User talk:MelanieN/Archive 39

Grant Cardone
Hi Melanie. I wonder if you'd consider reinstating the protection on this article. As you can see, the exact same type of disruption has resumed. Rivertorch  FIRE WATER   16:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't think it's quite to that point yet, but I'll keep an eye on it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, it happened again, and 22 hours elapsed before I found it. I haven't warned the IP because it appears to change daily. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   03:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I did see that. I didn't take action because I didn't see it as actual vandalism; I have trouble understanding what the difference is between your version and his (aside from his removing the tags, of course). He seems to mainly rearrange things rather than change what they say; is it the addition of a Scientology reference that you object to? Anyhow, after that second change I began to consider PC protection or semi, depending on frequency. I'd like to wait to see if it happens a third time before imposing anything. --MelanieN (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC) P.S. Forgive me for not taking action immediately, but we are encouraged to be conservative in the use of page protection.--MelanieN (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm glad of that; I just wanted to make sure you saw it. (I don't know about you, but I sometimes miss things in plain sight even when I'm looking for them. Time to trim the watchlist again!) About the edit: yes, the Scientology source is problematic, so is the primary source above it in the diff, the new wording seems vaguely promotional here and there, and then there's the repeated removal of maintenance tags without explanation. I suspect there's COI at work here, but if they'd be more communicative I imagine it could be resolved. Per EW I'm not going to revert again. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   16:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As you saw, I eventually did protect it. I also took it to Afd - kind of the ultimate form of page protection! --MelanieN (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I did see. (In the meantime, I had made a request at RPP because I didn't want to bother you again.) Good call on Afd. As you probably noticed, I've already !voted for deletion. I knew the sourcing was subpar, but I hadn't checked closely enough to see that basic notability wasn't even there. By the way, I read the Village Voice piece you linked. Sadly, that's about the most reliable source I've seen on the topic. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   20:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * LOL, that's what I thought too - and it was somewhere between an op-ed piece and a poison-pen diatribe! --MelanieN (talk) 22:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Wood: semi 3 days
Oh god. Not... Not the most carefully considered edit summary ever. Timothy Joseph Wood 22:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Uhh... sorry, I don't get it. Color me clueless. My standard format for saying that I protected something and for how long. I take it there is some double meaning that escapes me? --MelanieN (talk) 22:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC) P.S. I do know that "wood" has a slang meaning - I'm not THAT naive - but I don't see how combining it with "semi 3 days" is a problem. Hey stalkers - do YOU get it? --MelanieN (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope . I didn't know "wood" has a slang meaning, so you're not as naïve as I am. From a Google search, maybe it has something to do with wooden lorries? But I'm really just wildly guessing. Adam9007 (talk) 23:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I... Both "wood" and "semi" are colloquial terms for ... "states of being" of "male anatomy". Timothy Joseph Wood  23:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah all the mornings I've spent in barracks with 50 other soldiers waking up to 50 versions of "Morning, Wood". You know, but without the comma. Timothy Joseph Wood  23:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Is this a new admin tool? Irondome (talk) 23:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * (e.c. x 3) :: As someone who sees double entendres almost everywhere I look, and as someone who is far from naive about wood of various persuasions, I have to say I don't get it. OK, I did think of that, but it seemed far-fetched. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   23:23, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright. No, it's confirmed. My wife got the joke. Timothy Joseph Wood  23:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I just typed "wood semi" into Google, and got a load of waffle. Hence my guess. Adam9007 (talk) 23:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You're lucky that's all you got a load of. Just sayin'.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Waffle? No, it couldn't be. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   23:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining. "Wood" I was familiar with. Never heard "semi" in that sense before. Always learning new things at Wikipedia. And they say it's not educational here! 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 23:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it was all Semi Solid Wood Flooring, Semi Hollow Wooden Guitars, Semi Trailers for Wood transport, models of wooden lorries etc, none of which seemed to have any relevance. Adam9007 (talk) 23:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Urban dictionary is your friend. Timothy Joseph Wood  23:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Urban Dictionary says "Gaiety" means homosexuality and "Gaily" means "Gay on a daily basis", which I'm pretty sure are not true. Adam9007 (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I totally agree Mind you, some would pay for a 3 day semi. I suggest we now put this thread out of it's misery. Irondome (talk) 23:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

RAISE Act
If you have a spare moment, can you look at recent edits to RAISE Act? I ask because you have edited the article in the past and I respect your opinion. An infrequent editor,, has inserted material that I view as quite clearly SYNTH and POV. Myself and have both expressed concerns/objections. We have both commented on article talk (and I have additionally posted on the editor's talk page), but the editor has failed to respond and has reverted to re-include the material three times. Can you take a look? Thanks. Neutralitytalk 23:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I see that they have already reached 3RR. I gave them a template warning and will keep an eye on the situation. Interesting - that user hadn't edited for three years, and their only previous edits were to create an article about an anti-immigration organization. Clearly here to promote a POV. You've started a discussion on the talk page, hopefully they will go there to discuss. --MelanieN (talk) 14:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, MelanieN. Before your message, above, a question was sent to Neutrality on whether the objection was based on the lack of relevance for the NAS study in 2016. The research would appear to be directly relevant to the RAISE Act as it diminishes the labor impact inflicted on the underprivileged American worker. If the objection is based on the form of including the NAS research in this Wikipedia site, then perhaps we should work on developing the proper language. Thank you. Ecopedia (talk) 14:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note, Ecopedia. "Developing the proper language" is exactly what the article's talk page is for, and I hope you will engage there with the other editors and maybe come up with a mutually agreeable way to edit the article. Note that such discussion should be carried out at the article's talk page, rather than the talk page of one other editor. By using the article talk page, all of the involved editors (I believe there are now four - yourself and three others) can take part, and the discussion becomes part of the permanent history of the article. In the meantime, do be aware of the WP:3RR rule and don't reinsert your version into the article. As I warned you, that could lead to a temporary block of your ability to edit the encyclopedia. --MelanieN (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you, again, MelanieN. The Talk icon at the top of the RAISE Act page does not seem to access the "article talk page." How is that area accessed?
 * Ecopedia, it works for me. It might have been some kind of temporary glitch. I'm glad to see you have taken your points to the talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments, MelanieN. Clicking on the Talk option at the top of the RAISE Act page has consistently opened this page: "User talk:Ecopedia." This seems to be Ecopedia's page, not the "article talk page." Your suggestion in how to access the "article talk page" is valued. I am pleased to wordsmith this with other interested parties. Simply, Wikipedia's RAISE Act page misses the statute's point scoring system. This innovation of the proposed legislation has a long history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecopedia (talk • contribs) 15:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ecopedia, all those links at the very top of the page are for your own use and refer to your own areas. The links at the very top of the page include your own user page, your own talk page, your sandbox, your preferences, etc. (BTW User talk:Ecopedia is not a talk page for something called Ecopedia; it is the talk page for YOU, where people can give you messages and you can reply. You are Ecopedia.) Links relating to the article are on a different line, right above the article's title. On the left, right next to the "article" link, is the "talk" link which is the article's talk page. You can see other links on that line, on the right, to edit the article, see its history, put it on your watchlist, etc. --MelanieN (talk) 18:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Self- closing html tags
Just a friendly reminder: When you use a named ref, you gotta be sure to close the tag(like so: tag gets taken to be part of the ref. Or you can surround the tag in   tags.  ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  22:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know. I didn't actually mean for those to be references, just placeholders. I guess that was not a clear way to put it; I'll revise it. --MelanieN (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And in return I have a suggestion for you, MPants: When you insert references on a talk page, please put some kind of template (such as ) at the bottom of your edit to collect and display the references. Otherwise they go down to the bottom of the page where they get in the way and don't relate to the place where they were cited. My favorite template for listing them is , which not only collects them at that location but also hides them in a "Sources" section so they are out of the way. You may note that I added that under your proposal. We are very busy cleaning up after each other here! 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 22:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I had every intention of doing exactly that, but I got caught up in my self righteous condemnation of your missing backslashes. ;) Thank you for adding it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  23:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * LOL, I love your attitude! We all have each other's backs here. --MelanieN (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

What's got into you M?
"...and SPECIFICO immediately started arguing with it..." at

That's just not the sequence of events. It's fine that you've lost track of my proposal and then lost track of the sequence of events or anything else. No problem, but what's with the personal disparagement? Not cool. I edited that bit because new reporting emerged. My edit was in the link I gave you. Then an edit-war ensued following which I, seeing the reverts, stated the issue on talk. I'm baffled as to what's got you so upset with me that it leaks through your otherwise sturdy contributions on that page. No need to reply. Just consider if you wish. Ciao. SPECIFICO talk  22:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm just having trouble figuring out what you are actually proposing. That IS the sequence of events in that thread. Anyhow, Anything started the thread by posting a version which (I think) is the version you are now proposing. Do I have that right? --MelanieN (talk) 22:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Anything was the one who reverted. Then somebody reinstated mine, then another passer-by reverted. Then the talk.
 * Anyway, my ongoing concern for all these articles is that we're too darn accomodating. We are splitting the baby and treating the highly motivated fringe WP editors as if their proportion on Wikipedia were somehow a proxy for the incidence of their views in public media and analysis.  But in fact, WP has an undue concentration of ideologues and when a matter is split 50-50 on the talk page, that opinion is still 5-95 in RS accounts.  It's just that we have highly motivated editors who like to share their views with us at the talk page.   SPECIFICO  talk  00:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

AGF Much?
Melanie, I have a problem with the way you've characterized the frank and honest discussion regarding 's behavior at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style as "mean." That goes way beyond a lack of good faith on your part and frankly smacks of bad faith. I find it hard to characterize that discussion as mean. Yes, Adam has some pretty disruptive history. He needs to own it. Your attempt at sugar-coating reality for him and in the process smearing, me, , and  is not at all acceptable. Toddst1 (talk) 00:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no other way to describe it than "mean". You're right, I'm not assuming good faith, because that's not what I saw. It's true that Adam is a user who creates a lot of problems. I sometimes get frustrated with him too. But the language in that discussion went way beyond his editing problems, into personal attacks of a particularly nasty kind. Not by everyone, but by three or four people. An offline commenter referred to that thread as "bullying" and I agree. And yes, I know he has "retired" a dozen times before. Maybe he will eventually get over his hurt and come back. But anyone would have been hurt to come upon that discussion, and Adam has personal reasons for being more easily hurt than most. --MelanieN (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, again, you're accusing some of the best admins and editors of improper behavior without any backup.  What, specifically was a personal attack?  Please provide diffs and explain why you think they were personal attacks.   All I saw was a frank discussion of some well documented issues with a troubled editor and you making general disparaging remarks against the group in the discussion, which are personal attacks or at least aspersions, however vague.   Toddst1 (talk) 03:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Todd, I agree that the people I scolded are actually good people and good editors. The problem with what they did is, they talked about Adam as they would in a private conversation among themselves; they forgot that he was almost certainly going to see what they said. In a private conversation people free to say things like "one of the most arrogant and objectionable people I've ever encountered on Wikipedia" and "complete pain in the ass." I seriously doubt (I hope not) that any of you would say things like that to the person's face. But in effect, that's what you were doing. Yes, several of you also pointed out that he does good work and that NOTHERE doesn't apply. That doesn't make the nasty attacks hurt less. I see that you are not accepting my scolding; OK, you don't have to, and I don't have any particular right to issue it. I am just hoping to call people's attention to the fact that anything they say on Wikipedia is almost certain to be read by the person involved. And hoping that the next time you folks feel like bashing a third party, you will keep in mind that you are in effect saying it to their face. --MelanieN (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for anyone else, but I would certainly say "one of the most arrogant and objectionable people I've ever encountered on Wikipedia" to Adam's face—as far as I'm concerned it's a straightforward statement of fact, and I say that as a former arb and as one of the admins who originally dealt with Grawp. (You'll note, I trust, that in the thread that started this I correctly identified Adam as the cause of the disruption just from a description of the disruption, despite his not being named and the article in question not being linked, since there's nobody else on Wikipedia who shares his "MOS:COMMONALITY does not apply to me" beliefs; it's not as if he's the representative of a group of people with a valid minority viewpoint. His refusal to follow this particular guideline—one of the few parts of the MOS with which everyone does agree—is particularly ironic, given that most of the issues about him in the past have stemmed from his demands that policies and guidelines be followed to the letter regardless of common-sense exceptions.) From my admittedly limited observations, everyone who's dealt with Adam eventually reaches a point where the AGF runs out. In my case it just about survived A7 and tourist attractions (in which Boing summed my views up better than I could) and finally ran out when he "accidentally" put a white supremacist userbox on his userpage and when I challenged him complained to you that I had "dragged my political views into it and used them against me", but everyone has their own limit. If you sincerely believe that you can turn him around and that he's worth the effort of turning around (and you're not alone in that; I know Ritchie333 has in the past tried to nudge him towards ditching the disruption while keeping the constructive contributions) then I wish you luck and would love to see you succeed—Wikipedia could always use more editors, and I'm unaware of any issues he causes when he's not riding either the "it's not archaic it's traditional" or "keep, it exists" hobby-horses. That said, when he's wasting the time of substantial numbers of other people with whatever windmill he's tilting at at any given time the rest of Wikipedia isn't going to sit around indefinitely to watch; while I certainly won't be the one to file it I've warned him in the past that he's on a collision course with Arbcom, and eventually someone will lose patience with him. &#8209; Iridescent 17:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. You are certainly not alone in having lost patience with him, and yes, his eccentricities are easily identified as his. I would have hoped your exasperation could have been expressed a little less personally - knowing he would see it. Even annoying people are still people, with feelings. --MelanieN (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe WP:NOTTHERAPY applies. Nobody is here to hurt Adam's feelings, but he has to own the reactions when he repeatedly pisses dozens of people off.  If his feelings get hurt as a result of folks accurately describing his actions as being a "pain in the ass" or "BS" or  "passive-aggressive, childish "I'm gonna quit" nonsense", I don't see why that is a problem.   WP:CIR may apply as well.
 * My comment to him "Either quit, or change what you're doing here. And if you choose neither, ... many of us will seek long-overdue sanctions" in the diff above appears to be relevant once again.  Toddst1 (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sigh, there's a name I hoped I'd never encounter again (Adam9007, that is, not Iridescent!) That CSD:A7 thing was one of the most stubborn refusals to listen that I've ever encountered, and I can understand the expressions of frustration if that kind of approach is still being seen today. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't have much to say, but I feel like I should comment. If it would have been better etiquette to notify Adam immediately when I raised the initial question on the MOS talk I apologise, but it was really just policy query and I didn't think it was necessary. I had absolutely no background or prior interaction with Adam9007 before this. In the space of a few days I have already reached a point of being moderately frustrated at the behaviour so accurately characterised immediately above as "a stubborn refusal to listen" and having reviewed some of the threads linked above and elsewhere I can quite understand the general loss of patience. For what it's worth, I'd like to thank MelanieN for her concern over someone's wellbeing, but I think that what's been said so far on this topic has been just about within the realms of acceptable comment on someone's on-wiki behaviour, and however well-meaning you may or not be, if you consistently frustrate, upset, offend or simply waste other peoples time, the equally well or non well meaning people who are caught up in it will probably have an emotional reaction to it. Scribolt (talk) 06:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Closing as an involved editor
You closed this discussion while involved? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dismissal_of_James_Comey#Merging_Comey_memos I am curious about the rationale of closing it as someone involved. I am thinking of taking this to closure review.01:55, 7 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casprings (talk • contribs)
 * Feel free. I did say, 48 hours before I archived/closed it, that I intended to close it as merge, based on both the AfD result and the discussion at the talk page. And I did say, back when I was saying it should run for a week, that it didn't have to be closed by someone uninvolved as long as it wasn't JFG. But you are welcome to take it to AN or wherever else you feel is appropriate. See WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. --MelanieN (talk) 02:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Locking Mayoral Canidate out of online recognation
You locked the Atlanta Mayoral Candidates 2017 page for vandalism when the only vandalism taking place being the repeated scrubbing of my name [Alex Barrella] from the list. In essence what you've done is legitimize some vandalism not stop it. Alexbarrella (talk)
 * FYI, see Talk:Atlanta mayoral election, 2017, where I just found a source stating that Barrella failed to qualify. —C.Fred (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, Mr. Barrella. Other people at the article are saying that you are not actually a candidate. If you can provide evidence that you actually ARE a legitimate candidate, you should supply it at the article's talk page. I just did a brief search and found an item at the Journal-Consitution that lists nine candidates; you are not on the list. So the burden is on you to provide a reliable source showing that you actually are a candidate. (For example, something from the county registrar showing that you are on the ballot. It has to be a reliable source, not your own website or a facebook page or something like that.) The article's talk page is the place to do it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Comey survey
Hi. Thanks for trying to clarify that survey on the Comey Dismissal page, but I think the whole thing is a giant succotash at this point. Several related disjoint surveys, walls of text that editors may not recognize as related, changing issues and headers. Now we don't know which !votes understand this to be about your new header... What to do? Maybe we should start over. Unless somebody's looking for a dissertation topic, I don't see how we can get a closer to do the reading and research necessary to give us a solid close. SPECIFICO talk  18:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It started out as just "Survey." Then earlier today Anythingyouwant changed it to "Survey about calls for dismissal," which doesn't at all make it clear that it is about the earlier Democratic calls for dismissal. So I tried to clarify it. There have been no new !votes since Anything's change, and there have been none since mine, so I don't think anyone has been confused. All previous !votes seemed to understand what the issue under discussion was. IMO the real problem is the completely uninformative and POV title for that whole section: "Reinsertion of off-topic POV insinuation of cherrypicked Hillary bit". Nobody can get the slightest idea what the subject is from that title. Would you consider changing it to something like "Should we mention previous Democratic opposition to Comey"? Then people would know what we are talking about. And "Survey" alone would be clear enough without needing additional explanation. --MelanieN (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I just changed the section title. It really wasn't a very respectfully worded title. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  02:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I should have done that the first day. --MelanieN (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Better header, still an impossibly convoluted talk page overall. SPECIFICO  talk  02:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you hear that? That pervasive, overwhelming sound? That's the sound of nobody disagreeing with you. ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  03:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree! PackMecEng (talk) 03:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You do? So then, that would make you that mysterious figure who messes with Adam We. Well, stop it. I like Adam We. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  03:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I was thinking more along the lines of this, its true though. Nobody messes with Adam We! PackMecEng (talk) 03:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I changed the header from simply "Survey" because another header had that exact same title, which caused software problems.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, and thanks. We should probably always do that with surveys. --MelanieN (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Immunity Project
Hello friend. brought up this as an example on my talk page as a org that really shouldn't be on WP but is. I'm doing a general response there to the broader themes he brought up, but I was about to AfD this article, before I noticed that you had worked to save it a few years ago. I tend to agree that under current standards it likely wouldn't survive, but was curious on your thoughts on the article today. In my professional life I've had a fair amount of interactions with the HIV vaccine/cure sector and had never heard of them before, but what Tony has heard of isn't grounds for notability ;-). Anyway, hope all is well with you. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I see that I made a few improvements to the article, back in 2014, but my "keep" !vote at the AfD was mainly in response to the enormous improvements made by Cindamuse. Looking now at the article, and doing a Google search, I don't see sufficient coverage in Reliable Sources and I would agree with deletion. I wondered about a redirect but don't see a good target. Nuke it. --MelanieN (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

September 2017 San Diego Wikiphoto scavenger hunt
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Meetup/San Diego/September 2017 - 1. I know that it is unlikely for you to attend, but I am still leaving this message to keep you aware of the user groups activities in your area. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, RightCowLeftCoast - for the invitation and for the thoughtful personalized note. Good to know you are still active in the San Diego Wiki scene. --MelanieN (talk) 03:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Admin confidence survey
Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Legal challenges to DACA
Hey, just wanted to give you a friendly notice that DACA itself was indeed challenged in court. But those challenges didn't succeed. I added the info to the header covering that info. If you want to know more about the different challenges, you can check the footnotes of the Fifth District court ruling against the DACA expansions. They mention some of the cases there. HTH, &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 02:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Palmieri rev del
Would you consider rev deling these? given the claims about a BLPs biological sex and their gender identity, I think they probably qualify under WP:RD2. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks for the alert. I see the IP has been blocked but only for a short time, so keep an eye out for recurrences or a second IP. If this happens even once more, I (or any other admin within shouting distance) will protect the page. --MelanieN (talk) 23:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Vandalism/BLP vio here again: . blocked both IPs, but alerting you since you've been the admin most recently involved on this page. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * TonyBallioni : Revdel'ed, and protected the page; there are undoubtedly more IPs where those came from. Normally the frequency of vandalism on that page wouldn't be enough for me to impose semi-protection (maybe PC protection). But these are BLP violations and deserve a stronger response than normal vandalism. Thanks for alerting me. --MelanieN (talk) 03:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External Link at Russians
Melanie, you write there's no indication of who's behind it. But the backers are clearly detailed on the website. Clapper, Reiner, others either professionally involved or well-informed and third-party cited commentators. This is exactly the sort of thing that goes on external links, and the "not notable" reason has no basis either in Wikipedia policy or in fact, it's just a miscue by an ill-informed editor. Why edit war? The talk page is available if you feel there's a big problem with this. Thuc made a good-faith mistake, I fixed it. Seems OK. You reinstate the mistake and make a second mistake. Please consider putting it back. It's not article text or referencing, it's EL by notable commentators. SPECIFICO talk  22:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's discuss at the talk page, please. --MelanieN (talk) 22:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I came here as a courtesy to you because there is no point rebuking you on an article page. Please consider reinstating this. In fact if this group continues to receive as much RS coverage as has been seen since its launch, it would be NOTABLE and have its own article. As an external link, there's really no question. If I thought there were some issue on which you or others might have disagreed, I would have gone to talk but I thought it was an oversight so I erred on the side of what I thought was the courteous way to handle it. SPECIFICO  talk  23:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Whatever happened to "Content stuff goes on article talk pages"? -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thucydides411, I know that you and SPECIFICO don't get along. But I'd appreciate it if you would not follow them to my talk page to harrass them. --MelanieN (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * You guys are discussing article content here, and referenced it on the talk page. That strikes me as strange, given that SPECIFICO's multiple protests last time I discussed content with another user on their talk page. I'd appreciate it if, from time to time, you'd let SPECIFICO know that the erratic and frankly nonsensical remarks they leave around that page were inappropriate. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I asked you nicely once. I'd prefer not to have to ban you from my talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * As you wish. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hi Melanie, thank you for your comments at my RfA. I hope that I'll be able to answer your concerns with my actions rather than my words. Cheers, ansh 666 23:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Knockbridge GAA
I object to your deletion of this article. The Gaelic Athletic Association consists of many hundreds of small clubs such as this. There are articles about many of these in Wikipedia. This club has has some success in Louth hurling competitions and that alone makes it noteworthy. I ask that you re-consider your decision here. Pmunited (talk) 02:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC=
 * Hello, Pmunited, and thanks for your note! Yes, I deleted the article Knockbridge GAA back in April. I deleted it as "a club, society or group that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject." I could also have deleted it as "unambiguous advertising or promotion". It was full of promotional wording like "Best team in Ireland.Famous for all star hurler wallie who is slapping over points all day." You didn't write or work on that article, and I'm sure you wouldn't write anything like that. There is no way that kind of language can be included in a Wikipedia article. But above all, there were no references at all, so nothing was supported by evidence as we require. So it would not be possible for me to restore that article. However, I see that you have created a lot of GAA articles; you might want to see what you can do about creating, or recreating, an article on this subject. Just be sure that it has references to support the information. --MelanieN (talk) 03:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Forgot to ping you: User:Pmunited. --MelanieN (talk) 03:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand and agree. I will do some research and try to create a better article when I get an opportunity. Pmunited (talk) 22:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Gregory Nangle
Hello Melanie, can you page protect Gregory Nangle again? Thanks, Loopy30 (talk) 11:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, Loopy30. User:Malcolmxl5 took care of it. --MelanieN (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Calcutta Leather Complex
Hi ! I noticed that in this edit to Calcutta Leather Complex, you added a citation with a URL value of. This is a link to a file on your local machine, and thus not a valid URL. Can you provide an updated link? I'm struggling to find one... = paul2520 (talk) 19:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, paul2520, and thanks for your note. I can't imagine how that happened but I can't find a link now either. I hadn't thought about that article for years so thanks for cleaning it up. I have updated it a little. --MelanieN (talk) 20:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well the good news is, I found it! = paul2520 (talk) 22:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow, you get the sleuthing prize! All I could find was mirrors of the Wikipedia page. Good work. --MelanieN (talk) 00:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Golden showergate
It seems strange didn't get a notification. This person created most of those redirects and I just created one because it was another alternate spelling.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  18:57, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. The automated script I was using only notified the first one and not the "also nominated" ones. I'll notify them also. --MelanieN (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm just here for the eye-catching section title. It's very... Okay, wow, I just searched it and I honestly had no idea this was a real phrase. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  00:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * My page is very educational. See above. No extra charge for this kind of service. --MelanieN (talk) 14:28, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * These topics make me uneasy. I'm not going back to that RfD page. Yuk. I need a shower. SPECIFICO  talk  16:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * What kind of shower? 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Revdel?
Hi,

Do you think this should be revdeled? I've reported it to emergency. Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 22:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Done, although probably a hoax. We do have to alert on this stuff, no matter what we think, because we never know. Their userpage was more of the same and I've deleted it. (Do you want to sent a followup note to emergency, for them to evaluate the user page as well? I assume they have magic goggles and can see the page.) Thanks for the note. --MelanieN (talk) 23:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I sent the first diff of their userpage to emergency too. Do you reckon they should see the rest of it? Adam9007 (talk) 23:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I have revdel'ed two others of their diffs, as well as deleting their user page. Wouldn't hurt to send the whole package to emergency. --MelanieN (talk) 23:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't double-check it, but it's probably a joke as I'm pretty sure I've seen the name "John Cena" here (in vandalism edits) before. We're not qualified to make that determination though, so it probably won't hurt. Not sure if I should be the one to do it though... Adam9007 (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't make that determination. We just send in the links, without interpretation, and leave it up to WMF. I'm not aware of any problem with the name "John Cena". Most of the user page was obvious hoax/vandalism. --MelanieN (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. Apparently it's an internet meme used in trolling. See Unexpected John Cena. --MelanieN (talk) 23:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No idea what the 911 was about, Adam, but John Cena is a WWE (or whatever the current name is) star. I'd suspect he is still popular with high school boys in the States, which would explain why his name pops up. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You learn something new every day!  the 999 was about apparent (presumably joke) statements about wanting to die. Adam9007 (talk) 23:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)