User talk:MelanieN/Archive 72

Archive 65

←

Archive 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

Archive 73

Archive 74

Archive 75

A barnstar for you!

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		you have made some wikipedia article proctected from vandalism. Thanks and continue this great work of yours. This my appreciation to you effort . Thank you Tbiw (talk) 20:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar. There has been a lot of need for protection lately. :-( -- MelanieN (talk) 20:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK for The Central Park Five (opera)

On 2 June 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Central Park Five (opera), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Pulitzer Prize–winning opera The Central Park Five includes a role for Donald Trump? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Central Park Five (opera). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, The Central Park Five (opera)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Talk:List of George Floyd protests does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Love of Corey (talk) 03:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

LOL! You're kidding, right? Yes, I am familiar with the concept of edit summaries. 0;-D I pretty much always use them when editing articles. I usually don't at talk pages. Call it a quirk. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

(ec) @Love of Corey: If this is intended to be humorous, please include a smiley or something.

• MelanieN is not only a very experienced editor, but an admin to boot. I don't think she needs any help understanding the importance of edit summaries, or how to create them.
• Edit summaries are far less important in talk spaces, and often omitted there by many editors.
• Apparently you're one of those many editors. Of your four edits to that page, none of them had an edit summary. Call me puzzled. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Aww, come on, Mandruss, I got a kick out of it. But, Love of Corey, I see that you have just spammed canned messages like this onto the talk pages of 15 or 20 experienced users. Here, for example, you decided to post this helpful advice to someone who has been here for 10 years and has 100,000 edits. You might want to be a little more selective in who you post canned advice to; see Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. Also, in most of those advice-edits your edit summary was an unhelpful “new section”. Maybe you should take your own advice? -- MelanieN (talk) 04:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

DYK for 2020 dismissal of inspectors general

On 5 June 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2020 dismissal of inspectors general, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that U.S. president Donald Trump dismissed five inspectors general in the space of six weeks? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2020 dismissal of inspectors general. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, 2020 dismissal of inspectors general), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—valereee (talk) 12:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

RE: Up (2009 film)

I'm done with this discussion. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
He’s caught on balloons he floats to the ground WokeHuke (talk) 09:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC) Well, WokeHuke, I am the wrong person to talk to about this. You would need to go to the article's talk page and try to convince people. However, you might find it hard to prove your case, since you would need to find a Reliable Source saying that Muntz didn't die. You can't just put in your own opinion. And pretty much all the sources [1] [2] agree that he fell to his death in the movie. I saw a reference to a video game [3] where he is shown alive; maybe that's what confused you. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC) @WokeHuke: messed up the ping. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC) He is caught on balloons and would therefore float down, there is no source or proof of him dying, but I would cede “falls to the ground” instead of “falls to his death” since neither can be proven WokeHuke (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC) @MelanieN WokeHuke (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC) I will make just one more comment about your theory that he would "float down", and then I am done with this: how many helium balloons is enough to float a grown man? One wouldn't do it. Two? Four? Ten? Think about the balloon sellers you see in the park, holding 40 or 50 helium balloons: do they float? In the scene from the movie labeled as "Muntz's death scene"[4], is he floating? Or is he falling? Here's the bottom line: You must stop insisting on this. You haven't convinced anyone, and you haven't found any proof. You need to let it go. See my warning on your talk page. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC) Did you not see Russell floating on balloons in an earlier scene? Like I said there weren’t enough to hold him up indefinitely, but there would be enough to slow his fall, I’m right on this WokeHuke (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration has been requested and your conduct here will be reviewed WokeHuke (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Good luck with that, WokeHuke. In any case, I'm seeing no such thing having been submitted. In any case, such a request would be to your detriment, I challenge. Regardless of any of that, you should tone down the aspersions ([5]), because that is not on. El_C 21:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I made no aspersions, and the arbitration request has been submitted WokeHuke (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I see no such request having been submitted, still. You accused Melanie of acting in an uncivil manner, without any evidence whatsoever, which is an aspersion. El_C 22:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, El C, but let it go. He was outright insulting in his note to another user, and that may wind up getting added to his ledger, but I have no problem with what he has said to me. I am more concerned with the large amount of other people's time he is wasting here with his repetitious arguments. That is why I closed this "discussion". -- MelanieN (talk) 22:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry if I overstepped, Melanie. Note, however, that further disruption from WokeHuke is highly likely to result in sanctions. El_C 22:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

No problem; I just figure as long as we reply to him, he keeps on insisting, so let's not "feed" him by replying. I agree with you. I already warned him that he will be blocked from the article if he does it at the article again. If he continues to agitate about it in other places he is likely to be blocked, period. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

We can sometimes be too tolerant of trolls or loons around here, worried that they're simply good faith newbies. This isn't a good faith newbie, they're a crackpot of some kind. Blocked indef. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Like. El_C 22:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Move protection

I wanted to move protect the article Hong Kong national security law but I couldn't figure out how to do it. The article is due to appear on the main page as a DYK on 13/6 and it is desirable that it is stable. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You need to tick the box with "unlock further protection options"...I have move protected for a week. Lectonar (talk) 07:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

George Floyd

Melanie, would you consider closing the discussion at Talk:George_Floyd#Adding_Criminal_History_Section_to_Article after a reasonable time has elapsed to gain full discussion and consensus. It is a contentious topic, and at this point, probably needs an uninvolved admin to oversee the discussion as it is very contentious with a lot of editors who are passionate about including the content on both sides of the debate. Thanks in advance. Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but I think I may have expressed an opinion on that subject myself at some point - although probably not in the current discussion. I'll take a look later when I have time; I don't right now. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Octoberwoodland, I see that I participated in an RfC discussion on the same subject at Talk:Killing of George Floyd, and even proposed a wording to be used. So I don't think I can consider myself uninvolved. Maybe I will come to the George Floyd article, which I have not been following, and contribute to the discussion, but I should probably not close it. Sorry. You might ask User:Neutrality, I don't think they have been part of that discussion. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I have done some edits on Floyd protest-related matters (although not that particular RfC), so I don't think I'm the best person to close this discussion. Neutrality^talk 00:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

George Floyd protests in Portland, Oregon.

I see that you are responsible for adding a specific line in the lede of the George Floyd matter, specifically https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Floyd_protests_in_Portland,_Oregon&diff=prev&oldid=976722664 "One person was shot and killed in a clash between protesters and counter-protesters.". While perhaps at one very early point that may have seen to be approximately correct, I am challenging that because I believe it misrepresents what actually happened that day. In large part, this was because the early cites have apparently been misrepresented. I have placed the initial part of my argument on that Talk page. The facts indicate that Aaron Danielson was NOT killed "in a clash between protestors and counter-protestors". The video evidence clearly shows that there was no "clash" going on in the minutes leading up to Danielson's murder by Reinoehl. Someone has included three cites, but I think they also misrepresent what actually happened. The phrasing as it currently exists falsely implies that a "clash" caused Danielson's death, when in fact a murder did that. Danielson didn't intentionally, or even knowingly participate in any "clash", he was simply the victim of two sudden gunshots by Reinoehl, who had been stalking him in the minutes leading to the shooting. This is clearly shown on the two videos which are commonly available. Unless we take the position that ALL murders become "clashes", to refer to an intentional, premeditated murder as a "clash" misleads the reader as to what actually happened. Worse, the existing wording misleadingly claims that other people were involved in the murder, "in a clash between between protestors and counter-protestors", when in fact there is no indication that anyone other than Reinoehl was aware that Danielson was soon going to be murdered, and Reinoehl was going to do it. Aeroview854 (talk) 02:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Aeroview854. I see that you have explained this theory on the talk pages of the two related articles. Good, that is the place to discuss it - not here. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I am asking you to concede on the Talk page that the current wording in the lede of the main article is highly misleading, and needs to be changed. I notice that the wording of the 'Note 7' cited states: "Portland police tried to determine Sunday whether the shooting was related to clashes between Trump supporters..." Clearly, this wording is far from supporting the text in the article which states: "One person was shot and killed in a clash between protesters and counter-protesters.[7]". And obviously, the murder of Aaron Danielson by Michael Reinoehl did not involve "protesters" (plural) and "counter-protestors" (also plural). Videos clearly show that no one else nearby was "clashing", or even aware that Reinoehl intended to murder Danielson. Notice that this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4A7n-mG-hA&t=51s is dated as having been uploaded Sept 4, 2020. Why is it well over a month later and this major misrepresentation hasn't been corrected? Aeroview854 (talk) 20:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I have replied at the talk page. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Renato Peixe

Hi,

I think this needs some input from someone who's good at explaining things. There is an editor who has chosen to edit war over a BLPPROD tag, engage in Wikipedia:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behaviour (explained to him on his talk page, but he continues to simply insist that he is right and I'm wrong without actually explaining why), and I daresay that this edit summary is dangerously close to a personal attack. I think this'll just end in tears if an admin doesn't intervene. Adam9007 (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I posted a note on their talk page. I see that another user has also taken up the cause. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, Horcoff is the article's creator and has added a couple of sources, which should put that particular matter to rest. But there's still the issue of the other editor's civility. Adam9007 (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

A little thing like "get a dictionary" is pretty mild as Wikipedia comments go. And Horcoff already responded "No need to be rude." My advice: ignore it. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I wish I could; it's not exactly a secret that few things vex me more than an ignorant editor(s) reading the riot act to me. I shouldn't let it get to me, but every time something like it happens I'm worried that other ignorant editors will join in. Also annoying is WP:3RR queering my pitch in such situations. Adam9007 (talk) 03:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editor

Hi,

I thought about taking this to ANI, but I'm not sure it's urgent enough. MarqReg has been edit-warring on McKenzie method, and following a discussion at Talk:McKenzie_method#Redaction_section_"Effectiveness", resorted to making personal attacks. I warned him, but this led to more nonsense, and I frankly have no idea what they're talking about here (I didn't realise I had the power to remove revisions from a page's history....). But this definitely needs looking into by someone uninvolved, if you'd be willing to? Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 23:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

"That was easy!"

Hi, Adam9007! Sorry for the delay, I haven't been online much the last couple of days. I'll try to take a look at this situation later today. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I see the account has already been blocked. Adam9007 (talk) 15:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, that settles that then! As the Staples office supply company says, "That was easy!" -- MelanieN (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Topic ban

Quick question for you or any talk page stalker: is there an easy way to see if a specific editor has been topic-banned from any page? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:19, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I wish I knew; I've had trouble finding that kind of information myself. They should have been notified on their talk page, so you could try searching the talk page archives for "topic ban". -- MelanieN (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Seems like something that should be in the 'block log' (because it's a block of sorts). Maybe someone can implement that change. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Bans are different from blocks. Both should be in the talk page history. A "partial block" would be in the person's block log but a topic ban wouldn't. Keep in mind that a topic ban might have been imposed before the "partial block" option was implemented. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If the TBan is from a particular page, the user would likely be blocked from editing that page. Adam9007 (talk) 20:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans: If the topic ban is an AE discretionary sanction, it would be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log (by year and topic/case). Neutrality^talk 21:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Archive 65

←

Archive 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

Archive 73

Archive 74

Archive 75