User talk:MelanieN/Archive 42

Madani Channel

This TV station is one of the most popular religious channel and deserves stand-alone article. It would be safe if you remove the restrictions, to let users contribute. Thanks. Störm (talk)</spanU> 18:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, Störm. I see that the deletion discussion that resulted in the redirect was two years ago and was poorly attended. So I will lift the restriction on the redirect and you can see if you can expand it to an article that will survive scrutiny. It will have to be expanded, not just recreated as it was - because if it isn't different and improved from the previous version that was AfD'd, WP:G4 would apply. Are you prepared to make those additions and changes now? Or should I wait until you assemble new material and new sources before I unlock it? --MelanieN (talk) 19:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

It's tough to find sources. Maybe wait some time. Will come back when I will be ready. Störm (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, just let me know. Looking at the article as it was before it was redirected, it had only one reference that wasn't a primary reference to the channel itself or the parent - and it's now a dead link. We're going to need some significant coverage from independent sources to revive the article. --MelanieN (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Personal attack?

Hi,

I saw this, which is an encoded message with profanity and appears to contain some kind of threat (I'm not sure how much I can reveal here on a talk page...). Would such a thing constitute a personal attack? Should I remove it? Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Adam! Thanks for the note. Looks like User:Iridescent took care of both the talk page and the sandbox. --MelanieN (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not the first time I've seen an encoded message of that sort either ("that sort" being the code, not the type of message. The last one was perfectly innocent and innocuous.). I was talking to Oshwah about it not that long ago. I hope the two accounts are not related. Adam9007 (talk) 19:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, MelanieN. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Dare I visit?

I guess it might be wise for me to ease up at that article, you can only do so much with 0RR, and I could easily get topic-banned. Plus the die is probably cast, and that BLP will only get crazier. I do have lots of non-Wikipedia work to do, and so will try to step away from the keyboard to do it. Have fun, Melanie, and don’t forget that the press secretary speaks for the president.  :) Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Visit any time, Anything. Yes, the press secretary speaks for the president. But not everything she says is lede-worthy. --MelanieN (talk) 15:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Augustus Sol Invictus

Hi Melanie. I remember, some time ago, you had advised me to contact you in case there is a BLP problem, and we have such a case at Augustus Sol Invictus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I have opened a talkpage discussion, but two new accounts and an IP are adding UNDUE/SYNTH BLP violations into the article. I have also informed BLPN and RfPP. Thank you. Dr. K. 15:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ok Melanie. Since you fully protected the article, I gather that after reading my talkpage discussion at Augustus Sol Invictus, you determined that I was edit-warring against the new accounts and the IP. I think that determination is incorrect, since the blatant SYNTH/UNDUE edit is an obvious BLP violation. Obviously, this is not the result I was seeking when I took your past advice to get assistance from you on BLP matters when needed. I have no canine in this article, but I also do not enjoy being called an edit-warrior and my removal of blatant BLP violations being characterised as a content dispute. I am unwatching the article and will never edit it again. Dr. K. 15:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • User:Dr.K, please don't be offended that I cited edit warring. That is one of the standard reasons for instituting full protection, which was necessary here because semi-protection would not have been effective (the two registered accounts are auto-confirmed; one is a longstanding editor, the other is a brand new special purpose account). Please see the message I put on the talk page and you will understand. --MelanieN (talk) 15:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

@Dr.K.: repinging since I messed up your username. --MelanieN (talk) 15:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Melanie. Sorry, but I thought "content dispute" is shorthand for "no BLP violations". My respect for you as a content-conscious admin and quality-content-producing editor is high. That's why, at first glance, I was disappointed to see that there was no mention of BLP violations in the protection edit-summary. In any case, since you explained this to me, I am ok with your rationale. Also your comments at the talkpage of the article, show the usual level of policy expertise I have come to associate with you. Thank you for your support. Take care. Dr. K. 15:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Question

Right after you added PP, 3 consecutive reverts were made [1], [2], and [3]. Since they were done consecutively, is that considered 1 revert? What about the material that was added meeting consensus? If my memory serves, didn't we discuss not using certain terminology like "sexual assault"? ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Atsme! Yes, the three edits without any intervening edits by other people would be considered a single edit. I don't recall a discussion about "sexual assault" but that would certainly be a valid issue to bring up on the talk page. If you find a previous discussion, link to it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Seraphim System

could probably use some protection, while your here, from an LTA, using transients and throwaway accounts. It's been getting shat on all day... hope you're well. ----->SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 15:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

No kidding. Thanks for the alert. If you see anybody else getting targeted, I'll be online for another hour or two. --MelanieN (talk) 15:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz, Galobtter, and Serial Number 54129: Thanks for your help. I'll be logging off soon so I have protected my page. I have an idea about what could be done about this rampage and will share it elsewhere. --MelanieN (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

DS consensus

I reverted this edit (16:08, December 11, 2017) from Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations as UNDUE. My edit was reverted before (17:58, December 11, 2017) reasonable time to obtain consensus had expired. The article is subject to 1RR + consensus before restoring. No consensus had been reached per Wikipedia:Consensus - the reverting editor took it upon himself to conclude a consensus had been reached when it had not. I don't want to take this to AE but will if necessary. I just want our policies to be respected so will you please look into this? I thank you kindly in advance. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Whether you’re correct or not, I’d just like to point out that readers are probably comatose by the time any of them get that deep into the article. The lead, however, is another matter entirely. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

<---comatose me. I won't argue the point you made - it's a good one - my concern is more technical in that our PAGs should be honored. I've seen two editors get TB for violating DS on that same article so what's fair is fair. The same sanctions should apply to all across the board. I don't show favoritism to my kids, either - and I love them both the same. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Atsme and Anything. The question is whether to include it in the lede, right? It is already in the article text and unchallenged there? OK. Without weighing in on the merits (or not) of putting it in the lede, I would have to agree with the restoration of it, based on an apparent consensus at the talk page to include it. If a clear local majority of people seem to agree in a discussion, it can be and often is implemented, at least temporarily. There is no requirement to wait some particular length of time to act on the result of a discussion. In fact it's quite common to implement what appears to be a quickly developed consensus, even as the discussion is ongoing. The action can always be reverted later if the tenor of the discussion changes to the opposite consensus over the next few days. In other words, when something has been challenged/removed and is under discussion, that doesn't automatically impose some kind of week-long moratorium before it can be restored. That would give one person a kind of veto power over the content of the article, which is not the intent of the consensus rule. --MelanieN (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The question (and reversion here) is on whether to include it in the article body. I find this utterly controversial, as half-a-dozen other Senators and multiple lower-level Alabama politicians are included in that section. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. Several of the people on the talk page referred to having it in the lede so I misread the diff. My analysis remains the same: it was OK to implement the quick consensus at the talk page. With the understanding that it could be removed later if consensus later goes the other way. --MelanieN (talk) 01:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Then there are clearly a few editors who need to have their TB removed if that truly is the case. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

RPP follow up

Hi, per your request I am following up with about protection for United States Naval Academy. Since your decline, there has been another vandalism edit. I'm sure there are more to follow, and I'm just looking for a little more time/protection. Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 05:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: Thanks for the note. Normally two vandalism edits in two days are not enough for semi-protection. I have watchlisted the article and will continue to keep an eye on it. But I suspect the burst of vandalism earlier this month was related to the Army-Navy game - and is not likely to recur until next year's game. --MelanieN (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an eye on it. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 16:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: On a hunch I checked the editing history of United States Military Academy. You guessed it - there was also a burst of vandalism there the first week of December. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Protection of D. P. Yadav

The BLP violations I reported at RPP here have been repeated. Would you please take a look at the page history and reconsider whether a further period of protection would be appropriate. With thanks: Noyster (talk), 15:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Noyster: Thanks for the note. As above, two vandalism edits in two days are not enough for semi-protection. But given the long history of such edits, I have given it pending changes protection. Hope this helps. --MelanieN (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

VPN

Mel - years ago I heard about people being able to ping from different locations - didn't quite understand how that worked but common sense told me they send a message to a server somewhere, and that server relays it. Since becoming the target of the idiot IP, I researched how in the hell they could keep changing IP addresses. One option would be that it's someone who travels, like an airline attendant for example, and then I remembered a friend on Bonaire telling me how I could get HBO on the island using HBO-go. There are providers who provide such a service and it's called VPN. There's a cost for it, but I think it's nominal. I also think there may be a way to block VPN servers (an admin told me VPN was a no-no and could result in a site ban but that seems highly unlikely considering they haven't been able to find who the VPN subscriber is or what VPN service they're using). There may still be a way, but it will require help from WMF. As this IP issue grows, the project may very well need to consider confirmed registered users only. At this point, I don't know the simplest road to resolution but if the US government can track such people down, my grandkids can probably figure out how to do it, too. Just saying.... ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

You're asking the wrong person; I am not very techie. Maybe a stalker will chime in with more information. I don't know if VPNs are much of a problem here. I do know that WP:Open proxies, i.e., anonymizing systems, are blocked on sight. As for changing IP addresses, that's easy to do, for example by using a public library and changing which computer you use. And some IP addresses are dynamic rather than fixed. Those long IP addresses - IPv6 - seem to keep changing even if the user doesn't do anything to change it. That sometimes happens with traditional IPs too. But they usually stay within the same range so that's what I looked at with that recent question at ANI. Sometimes when there has been repeated disruption from the same general range of IPs they can do a WP:Range block but that's kind of a last resort. Yes, I'm sure your grandkids know a lot more about this than I do. --MelanieN (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

To be "not very techie" you're far more techie than I. You're one smart cookie so thank you for explaining in further detail. I'm guessing that IPv6 refers to the ones that begin with 2600:100+ numbers and the like which are cell phones or iPads that use cellular towers, right? TMI for me anyway...not where I want to focus my energy. Thanks for explaining. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Atsme: You and Melanie are correct about IPv6 addresses. If your IP troll behaves like this one, you may be the latest target of the infamous Kingshowman. Quacks loudly but usually goes away after a few days of flamboyant tirades. WP:DENY is the wisest advice for such cases. If he gets truly egregiously annoying, file an WP:SPI (see his archives for fun and editing patterns). — JFG ^talk 11:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Question

How does one go about asking a CU to check an IP addy to see if it's a disguised regular? Do I look up what editors have CU rights and simply make a request based on suspicious conduct, and do you have to also provide who you might think it is or can they figure that out on their own? Thank you in advance. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Instructions are at WP:SPI. If the CU request is warranted, someone with the appropriate rights will pick it up. Do give as much circumstantial socking evidence as you can. Good luck! — JFG ^talk 01:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: It won't be accepted without a reasonable suspicion. WP:DUCKTEST O3000 (talk) 01:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Checkuser will not match a registered userid with an IP. SPECIFICO talk 02:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to all...^{Atsme📞📧} 02:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, don't forget even sockpuppets and banned users sometimes have good ideas. 🧟 SPECIFICO talk 02:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in, all. Atsme, it's true that checkusers will not publicly connect an IP with a registered user, for privacy reasons, although they will sometimes take private action. And checkusers will not go on a fishing expedition to see if an IP matches some unspecified registered user. If you have a strong suspicion who it is, and good evidence (showing diffs of one compared to similar or near-identical diffs for the other), you can file a sockpuppet request at SPI (instructions are at the bottom of the page under a "show" button); you would file it under the name of the suspected sockmaster. Or you can ask a checkuser to look into it privately. But as I said, you need good evidence - actual comparable diffs, not just "they seem to have similar opinions" or "they edit the same articles" or "this doesn't seem to be a new user". --MelanieN (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy vacation!!

Christmas tree worm, (Spirobranchus gigantic) Atsme📞📧 12:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
	Time To Spread A Little Happy Holiday Cheer!!
	I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree in the spirit of the season. What's especially nice about this digitized version: *it doesn't need water *won't catch fire *and batteries aren't required.
	Have a Happy Holiday season and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉

A barnstar for you

	Holiday barnstar
	You deserve a holiday barnstar, but this snowflake was as close as I could come. And best holiday wishes to you. Thank you for making Wikipedia a better place. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

"tis the season...."

Hello MelanieN: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, ―Buster7 ☎ 22:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Hello MelanieN: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

	Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas and a happy, healthy and prosperous New Year 2018!
	Thank you for all the hard work and effort you put into Wikipedia. God bless! Onel5969 TT me 02:22, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas MelanieN!!


Hi MelanieN, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,
Thanks for all your help and contributions on the 'pedia! ,
   –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Wishes

Hi Melanie. No fancy template, but just wishing you happy holidays and all the best for 2018 😎 Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:16, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays

From Stave one of Dickens A Christmas Carol Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail. Mind! I don’t mean to say that I know, of my own knowledge, what there is particularly dead about a door-nail. I might have been inclined, myself, to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of ironmongery in the trade. But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it, or the Country’s done for. You will therefore permit me to repeat, emphatically, that Marley was as dead as a door-nail. So you see even Charles was looking for a reliable source :-) Thank you for your contributions to the 'pedia. ~ MarnetteD|Talk 23:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hello MelanieN: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, —MRD2014 ^{Merry Christmas!} 02:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

A cup of tea for you!

A cup of tea to warm your Holiday season. Hope you are having a lovely time on vacation. Always nice to see your edits. Cheers. CookieMonster755✉ 22:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, MelanieN!

Happy New Year!

MelanieN,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Support. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:10, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Just a quick hello

Hello friend. Hope your vacation is going well. Haven’t interacted with you much lately, which is sad, but I wanted to wish you a happy new year. If you are ever on the correct coast, please let me know :) TonyBallioni (talk) 07:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note and the good wishes, Tony. I'm still on vacation and on what you would probably consider the correct coast (i.e., the temperature hasn't risen above 27 the entire week). But I will be back where it is in the 70s in a few days and will try to resume my neglected duties here when I can. There's always a lot of Real Life stuff to catch up with after being away. I hope you have a happy new year as well! MelanieN alt (talk) 13:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

P. S. OK, I lied. It isn't in the 70s in San Diego. It's only in the high 60s. I'll take it. 0;-D MelanieN alt (talk) 14:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)