User talk:MelanieN/Archive 97

Archive 90

←

Archive 95

Archive 96

Archive 97

Archive 98

Archive 99

Archive 100

Hagens Berman Page Review

Hi MelanieN. I wanted to follow up on Hagens Berman per this discussion a few weeks ago. No rush, but wanted to make sure it was still on your radar. Best regards. AshleyK1990 (talk) 19:05, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Melanie. I wanted to follow-up again on your review of the proposed rework of the Hagens Berman page. Back in June you said you'd take a look over a few days and that the draft mostly looked much better than the current article. However, it's been over a month and I never heard back. Let me know if you're too busy and I'll try to find another editor willing to take a look. AshleyK1990 (talk) 18:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry it took me so long to get to it. I have posted my comments on the talk page of your draft. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Andrew Tate

Hi, the restored disruption may need to be removed again, and page protection restored. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

• And maybe not--looks like there's some disagreement on the matter that may produce discussion. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Requesting review of a declined protection

Hello, I saw you had declined protection for this page, and whilst it is true that the two users involved in the edit war at the time have since been indeffed, that isn't really the main issue here. The issue is that new and unregistered users have been disruptively removing the part concerning the expulsion of Arabs from parts of present day Israel, and many of the recent edits (even excluding the edit war) are related to this section of the page in one way or another. As I understand, this places this page (or the section, but they can't be protected of course) squarely within ARBPIA territory, and so it can (and given the amount of disruption in the edit history, should) be indefinitely Extended-confirmed protected. The page also includes sections related to other DS areas, including Antisemitism in Poland and Eastern Europe and the Balkans.

I may well be barking up the wrong tree though. If you have already seen the page history, and reckon that it hasn't really got to the point where it needs protection, can you please let me know, so I know what to look out for? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, Mako001. I based my decision entirely on the editing history.[1] From July 13 through July 17, there was heavy edit warring between two newish accounts, which have now both been blocked as WP:NOTHERE, so that is no longer an issue (unless they return as sockpuppets, in which case they can be dealt with through WP:SPI). Previous to July 13 I see an occasional problem edit that gets reverted - one on July 9, one on July 6, one on July 5, one on June 24, etc., going back to maybe April. This is not a frequent enough problem to qualify for semi-protection. And it is not recent; semi-protection is only supposed to be applied to stop IMMEDIATE and CURRENT problems at the article. One other thought: There is a type of protection - Pending Changes - that can be applied when there is a long pattern of occasional problem edits from new/unregistered users. If that pattern resumes you could let me know, or request PC at RFPP. Or you could pursue the ARBPIA route. (BTW if you really want a mini-course in what admins look for in applying protection, my philosophy is summarized at User:MelanieN/Page protection.) -- MelanieN (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Cheers, thanks for that. I think I'll see what happens now that there is an edit notice warning editors of the DS situation, which Nableezy added following the edit war's conclusion. Hopefully, that makes editors think twice about their intended actions. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 08:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Gordon

Please take a closer look at Shaul Gordon. The claims are unfounded. As you can see, the complainant deleted all manner of "won medal x," "citizen of Y," "attended school z." And even a proper external link - claiming copyvio(?). It is the complainant who is engaging in blatant improper deletions - just check his last deletion for a flavor. Please undo the protection. And please caution the complainant as to deletion of proper text. The editor is gaming the system, hoping that due to the press of work you people do so well, this one would slip by for the moment, as it did. Thank you. 2603:7000:2143:8500:655F:127C:AAB4:6837 (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello. The protection was because of copyright violations, identified as such by Wikipedia's primary expert on copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright issues very seriously, for legal reasons. All versions of the article in between the initial copyvio and its deletion had to be removed from public view, per Wikipedia policy, even if that particular edit was innocuous. The protection will expire on July 25 and you will be able to edit the article then. In the meantime I encourage you to read Wikipedia's policy on copyright, which is here, and take care never to directly copy anything into a Wikipedia article. Use sources, but in your own words always. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I have great respect for the great work certain editors are doing on copyright violations. They are indeed of utmost importance. For my part, I wish we didn't allow material in that did not have references. That is often a problem in itself. And I think it is great the work those editors do.

At the same time, this is not that. As I said, please take a look. Please have our primary expert take a look. I am sure they are busy and this can lead to a simple quick mistake, which on second careful look they see differently.

As I said, this material that was reverted was material that by its nature, certainly in the great majority, is not a source of copyright violation. Properly sourced. And statement such as "Gordon won a gold medal in competition x." "Gordon is a citizen of country Y" (this statement of fact seems to especially trouble the complaining editor - who peculiarly had deleted it twice, despite the proper reference. "Gordon earned a JD degree from school Y." These are not, with all due respect, the elements of copyright violation. They fall withing what our own wp rules (one has to read the clickthroughs as well) refer to as "phrases that are the simplest and most obvious way to present information" and "simple, non-creative lists of information.

Really, you have to look at the actual material - amazingly, even the addition of an external link was deleted as a copyright violation.

I've read carefully the link. While I agree totally that copyright violation is to be stamped out, with respect - this is certainly not that. To get a flavor of what the complaining editor continues to revert - just look at his latest here .. it is completely improper, and I fear he is gaming the copyright-protection editors with regard to this article .. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shaul_Gordon&diff=1098694642&oldid=1098674535 2603:7000:2143:8500:84F3:3BD6:C259:D1C5 (talk) 20:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Let me try again to explain. There was a large edit at 4:04 on July 16 - your first edit, which added 2,106 bytes of prose. That edit was determined to be a copyright violation. That edit was not reverted until 22:37 on July 16, when the edit just before yours was restored. That restoration had the effect of deleting everything you had done, even if it was innocuous. All of that material, all those pages, had to be deleted and hidden from public view. That was because each of those intervening pages still contained the copyvio material. Per Wikipedia policy, no page can be retained or left on public view if it contains improper use of copyrighted material. So everything had to be reverted and hidden, even the addition of an external link - not because it was a copyvio in itself, but because it was on a page that contained other material that WAS a copyvio.

As for the disagreement between you and the other editor about whether to describe him as "Canadian" or "Canadian-Israeli", you should take that to the article's talk page. Start a new section, explain why you believe it should be "Canadian-Israeli," show references, and ping the other person to come to the page and discuss it. In the meantime, don't keep adding it to the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Page protection?

Hi Melanie, I'm just curious why you accepted the request to temporarily protect Sivayogi Sivakumar? The page was created and then edited by two WP:SPA accounts, and then tidying up has been attempted by myself and Drmies. The second SPA requested page protection with a spurious claim of "vandalism by miscreants", but there is not a single edit by an IP. I have to admit I didn't bother commenting on WP:RPP because I thought it would be obvious, and it doesn't really matter if the article is semi-protected for a few days, but I am curious what you saw as "persistent disruptive editing"? Thanks, Melcous (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Melcous, and thanks for your note. I was mainly influenced by the repeatedly-deleted, basically edit-warring edits by user Sathishyadavwork - the one who keeps insisting that no one should be able to do anything in that article unless they can read Tamil. That user is not autoconfirmed and so is subject to semi-protection. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

No worries Melanie - they are the one who asked for the protection, I didn't realise they would be subject to it :) Thanks, Melcous (talk) 01:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

They probably didn't either. Nice bit of poetic justice, yes? 0;-D From what I see at their talk page, as well as their edits at the Sivayogi page, they could soon find themselves blocked. But that's another issue for another administrator. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Clarification

To clear up something, so even if Tofiq Musayev meets GNG and all other criteria, the page can never be recreated, even with additional sources? HeinzMaster (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, HeinzMaster, the problem is that according to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tofiq Musayev (2nd nomination), he DOESN'T meet GNG. This version was virtually identical to the deleted version except for the added sources. More sources alone won't cut it; they have to be BETTER sources, showing that he has done better in competition and become more notable. If he goes on to compete in more high-level events or win some bigger prizes, maybe that could be added to a draft and then you could try again. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Apology

I apologize for the editing done by me about the Big game name stuff on Saturday night. The way it is used on the article, I have never heard that way, and it was kind of selfish. I hope you forgive me. From, Anonymous.

         (P.S. Cal is going to beat Stanford this year!) 2601:644:8F01:AA20:6954:E830:22AB:6639 (talk) 01:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

No apology necessary, and no problem at all. If you are from Cal, you should have known it is Big Game, without any "the"!

P.S. You might be right. That's what makes this such a good rivalry; either team can beat the other in any given year. It was frankly no fun when Stanford went on those multi-year winning streaks; better to have every year be completely unpredictable. P.S. Wanna bet? 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 03:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Archive 90

←

Archive 95

Archive 96

Archive 97

Archive 98

Archive 99

Archive 100