User talk:MelanieN/Archive 35

Wow

I could almost ask you out. I thought you'd delete my content without second thought and you instead revised it in an understandable way. Thanks. - Informant16 April 30, 2017

Hey, don't give up on Wikipedia! Valid content is always welcome here - even if it sometimes seems like everybody has itchy delete fingers. --MelanieN (talk) 02:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I see this comment just as I'm about to give up on Wikipedia... Hang on. What am I doing here? I'm supposed to be on wikibreak except for Theme Hospital . Adam9007 (talk) 04:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey, this is neutral territory, you are safe here. You are entitled to take a break from your wikibreak. --MelanieN (talk) 14:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I've barely begun it, and even that's only because I was stupid enough to get myself blocked. Adam9007 (talk) 16:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

It's entirely within your control - whether to take a wikibreak or not, or whether to take a break from some areas or activities while continuing to participate in others. It's all up to you. You also have complete freedom to decide on something, announce you are going to do it, and then change your mind. Nobody's going to hold you to what you said earlier. --MelanieN (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to a San Diego edit-a-thon

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Meetup/San Diego/May 2017 . RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Wrong Logo protected

Good morning. I requested protection for my company's page SKYJET Airlines because some user keeps changing the posted logo. You protected the page but the other user changed the logo again, now I cant change it back. please see our official website to confirm that the logo currently on the wiki page is not the official logo we have, and please restore to the official logo. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyjetmis (talk • contribs) 00:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, Skyjetmis. In protecting the page, I did not take sides as to which version was "right". And the fact that you "can't change it back" is the whole point of full protection: so that you can't continue edit warring with the other user. Edit warring is forbidden here and can get you blocked, even if you are sure you are "right". Use the article's talk page, explain why you prefer your version, work it out with the other person.

BTW I see that you are an employee of the company; that means you have a conflict of interest. Please read this link and understand what limitations it places on you. More to the point, I see that you may be using two usernames: User:skyjetmis redirects User:Cloudstar90. Cloudstar90 is not actually a registered username, so you are not in violation of our username policy right now, but why does your user talk page redirect there? This is important and you need to explain it. You can only have one username, period. --MelanieN (talk) 02:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Looking again, I see that you did not do that move or redirect; User:Skyjet164 did. I will move it back and have words with that user. They had NO BUSINESS moving another user's page. I'll fix it and get back to you. --MelanieN (talk) 02:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi MelanieN. I already posted a change request on the talk page where I explained why I think it futile to discuss with the user in question. He knows he's wrong, he just keeps doing it anyway for his own agenda. About the redirect to Cloudstar90, If he did that then you see what kind of user I'm dealing with?

I have moved it back and left a message on their talk page asking them to explain themselves. And I see that you have now disclosed your connection to the company on the article's talk page, and explained that you were sent here to change the logo. Some other Wikipedians may see your comment there, look into it, and decide what the logo should be. In the meantime, please never use an edit summary like this again. Civility is our policy; cursing and name calling are against our rules. By the way, please sign your comments on talk pages. You do that by adding four tildes, like this ~~~~ . The system will automatically convert it to your name and a datestamp. Here's what happens when I do that: --MelanieN (talk) 02:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I think I can see which way this dispute is going to be resolved, but let the 24 hours pass so the other user can comment - and explain himself. --MelanieN (talk) 02:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi MelanieN, I apologize for that unprofessional comment. You are aright. I'm new to wikipedia editing and don't know much about the syntax and shortcuts. Let me try that one for my signature. --Skyjetmis (talk) 03:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Another strange thing I noticed is that the page User:Skyjetmis was created by Skyjet164, and its original text seems to translate to "Good evening do not replace the old logo SKYJET thank you." Was he trying to leave a message? Adam9007 (talk) 03:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I guess he is, i think he's telling me to stop changing it back to the "old" logo. He's claiming that the logo he's posting is the new official logo which is simply not true. --Skyjetmis (talk) 03:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Another thing - Skyjet164's user page is copied from User:Bumbl loid. Adam9007 (talk) 03:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that good detective work, Adam! I was sure he had copied it from somewhere but didn't know where. I trust you saw the messages I left on his user talk page. I'm going to allow him the rest of the day to respond. I think it's clear by now how this logo dispute is going to turn out. It's not yet clear what will be the outcome with regard to Skyjet164. --MelanieN (talk) 13:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I too had a hunch that it was copied from somewhere. I looked at the source, and noticed this at the end: Category:Wikipedians in Zamboanga City|Bumbl loid This manual category not only contradicts the assertion that he lives in Quezon City, but also contains the someone else's username. I checked the category and, sure enough, that user's page is almost identical and predates Skyjet's. And yes, :Bumbl loid's page also has that exact line. (Oh, and yes I did see the messages you left him). Adam9007 (talk) 15:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

They've continued to edit war without answering your questions so I've indeffed them for disruptive editing (they have to communicate to get unblocked) and deleted their user page as a copy-paste. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought it was possible they might just quietly fade away (knowing they had been caught out) but no such luck. Since they resumed their disruptive behavior, I agree that was absolutely the right result. And I can't offhand think of any argument they might make that would result in an unblock. Totally WP:NOTHERE. --MelanieN (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

So here's a question for you, Neil: The edit summary in their second and third additions is an obscene insult in Tagalog. Should it be revdel'ed, or doesn't it matter since this is enwiki? --MelanieN (talk) 22:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I revdel those. An obscenity is an obscenity and I'm pretty sure a lot of Spanish speaking Americans would get upset if Spanish obscenities were left lying around. I actually did check these edit summaries but Google Translate threw up gibberish. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Gone. Your Google Translate must be a little more prudish than mine. BTW do you like the way I carefully followed the instructions at The Wrong Version? --MelanieN (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Options, options…

Dear MelanieN, I took the liberty to WP:IAR and add a shorter option B2 to your survey on the popular vote wording. It conveys the same thing but avoids repeating that Trump won the election. I hope you don't mind. — JFG ^talk 17:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

JFG, I can accept B2 also and I said so at the discussion. However, I reverted your making the change while the issue is under discussion. The discussion says '"x-and-such is the version in the article now"; changing it in mid-discussion makes that false and otherwise muddies the water. Hold off until consensus is reached, please. --MelanieN (talk) 20:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi again. Sorry your polite request for other editors to refrain from adding survey options didn't age well – and I started it , oy vey, must be Ye Olde Curse of the Popular Vote !! — JFG ^talk 18:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

More like Ye Olde Business As Usual. As long as we can keep it from spinning off into new discussions/new surveys! That's the real problem that has resulted in so many "no consensus" discussions at that page. --MelanieN (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Right. I'm still amazed at this particular Groundhog Day… But well, seems Hillary went on air to vent about why she lost, so perhaps that awakened the spectre of this particular edit dispute yet again! — JFG ^talk 21:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Everybody's fault but hers, right? She and Trump have more in common than I thought. --MelanieN (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	THANKS: for defending Wikipedia against the incessant attempts by outsiders and troglodytes to violate her integrity and land her smack in the current political and cultural warfare we see and hear all around us. Quis separabit? 16:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Don't thank me yet, I'm only about 10% of the way through. BTW thanks for letting me know Wikipedia's gender; I never realized she was female. Is that why the majority of editors are guys? 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Didn't mean to offend. I was waxing poetic and used the feminine in the same way that boats and ships and very often other things that people have a special affection for are usually referred to as "she"; also a pronoun is needed given the wording. Which one should I have used? I am too old for PC re-education, so my apology will have to do. How do you know "the majority of editors are guys?" Just curious. Also, in re "I'm only about 10% of the way through", why don't/didn't you use ROLLBACK? Quis separabit? 16:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Not offended; amused! Being female myself, it's nice to know Wikipedia is with me. It's pretty generally accepted that most editors here are male; see Wikipedia:Gender bias and editing on Wikipedia. Wikipedia at one time set a goal (not yet realized, I believe) to increase female editorship to 20%. Of course these figures are based on some kind of user survey, since most registered editors here do not identify themselves as either male or female. Anyhow, I am comfortable being in the minority here, but I'm glad to know Wikipedia and I are both subject to special affection. As to why I'm not using Rollback: because every article is different; some have had intervening edits, some haven't; and there is a grammatical error in the sentence I am retaining that needs hand-correcting. It's a slog but somebody's gotta do it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

User:216.165.95.64

This IP keeps blatantly readding the POV/OR text in re American Health Care Act of 2017 to various GOP congresspersons (all in NY State). Quis separabit? 00:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. I have warned them to stop. I see you are reverting, good for you. If they keep doing it after my warning, I may have to take action. At this point we have to AGF, that they don't realize it has been rejected by consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks like they stopped several hours ago. Having already done all the damage they could. Did you get them all? BTW I was meaning to say, I have always liked your signature. I assume it refers to this? --MelanieN (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

FYI re RFPP

Hi M. I sure understand why you declined the request on this. Only 5 or so edits over the last month but the IPs change so I was hoping to drive them to the thread on the talk page. Hopefully that will happen now. Best regards and have a pleasant Sunday. MarnetteD|Talk 21:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. It was a borderline call, and if they persist let me know and I'll lock them out for a while. --MelanieN (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks and will do. MarnetteD|Talk 21:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi again. Now they've taken to blanking huge sections of the article. MarnetteD|Talk 05:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi'ed for a week. Good luck getting them to the talk page. BTW your note there needs some copy editing. --MelanieN (talk) 06:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the PP and the heads up on the c/e. My "e" key is sticky and is causing all sorts of problems - but that doesn't excuse the rest of the error - trout almondine for me for not hitting the preview button :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 06:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Don't you hateeee it wheeeeeeen that happeeeeens? --MelanieN (talk) 06:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

It is an eeeeeeky situation M. It has been a slow Sunday morning but I have now added my thoughts at the talk page. If you feel more is needed please let me know and I will see what I can do. MarnetteD|Talk 16:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Update

I had a couple of mint juleps while watching the Kentucky Derby and I am down for the count. I will see y'all tomorrow.--MelanieN (talk) 00:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Protection of Swahili

Why did you protect this article even though you declined to do so on the request page? Have you noticed the persistent addition and restoration of unsourced material (for example) to this page, which in my opinion is the real reason that the protection request was made? Have you noticed that the requestor has ignored repeated requests to discuss Swahili versus Kiswahili on the article talk page? 2605:6000:EF43:8500:8D1D:42A:EA65:9EF5 (talk) 09:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I initially declined to protect the article because there had been only a few recent instances of problem editing (although there had been many a week or two earlier). I said at the time that I would reconsider if problems continued, and they did, so I did. The talk page is the place to work this out, via discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

And the "problems" you are preventing are what, exactly? Surely you know. 2605:6000:EF43:8500:8D1D:42A:EA65:9EF5 (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Mass deletion of material, and edit warring to make what is clearly an incorrect edit to the infobox. I'm not going to get involved in the actual content, which should be worked out on the article's talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Melanie, you prevented IP editors from editing this article while allowing registered editors to continue to edit. Your semi-protection of this article was followed immediately by restoration of unsourced material by a registered editor who has been involved in this controversy. You, in effect, "got involved" and favored registered editors by not protecting the article fully. Very disappointing and unfair. 2605:6000:EF43:8500:8D1D:42A:EA65:9EF5 (talk) 11:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Just do as you have been advised by MelanieN. Take the matter to the article talk page. Melanie has not got involved, as you portray. She has acted in the conduct of an administrator, and followed her duty to protect an article that was under disruptive editing - which is the correct procedure. If the incorrect revision has been stored, then make that known at Talk:Swahili. Wes Wolf ^Talk 12:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify the page where the discussion has been started is Talk:Swahili language. Both the IP and Wesley Wolf have used a link that goes to the DAB page. MarnetteD|Talk 17:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Protection on Poola Rangadu (2012 film)

You had pending changes protected the page on my request. Can I request you to change that to Semi-protection. There has been 1 editor and probably his sockpuppets removing referenced edits from the page. I pinged him for discussion on the movie's talk page, besides warning him on his own talk page. He however does not seem to be interested in discussing the merits of his content removal, and had stopped the vandalism yesterday after I gave him a final warning on his talk page. However he is continuing with his vandalism using IPs now. I don't want to take him to AIV as it might seem as a little harsh on a newbie from my side. I feel that if the power to edit with IPs are gone, he will probably decide to comment on the talk page as he knows he will be blocked for more arbitrary content removal. Thanks. Jupitus Smart 07:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that the problem editing has increased to the point that PC protection isn't enough. I have added semi-protection for a week. When it expires the PC protection will still be in place. Let me know if the problems resume then. --MelanieN (talk) 13:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank You. Jupitus Smart 17:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

ACDA

Closing. This is the wrong place for this.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello. You seem like a mind of reason, although some of what was going on before you jumped-in smacks of anti-intellectualism. You ought to agree with the wikipeda maxim that there is no such thing as objectivity, and to be neutral is to describe debates rather than engage in them: Achieving neutrality: As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage Even when Watson and Crick published their revolutionary paper on DNA in Nature, it contained a famous mistake/ommision in the structure; making some of what they believed and said, not fact but opinion—and not peer reviewed. This is because even research is objective, and more significantly because of the fact that most research findings are wrong. There is a fair bit of righteous irony in using one's own unsubstantiated opinion to rid the world of another's opinion—that there is some vast conspiracy by connected researchers of so called neo-prohibitionism to hijack Wikipedia. Let's just consider a few other explanations: (1) there is organic interest across the country for disparate reasons—the most likely way edits happen; (2) some high school student is retaliating for PCocks peculiar high-school edits on a different page—or the balancing view that some academic journalists validly consider Breitbart News an oxymoron; (3) there are many subject matter experts and they are not connected; (4) other; (5) a western collation of defence attorneys connected to the Innocence Project are irate over careerist peace and prosecution officials destroying people where 0.02 BAC is not a probable reason for failing a field sobriety test; (6) growing interest in bringing the public safety focus to speeding and road safety which has greater health dividends—guns and butter; (7) the road cyclist lobby wanting their roads safer; (8) and many cute little dogs randomly with computers that still nobody knows are on the internet. Only one of the nine scenarios is considered: the odds are probably against it! I have been watching this page as part of Road Safety Week, where speed is the focus. In fact there is a quarter page public message about this in today's (May 8th 2017) New York Times (page A17) about this issue. Just because a POV on alcohol is popular does not make it true: now the page being referenced on the ACDA page is authored by an unconnected subject matter expert, has many peer-reviewed footnote citations, and is probably balancing to at least mention—especially since most of Europe has a much different approach to alcohol all-together. Hardly a fringe view, but may be quite foreign to some laypeople. Perhaps several subject matter experts should read it first and say what is wrong with it. Politics is the who gets what, when, where, and how of anything. You will find it everywhere, and it is not a bad thing for Wikipeda to shed public light even on so-called buried or dark conflict, rather than to engage in it. There is nothing insidious going on here—the document has validity and is thought provoking. No reasonable person wants drunks driving, but speed management is arguably a vastly underappreciated issue in comparison. Graham's hierarchy of disagreement: Aim at the top during disputes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‪170.213.2.175 (talk • contribs) References Hello, ‪170.213.2.175‬. I presume you are talking about this article, which I protected. The article talk page is the place for you and all the other IPs to make your case. --MelanieN (talk) 06:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC) You presume correct. Thank you. 170.213.2.163 (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Opinion

Hi, Melanie. Just curious as to what your opinion is of this interplay ([1], [2]). Was I basically correct or am I overreacting? Yours, Quis separabit? 13:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Your initial reaction was strong but possibly justified. However, when other people chimed in with other sources, you should have taken it to the talk page instead of continuing to revert or edit war over it. I see that no one has yet taken it to the talk page, but IMO it is definitely time for talking instead of editing. Luckily for all of you the article does not appear to be under DS. Please realize that I am commenting, because you asked, without any opinion or knowledge of the specific allegation being made there, and I don't intend to get involved in that issue. --MelanieN (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Sources do back up the use of the world false

For example, see the WP article. The article directly provides a quote saying the admin wanted such statements.Casprings (talk) 14:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The other two articles certainly don't. I can't read the WaPo article (over my limit for the month) but I would be very surprised if it says "false". They were asked to say publicly that they saw no evidence of collusion. To characterize that as "false" assumes that they DO see evidence of collusion, and that would be an enormous story if true, but I don't believe either of them has said such a thing. Anyhow, our report should say what specifically they were asked to say, not a vague "made false statements". Also, anything we add needs to say "reportedly", not assert it in Wikipedia's voice. And it should go in the text body, not the lede. (For example see which WP article?) MelanieN alt (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Quate from the WP:"Senior intelligence officials also saw the March requests as a threat to the independence of U.S. spy agencies, which are supposed to remain insulated from partisan issues.

“The problem wasn’t so much asking them to issue statements, it was asking them to issue false statements about an ongoing investigation,” a former senior intelligence official said of the request to Coats. "

Casprings (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. That's kind of a weak and offhand support, but in any case I think we should say specifically what they were asked to say rather than a vague "false statements ". And in the text, not the lede. And "reportedly". Do you have a problem with any of that? MelanieN alt (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

No I am fine with all of that. That said, I think elements of this story are lede worthy.Casprings (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

At least let's wait a bit and see if this becomes a major part of the story or just one more drop of water in the flood. MelanieN alt (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi MelanieN: just a tip if you're "over my limit for the month" on WaPo or any other paywalled source, try opening it in a "private browsing" window. That usually gives you a fresh session with a number of "free articles". You may have to disable any ad-blocker though. — JFG ^talk 05:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Holy Cross of San Antonio editor

Holy Cross of San Antonio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is an article you protected once. It's still got PC on it, and has an editor who continually adds unsourced and promotional material, removes maintenance templates, etc without ever responding to talk page notices.[3] I guess I could take them to ANI, what do you think? There's little to no chance they'd respond there. Doug Weller talk 10:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Yes, I see that they are a problem. They are an SPA for that subject (except for a couple of equally unsourced edits at another San Antonio school). Their additions seem to be entirely unsourced and/or promotional. The PC doesn't stop them because they are autoconfirmed. You have worn out your fingers explaining things on their talk page, over and over, without any response. I believe they are operating in good faith as they understand it (I did exactly the same things on my high school page when I was a newbie), but they are also NOTHERE - unwilling to abide by WP guidelines, unwilling to cooperate, unwilling to learn. I understand why you don't want to take unilateral action, you are INVOLVED. I think you are right that they would not respond to ANI. And they don't have email enabled. I'm thinking I could step in, as an uninvolved admin. My thought would be 1) a final warning; 2) a shortish, get-their-attention block if they do it again; 3) see what happens next. Or would you prefer a community (ANI) approach? --MelanieN (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I doubt that a short block would be effective as they are so sporadic. I have blocked editors indefinitely for not communicating, explaining carefully why and that communicating would probably get them unblocked. I would say final warning with an explanation of the important of communication in an collaborative project, and if they ignore that and edit again indefinite explaining they need to communicate, or if not that ANI for a possible topic ban - but that might just waste peoples' time. Doug Weller talk 18:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Besides, a topic ban would be completely ineffective - since they would ignore it as they do everything else. I was thinking a "shortish" block would have to be at least a month, since they edit every few weeks, but with school coming to an end we might not see them again until September anyhow. Well, I'll give them a final warning and we'll see what happens. --MelanieN (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Good points, I'm sure you're right about a topic ban. Fine, go ahead, and thanks very much. Doug Weller talk 20:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Welll, sheesh! I just took a look at the article and found that while we've been yelling at this editor for adding unsourced material, the article contained not a single source! I just took about an hour to add what sources I could find. Was this a case of "do as I say and not as I do", I wonder? --MelanieN (talk) 23:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Good work. I kept hoping he would I guess, and certainly didn't have time. But I see he or she ignored your post, added people, and another new editor added more unsourced. So I'd say either he's socking or recruited a meat puppet in reaction to your post. Doug Weller talk 05:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I actually had to laugh - he added the people again, but put brackets around their names! Did he think that would magically give them Wikipedia articles? I didn't have the heart to block him for that; I think he is trying, in ignorance, to do what we are telling him. Earlier he was adding a couple of references, although not in the right place or the right way. At least he has called some needed attention to the article; besides my added references, User:Kuru came along and did a lot to whip the article into shape. (Thank you, Kuru!) So even if he winds up blocked, he will have inadvertently gotten a better article for his school. I don't think the other user is him; their edit was quite different from the ones he has been making. --MelanieN (talk) 09:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

It could be just a competence issue. But I still think the new editor must have been asked to come.Still, no problem. We just deal with the edits. I try to remove unsourced 'rival school' claims, and in this case a different school from the one in the infobox is mentioned in the body of the article from the one in the infobox. Doug Weller talk 10:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Y'all have the patience of saints. I would have been tempted to block long ago, for the copyvios alone. As you note, their school year just ended on Friday, so maybe they will back off a little. I don't think any of the information is inaccurate; I have not found anything that was fabricated so far - it's just trivia. The lack of communication is puzzling; this is obviously an English-speaking contributor. Concur with the approach above; short blocks if they continue to edit disruptively, especially with copyvios or BLP issues. Hopefully that will draw some attempt at communication. I'll keep plugging away at the sourcing and removing anything not included in local 3rd party material. Kuru (talk) 11:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)