User talk:MelanieN/Archive 22

AfD
Hi : A recent edit you performed at AfD has been reverted. You may want to check it out. North America1000 04:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Got me! How many others did you get? --MelanieN (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Been having a decent "success rate" thus far... North America1000 14:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * So I see - from the looks of your talk page. I had better not believe anything I read today... --MelanieN (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1 + 1 = 2. North America1000 14:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, right. What kind of sucker do you think I am? --MelanieN (talk) 14:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * A piece of toast with eyes.jpg. North America1000 14:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)]]
 * Bowl of lollipops.jpg (talk) 14:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)]]
 * TheStrand-chump-ambigram-june-1908.gif 15:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)]]

Here's the bottom line

 * Wikipedia goes nuts
 * On April Fools.
 * "Verifiability" is replaced by
 * "Ignore all rules".


 * The main page today
 * Is full of baloney.
 * Every DYK is true
 * But also phony.


 * I fell for your joke.
 * That makes me a chump.
 * I think I'll protest
 * At Village Pump.
 * --MelanieN (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

April Fools
FYI, there was a lot of disputation about proper April Fools' Day behavior eight years ago, which I addressed here. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow, what a great link! I hope every stalker here follows it. Brad, I bow to your amazing talent, and to the ingenuity of the people who replied to you. And I venture to disagree with Mr. Pope and say that NOT every poet is a fool. --MelanieN (talk) 16:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:NCOLLATH
I made a new proposal at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) and based on the earlier discussion we were all having I wanted to put it on your radar.RonSigPi (talk) 03:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Passive Frame Theory Deletion Notice
Hello, MelanieN! I cannot quarrel with the deletion of the article Passive Frame Theory because I lack the resources to do so. However, I find the comment you left regarding the deletion to have unnecessarily negative implications: "...No evidence that this new 'theory' by a minor academic has attracted any attention whatsoever.)" While the article may in fact not be appropriate, I don't think it is correct to put 'theory' in quotes nor to refer to Ezequiel Morsella (who is cited in several other articles) as a minor academic. Although I lack the time to be thorough, I will say that Morsella's theory and his work have indeed attracted quite some attention, and the word "whatsoever" seems gratuitous. I hope you will consider changing this to make it more neutral. Both he and his theory may achieve world fame tomorrow, and that is potentially embarrassing.

I don't know how to use the talk pages and apologize in advance for poor form. I don't know where to put the four tildes. dbershatsky (talk) 08:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, dbershatsky, and thanks for your note. I'm sorry if you were offended by the description of the subject. It is not possible to change the edit summary. (Those were not actually my words, but the words of the person who nominated it for deletion; their rationale is automatically put into the edit summary when it is deleted.) The description was a little harsh but not far off the mark. The author has published a fair amount, but he is early in his career, an associate professor. And the Passive Frame Theory was a brand new publication at the time the article was written, so naturally it had not yet attracted any attention. I just checked Google Scholar and found Morsella's paper is still the only paper to use that phrase; Morsella's paper has now been cited a total of 9 times - still not enough for an article. BTW you used the talk page exactly right and signed your comment correctly. --MelanieN (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Easter126
Sorry for disturbing again, but log file is:

14:15, 26 March 2016 MelanieN (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Easter126 (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 3 months (account creation blocked) (On second thought, more reasonable time)

13:51, 26 March 2016 MelanieN (talk | contribs) blocked Easter126 (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Personal attacks or harassment)

see Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents and checkuser de:Wikipedia:Checkuser/Anfragen/Benutzer:Styron111,Patriska2601,Helde43, Benutzer:Schitty666,Schmidtrach2]

Schmitty (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, now I remember. They had made very few edits - a couple of edits about Stuart Styron, and then a bunch of personal attacks for which they were blocked. They do sound sort of DUCKish, but I think I will wait and see what happens when the block expires in June. --MelanieN (talk) 20:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * These https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/2.243.198.61 Edits were fully deleted. Bad Words translated like "Childf*cker" "Schmitty will die" and so on. The IP was also active here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Malcolmxl5&diff=prev&oldid=714549543
 * On DE:WP very bad harrassment, threats with danger, at se same time here "choosing the good path(TM)". Why a tenth Chance?Schmitty (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Why are you so eager to get this user permanently banned here on en.wiki, where they have not been CU'd and where they have not said a word against you? Anyhow, they are supposedly one small part of a huge sockfarm; in my experience sockmasters rarely return to their discarded socks. If they do, I am watching this user and the next block will be permanent. --MelanieN (talk) 00:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * User_talk:Widefox and User_talk:Malcolmxl5/User_talk:Malcolmxl5
 * but i asked you to reconsider, if you dont want, ok.Schmitty (talk) 10:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I will watchlist that IP also. They have been warned, so any further stalking of you or negative comments about should result in some action. Look, I can see you are being harassed on two Wikipedias, and that is definitely a problem. I just don't see how extending the block on Easter126 is going to do anything to prevent it. Easter126 has not said anything about you - not at this wiki and not at the German wiki. And there is no evidence linking them to the IP. --MelanieN (talk) 13:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Checkuser on de:wp performed see Wikipedia: de:Checkuser/Anfragen/Benutzer:Styron111,Patriska2601,Helde43,_Benutzer:Schitty666,Schmidtrach2 Easter126 is a sockpuppet. Greetings Schmitty (talk) 07:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Korea
The protection of Korea doesn't seem to have quite taken. Fresh IP vandal this morning. Just FYI. Timothy Joseph Wood 12:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, Timothy. Thanks for your note. The type of protection I imposed is WP:Pending changes protection. That means that an IP or anyone can make an edit, but the edit doesn't "take" - doesn't become fully visible - until it is either accepted or rejected by an established editor. PC protection is used for an article where vandalism is persistent over a long term but not terribly frequent; if it is too frequent, the burden becomes too great for established users to monitor all the IP edits. This article seemed to me to be a candidate for PC protection, because vandalism (or in this case edit warring over the name of the sea) was kind of spread out over time - and because it looked to me as if IPs were also making constructive edits. But if the disruptive edits continue, let me know and I will add semi-protection for a while. --MelanieN (talk) 15:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Got it. I thought you semi'd. Should have looked closer before I popped over here. Timothy Joseph Wood  15:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Timothy, I just looked at the PC policy page again, and was reminded that a person needs to have the Reviewer user right in order to accept or reject an edit. I see that you don't have the Reviewer right, but I can give it to you if you want. --MelanieN (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, why not. Timothy Joseph Wood  15:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ --MelanieN (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Locked
Why have you done this? Don't you realise that you got your timing all mixed up and should have locked move freedom when it was on the hyphenated (e-mail) version? Could you be so kind as to move it since you have the power to do so? Still keep it locked of course. But it will help the other editors to use the talk page which they don't. Henry Mazzer (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, Henry Mazzer, I've been expecting you. Yes, I deliberately locked the version without the hyphen (email, not e-mail). It is clear from the article's history and talk page that your attempt to move the page to a hyphenated version does not have consensus and should not happen. I realize you are convinced that you are right and everyone else is wrong (presumably even the Wikipedia article Email). But your conviction that you are right is not going to carry the day here at Wikipedia, where we work by consensus and sources, not by argument and persistence. See WP:TITLECHANGES, which states "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. Consensus among editors determines if there does exist a good reason to change the title." As for your claim that the other editors aren't using the talk page, that is incorrect; I count five users on the talk page saying the article title should not have a hyphen. Here's why I locked the page so that you can't move it any more: because the alternative was to block you for WP:Edit warring, which you were certainly more than ready for - but I prefer less drastic measures when possible. --MelanieN (talk) 14:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for not blocking me. That is appreciated. However we have a more serious issue. Did I read you correctly? I was offline when you withdrew the "move" button, but supposing I had been online and the article had been on the correct version (hyphenated). Do I take it that you would have first restored the non-hyphenated version before locking the feature? Henry Mazzer (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, before move-protecting the article I would certainly have restored the non-hyphenated version, which has been stable for a long time and is clearly supported by consensus at the present time. But there is indeed a more serious issue here: you are continuing to edit-war! I see that you have edited the article text to change the word email to e-mail, and you just it again. So let me make this clear: It is disruptive for you to keep changing to a version you prefer, in the face of clear consensus for the other version. If you do it again, here or at any other article, you will be blocked for edit warring/disruptive editing. This is a formal warning and I will repeat it at your talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * He's done it again Melanie. Reckon it's a good time to ban this editor? Reggie Wisecrack (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Reggie, for a brand-new user with only 25 edits to your name, it seems odd for you to be offering advice about who should be blocked (not banned). As for the edit you are talking about, he has already self-reverted it. --MelanieN (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

All right Melanie, since you admit you would have changed it back before locking it, and that the lock was done to target me, and in light of your continued threats to block me, there is nothing more we have to say to one another. However, since you have become WP:INVOLVED, I have had no option other than to request an investigation into this chicanery. Henry Mazzer (talk) 19:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

A little known fact is that when an editor files a totally bogus ani complaint no reply there is required. NE Ent 19:49, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know, NE, thanks. (It's not my first bogus ANI complaint and won't be my last.) In this case I did reply, but sometimes I find that the case gets closed before I have a chance to say anything. --MelanieN (talk) 20:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Archived link for the record: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive920. --MelanieN (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Random question...
Should UCSD Guardian perhaps be moved to The Guardian (UCSD) (e.g. look at the picture of the masthead at the article)?... I know WP:NATURALDIS and all that, but it's not actually called "UCSD Guardian". What do you think? (Addendum: OK the website is actually at ucsdguardian.org, so that's one point in favor of the current article title...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, that's an interesting question. The masthead actually says " University of California, San Diego  The Guardian". The webpage as you noted is at ucsdguardian.org. My browser titles that web page as "UCSD Guardian | The Student Voice". The heading at the top of the web page says "The Guardian - University of California, San Diego - " My inclination is to keep it at UCSD Guardian because that is probably what everybody calls it (including my web browser). Maybe a redirect from "The Guardian (UCSD)" ? Or is that too unlikely a search term? --MelanieN (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep – I ended up coming to the same conclusion as you did: leave the page where it is, but create the redirect. I'll do that now... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

United States Congress
Vandalized recently; extend PC? --George Ho (talk) 08:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have extended PC for a year. It is clearly needed and effective. --MelanieN (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

West African College of Surgeons
Hi MelanieN,

I trust your fine. Please, I need help on the above article. There is a concern about close paraphrasing here but I address the concern here. Please help to review if there are still instances of close paraphrasing. Thank you. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 10:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you have fixed the problem of close paraphrasing. Two things I notice: 1) the lead sentence should follow Wikipedia's practice of stating WHAT the subject is ("the West African College of Surgeons is a ..."). 2) There are seven faculties, not eight. Good luck! --MelanieN (talk) 13:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thank you so much. I am very grateful. Warm regards. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 22:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Editor of the Week&thinsp;: nominations needed!
The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

Sent on behalf of Buster Seven   Talk  for the Editor of the Week initiative by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

copy of delted article
Please email my copy of the article you deleted https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lydia_O._Arefeva&action=edit&redlink=1 Moscowamerican (talk) 08:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. --MelanieN (talk) 13:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * thank you.
 * I am a little confused on why this was deleted. Moscowamerican (talk) 08:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll reply on your talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)