --MelanieN (talk) 19:10, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It might narrow the spectrum though. Screen out those harmful ultraviolet rays. Plus editors who are conscientious about following bright-line rules wouldn't have to play on such an uneven field.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And productive editors aren't exempt from 3RR. There's about six or seven different criteria I go through in my head when looking at these situations. Sometimes the result is a block for a "productive editor". --NeilNtalk to me19:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Inappropriate comment
I struck this at your request, but what part of it was inappropriate? I understand we should try to focus on the edit rather than the editor, which I generally do, but breaking that guideline on occasion is hardly a sanctionable offense. I don't see any incivility or personal attacks in there either. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I saw it as kind of grave-dancing. "Goody, goody, he's gone! And let me throw a few insults out the door after him!" Thank you for striking it. --MelanieN (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am glad that editor has moved on, as he was extremely disruptive to my editing. And I'm not aware of any insults in my comment, just verifiable facts. I nevertheless understand the comment was unnecessary and only served to fan the flames, so I regret that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Melanie. Usually at Wikipedia articles, especially high-profile and controversial Wikipedia articles, it generally requires some degree of consensus to remove content that has been longstanding in the article, so lack of consensus ensures longstanding content remains. Is this now out the window at the Donald Trump article? The discretionary sanctions say "All editors must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit." So, if someone removes longstanding content via a bold edit without any consensus, then lack of consensus requires that longstanding content goes down the drain. Am I reading this right? It seems very destabilizing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the same, and I have seen it pointed out on other pages: this particular wording of the DS gives the advantage to the person removing content. All they have to do to make it "contentious" is to remove it, and it can't be restored without a talk-page consensus. Yet another way in which the DS rules are poorly written. As you can tell from earlier discussion here on this talk page, I am not a fan of the DS and would encourage attempts to tweak them, but it's possible they can only be changed by ArbCom. --MelanieN (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting, Neil. I wonder if this has been spelled out in discussion anywhere? Because I have seen it applied that ANY removal of content means that it can't be reinserted without consensus. I like your interpretation better! --MelanieN (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the wording carefully specifies "reinstating any edits that have been challenged" instead of "reinstating any additions that have been challenged" for this very reason. --NeilNtalk to me14:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is making my head spin. So if someone inserts new material, someone else can remove it and it can't be restored without consensus. That's easy enough. But if someone removes longstanding material, the removal can be reverted by someone else who thinks removing it is contentious? And it then can't be removed again without consensus at the talk page? So in this particular case, it was DFredkin's removal that was the "edit", and VM was entitled to revert that edit and restore the material? Wow. No wonder you see these arguments all the time, "you reverted me!" "no, YOU reverted ME!" --MelanieN (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I agree with NeilN's interpretation. The wording is meant to favor the status quo and stabilize the article, and it's main function IMO is to get people to follow WP:BRDby preventing them from making a Bold edit and then immediately reverting the Revert (gaming the 1RR). ~Awilley (talk)14:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm glad to hear this. I will quote the two of you the next time I see someone say that the DS mean you can't ever restore content which has been removed. --MelanieN (talk) 14:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)It can still get messy if you dive down into the details and try to view any edit that removes content as a "revert". I'm usually looking for longer term patterns of bulldozing over other editors and gaming the system. For that reason I'm more concerned with CFredkin citing the DS to say that people can't revert their edits [17][18] than I am with VM's revert (and followup partial self-revert). Although if the material CFredkin removed had been added the day before that could change things. (I wouldn't be surprised if it's been added and removed many times.) ~Awilley (talk)15:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And editors will want you to define what "longstanding" means. For me, it depends on the article. For an article as highly edited and intensely watched as Donald Trump I'm generally using a time period of 4-6 weeks. --NeilNtalk to me15:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And since I was applying an incorrect interpretation in my comments at your talk page, Neil, I have posted there to say I was wrong, and VM did not in fact have to self-revert his restoration of the material CF deleted. --MelanieN (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks, Awilley and Neil, for the clarifications. I think I will retitle this page from "User talk:MelanieN" to "The education of MelanieN." Anything else you want to share with the class? 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"But if someone removes longstanding material, the removal can be reverted...?" There must be a policy or guideline or essay somewhere that mentions "longstanding" material. Has anyone found it? --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, PuzzleScot, and thanks for your note. The reason I added protection to the page was because of edits by IP (unregistered) editors; it had nothing to do with you. You should be able to edit the article, because you have been here long enough and made enough edits to qualify as an autoconfirmed user. However, when I checked your user rights just now I did not see "autoconfirmed" even though it should be there. That could be some kind of error; just to make sure I have added the "confirmed" user right to your profile. If you were not able to edit previously, you should be able to now. If other users disagree with your edits, discuss the issue on the article talk page, as I see you are already doing. So you should be all good now. --MelanieN (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello M. I noticed your edit here. A few minutes ago this editor (er I mean troll) Wiki username generator (talk·contribs) created the category - and then NeilN deleted it - you probably noticed this. But you will also note that there are two other editors who have the category on their userpages. From what I can find all of them put it there as a joke - like several other joke red cats that are occasionally used. I'm only mentioning this in case Drmies decides to restore it. There sure is a bunch of odd stuff going on tonight - my time. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk03:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Marnette. Yes, I removed it in haste and in error. Luckily Lady of Shallott knew Drmies better than I did, and restored it. I have apologized to the good doctor. Yes, there has been an unusual amount of weirdness today. --MelanieN (talk) 03:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reverting me, Lady. The reason I did is that a troll had just created that category, citing Drmies as the reason for creating it, so I rushed to rescue the good doctor from what turned out to be his own sense of humor. Guess I will have to trout myself. --MelanieN (talk) 03:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! I don't think you even need the trout, unless it happens to be grilled and covered with almonds. That was a reasonable assumption on your part! :) LadyofShalott03:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And here's me relaxing with a Calvados after a long day and thinking of going for fish and chips... A good choice of wine, but not for vinegary chips. I'm reminded of some beautiful Llyn Brenig trout in a pub by Bala Lake Llyn Tegid - no almonds but they needed none. Peridon (talk) 17:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Calvados may be good for relaxing after a long day (or after accidentally vandalizing Drmies's user page?) but probably not the best to go with fish and chips. Ale or stout, anyone? --MelanieN (talk) 17:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question
Isthis considered a reliable source? Whenever I have a question as to what was actually said in a speech, its the place I go to. Just today, I wondered if it was the impartial 'facts only' no talking heads or advertising kind of reference that could be used many places in the 'pedia. Thoughts? Buster Seven Talk18:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Buster, I am not familiar with this site. To the extent that it shows and archives full transcripts or audios of speeches, I certainly think those could be used as primary sources. However, the articles I looked at appeared to be more opinion than straight reporting, so possibly not suitable as a Reliable Source. I think it would be a judgment call. --MelanieN (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Editor's image-permissions issues
I have left a note on this user's talk page about this issue but thought I should ask for some help on this matter. Mitzi.humphrey has uploaded various images to Commons and therefore to Wikipedia and from what I can tell the permissions appear to state "own work" when that is not necessarily the case. I think this editor is a conscientious contributor and applaud their zeal but to me many of these permissions are in error. One image appears to be a photo of a printed photo from a published book, another is a photo of a vintage photo with no photographer or date given, another is a photo of a vintage photo with an errant title and so on as seen in their Commons edits. I noticed that you had weighed in at an AfD on an article this editor wrote and thought you would be familiar with their editing. I would appreciate some help - I don't know quite what to do. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 21:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for calling my attention to this, Shearonink. I have researched this situation and commented on the user's talk page, and I pinged some people who are admins at both en.wiki and commons to get their advice. --MelanieN (talk) 19:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't seem in need of much work. It's been almost a month since it was "prepared" for userfication. Kai is a really relevant search topic right now, and the last even half-decent edit on the article was by me (so much userfication going on). It doesn't help when you type "Kai singer" in Google, the Wikipedia page it directs you to is THIS. So can u clarify when this article is going to be released into the public again? Thanks! Esmostπк01:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Esmost, and thanks for your note. This was actually userfied two months ago, but the person who requested hasn't done anything with it. You have made some improvements, that's good. The requirement for it to be restored is that it be significantly different/improved from the article that was deleted. I know you can't see that article, but you can see here what reasons people gave for deleting it. Do you think those reasons have now been overcome? Are the new sources "reliable" as Wikipedia defines it? Has she done any new, notable recording where she is the lead singer? IMO looking at the page as it now stands it is not greatly different from the deleted one, and her career has not advanced from where it was then. If it was moved to mainspace in its current condition, it would probably get speedy deleted per WP:G4. But if you can improve the article as I indicate here, it might be ready. --MelanieN (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, t0tes, but like im not even kidding about this google direct to this page. Like, look at this, after Kai (the singer) became a hot search topic and her Wikipedia page was deleted, all of the page views that are supposed to go to her (non-existent) Wikipedia page are being directed towards a band that broke up over TEN years ago. I guess she's not worth an article, but like people are actually confusing her for a band. As well as the fact that links to her page are all red now (so can u awb that, im busy). That's a problem. Just saying. Whatever. Esmostπк20:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar and a half
The Barnstar of Diligence
for being the first editor in seven years to cause me to retract a claim, through your painstaking and knowledgeable vetting of my contributions. Dervorguilla (talk) 03:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Half Barnstar
For your admirable capability to withstand unsparing criticism, maintain good cheer, and continue collaborating productively in an ideologically charged discussion. Dervorguilla (talk) 03:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I checked, and it doesn't look like you've ever made an edit to the talk page of the Drew Pinsky article. However, you recently came there after I made a comment after interacting with me on a different article and cast personal aspersions on my editing and behavior and opposed an edit I was suggesting. I searched around Wikipedia and found this: WP:HOUND. Is what you're doing a violation of that policy? TweedVest (talk) 14:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not. The same link also says "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes." I know there are people who track my edits; that's par for the course. It's true I have a concern about your editing, since it has appeared up to now that your only purpose here is POV, to push a particular story (Clinton's health, and in particular Dr. Drew's comments about Clinton's health). But I have not been following your edits, and I did not show up at that article by tracking your contributions. I had watchlisted the Drew Pinsky article several weeks ago. So of course the subject title "Comments on Hillary Clinton's health" caught my eye. I trust you will respect what appears to be the consensus there, to report his termination without linking it to (or mentioning) his comments about Clinton's health. --MelanieN (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Melanie, two quick questions for you about your recent edit to the birther stuff. First, isn't chronological better? By moving the school record stuff to the end, and omitting the chronological "while seeking the certificate" preface, don't you make it sound like the cited source is referring to after release of the long form? I think so. Second, here is the Trump quote from 2015 that's in the footnote, answering whether Obama was born in the U.S.: "I really don't know. I mean, I don't know why he wouldn't release his records. But you know, honestly, I don't want to get into it". This statement clearly says some stuff, and (in true Trump fashion) is somewhat ambiguous about other stuff; I would feel more comfortable if we say in the article body only the clear stuff. Would that be okay? Right after saying "I don't know", he clarified or elaborated or waffled that what he doesn't know is why Obama wouldn't release his records. Also, please let me know if it's any problem putting this message here; feel free to move it to the article talk page if you like.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here is fine. As you say, Trump is often unclear. To me, when he was asked "Was Obama born in the U.S.?" and he replied "I don't know", that was the meat of his reply. So you think "I mean" was intended as a clarification, that that was what he meant by "I don't know"? I interpreted it as just a interjection, a meaningless part of speech; some people say "I mean" every few sentences. But since you read it as a clarification, that is justifiable and I will revert. I do think it is better to put the "academic records" thing separately at the end of the sentence; otherwise it interrupts a train of thought, which is Trump defending his birther comments. I think the word "also" makes it clear this is a separate issue, not part of the birther chronology. Are you OK with that? --MelanieN (talk) 18:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I could live with the school records thing at the end, if we restore the prefatory "While calling for release of the long form certificate". My spell-checker wanted to say predatory instead of prefatory! If he had just said "I mean" and then something unconnected to the prior remark, that would be one thing, but he verbatim repeated "I don't know".Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How many times has Trumps said "I don't know". I'm not sure but it's plenty. Here is just a small sample I collected: ==
"... She may or may not have a university degree: Trump has said she has a degree in design and architecture from a Slovenian University. ..... I don't know why, you'll have to ask him.
Jul 27, 2016 - Trump said. ..... And I don't know how people make it on $7.25 an hour.
February 28, : “I don't know anything about David Duke,” to Jake Tapper.
"I often hire people that were on the opposing side of a deal that I respect. .... I said to the bankers, "Listen, fellows, if I have a problem, then you have a problem. ..... Maybe that's right, maybe that's wrong, but I don't know why he doesn't he ..."
Jul 27, 2016 - TRUMP: I never met Putin, I don't know who Putin is. He said one nice thing ..... How many times do I have say that? Are you a smart man?
"...the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don't know.”
"August 8/9 - ""I don't know. ... And Obama said that he did it because we don't have a working account with Iran ... How long does it take to set up an account?
July 28, 2016 - According to Trump, Putin "could not have been nicer." ... I don't know anything about him other than he will respect me."
...then said he would not raise the issue himself "because I don't know enough to really discuss it.".
Jul 17, 2016 - I don't know if you can remember the last time we have seen a world this much in chaos. You even said, "It's spinning apart." Are you ready for ....
I know nothing!
I'm sure there are many many many more. I stopped collecting. Maybe he uses it as a throw away like "...you know what...." Any way, I just saw this conversation and thought you might both be interested. Buster Seven Talk19:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'Is PolitiFact a reliable source for reporting the percentage of false statements made by a political candidate (of the statements checked by PolitiFact), provided that attribution is given?'
Here's where I stopped.
'Is the Politifact subsidiary of the Tampa Bay Times a reliable source for material about the ratio of false statements made by a candidate and checked by PolitiFact to true statements made by a candidate and checked by PolitiFact?'
I'd have to say, yes, it's clearly a "reliable source" for the material.
But does that mean it's a "reliable third-party source" for it?
Probably not. It may not be a third-party source for it, period. In which case we're about to crash into a WP:SOURCE wall. And pity the poor back-seat driver who's first to point it out...
The question may need to get reworded, perhaps like this:
'Is PolitiFactathird-party source for material about the ratio of false statements made by a candidate and checked by PolitiFact to true statements made by a candidate and checked by PolitiFact?'
I'm not going to get that deep into the weeds. The discussion at Talk:Donald Trump has been closed. The closer said we should use other sources, not just fact-checkers. That has been done. As for the discussion at the RS noticeboard, I totally don't understand the claim that fact checkers are not "third party" sources, or are somehow "primary" sources, but I"m not going to get into it. --MelanieN (talk) 14:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have school coming up, and nobody else is going to work on this (I'm pretty sure not a lot of people even know it still exists in any form), so I was wondering if you could release this back into the public so other people can work on it. I mean, there's not much to write about, I found what I could, and found some information regarding her own singles, EP, the reason for her name, etc... Can you please take a look at the article again and decide if it's worthy to be resurrected. K. Thanks! Again, sorry to bother you just a few days after my last message on your talk page. Esmostπк04:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Esmost: I can see that you have done a lot of work on the article. You have added her individual singles (one of the objections at the deletion discussion was that she hasn't done anything notable in her OWN name). You added a 2011 award nomination for her as an individual. The article is now significantly different from the one that got deleted, so it should not get speedy-deleted per WP:G4 (which means, re-creation of something that was deleted via discussion, when the re-creation is not significantly different from the one that was deleted). However, it could still get deleted via another Articles for Deletion nomination. You don't want that to happen. If an article gets deleted multiple times it looks bad in the history; if it happens too many times the article might even get "locked" so that no-one can re-create it. Let me do this: I will ask another editor who knows more about music criteria than I do. If they think it has a chance I will restore it. If they think it is likely to get deleted again, I will move it from the Magusmusic user space to your user space, so that you can continue to expand it. You have been doing the best you could, but the real problem is, as you said, "there's not much to write about". Until there IS significant stuff to add to the article - until her career moves to the next level as far as publicity and achievement - she's still not going to meet the requirements for an article as spelled out at WP:MUSICBIO. But hold on, let me get another opinion, and then we'll see. --MelanieN (talk) 15:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, and I have thanked the other editor on your behalf. Do continue to expand the article as best you can. The other editor's opinion is that it meets our guidelines, but someone could still nominate it for AfD if they disagree. --MelanieN (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mexican citizenship
This is getting a bit off-topic at the Trump article. The matter of birthright citizenship in Mexico has intricacies that Politifact did not address. Here is the Constitution of Mexico. Article 34 says that no one becomes a Mexican citizen at birth, and can only become a citizen at age 18, and therefore no one has birthright citizenship in Mexico, much less children of people unlawfully in the country. Moreover, Article 37 (Part A.I) says that a Mexican-born minor will lose his Mexican nationality and therefore never become a Mexican citizen if he and his parents are deported and voluntarily acquire nationality in another country than Mexico. Additionally, Article 37 (Part B.VI) says that, even if the Mexican-born minor is never deported and therefore becomes a Mexican citizen at age 18, his citizenship can be revoked due to the immigration status of his parents.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Yes, I know that the Mexican version is a little different from ours. In fact NO child is a Mexican citizen at birth, no matter what its parentage; per the Mexican constitution you only become a "citizen" and thus able to vote when you turn 18. But that's semantics. The bottom line is that a child born in Mexico of foreign parents has exactly the same status as a child born in Mexico of Mexican parents; they just call it "nationality". They don't call it "citizenship" until the person reaches majority. A child born in Mexico to foreign parents is a Mexican citizen, or will be when he reaches 18, and to claim that Mexico does not have birthright citizenship is false. The Mexican birthright is not absolute - it can be revoked in some circumstances - but without such revocation they are a citizen. Note that our article Jus soli lists Mexico as one of the countries with unrestricted birthright citizenship. Most of the 33 countries that have some form of birthright citizenship are in the Americas, as I'm sure you found out in your research. Take Canada, which granted Canadian citizenship to Ted Cruz even though neither of his parents were Canadian - and which Donald Trump knew perfectly well since he was always going on about Cruz's citizenship. So much for "we are the only ones dumb enough, stupid enough to have it." --MelanieN (talk) 19:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will ignore the accusation that I "play fast and loose with the facts" and continue to regard you as a friend. We have different opinions sometimes; hopefully we won't accuse each other of lying when we do. (And BTW Cruz would have been a Canadian citizen even if his parents had been in Canada unlawfully.) --MelanieN (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I refactored part of a post by Writegeist that seems to be a clear BLP violation. I understand that this is a talk page, but BLP applies to ALL pages. I will not revert again, even though BLP violations I believe allow more that 1 revert. I appreciate your post that the talk page is not a forum. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 22:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You’re far from being the first—or last—to accidentally misattribute comments at a talk page. And as a rule your own comments at the Trump discussions are outstandingly rational, temperate, and intelligent. So no hard feelings. Writegeist (talk) 23:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wikipedia editor paid to protect the page "John Ducas". Thank you. Jackmcbarn ([[User talk:Jackmcbarn|talk([[ 23:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
talk 16:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
