User talk:MelanieN/Archive 41

Just so you will know...
I NEVER, EVER do ethnic humor. I am a victim of it. My humor was more about his doping the people (alotofus) by lying to the FBI. Atsme 📞📧 23:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear it. I guess it can be easy to do things that are MISTAKEN for ethnic humor, and we all accidentally do that sometimes. --MelanieN (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Regarding questions concerning review procedures
Hi, TonyBalloni suggested in this thread that I reach out to you regarding questions about review procedures before (as is usually true in my case) bumping into the furniture and knocking over the ornaments and generally doing it all wrong. So this is just a note by way of introduction and explanation that if you hear from me in future, it will probably be regarding the above. Many thanks! Edaham (talk) 04:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm starting an RfC for the first time. Did I make any mistakes here or could it have been done better? Also is there a way of checking who the RfC has been sent out to by legobot/watchers etc. Edaham (talk) 05:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, Edaham, welcome! I will be glad to help you whenever I can, although I think Tony has grossly exaggerated my (ahem) expertise in such matters. About the RfC: It is opened correctly, but I think it would have been better to wait until the previous RfC you started is closed, or possibly to add it as a sub-thread to your original RfC. As Tony said with regard to the proposed move: we usually try to avoid having multiple discussions at the same time on a given subject.
 * As for "who it has been sent out to," there are no automatic notices sent to individuals regarding an RfC. Interested people may be watching for RfCs in that category. Also, if there have been previous discussions on the same subject, it is OK for you to ping the previous discussants, or to put "you may be interested in" notices on their talk pages. If you do that, be sure to include ALL previous discussants, not just those who felt one way or another, to avoid bias. --MelanieN (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * shall I close the original thread where I made the proposal with a notice to see the RfC below, in that case? Edaham (talk) 01:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, how would you close the original thread? The secondary thread depends on it. If it is "no consensus" to change it as you suggested, that kind of kills the premise of the secondary thread, doesn't it? That's why I moved my comment to the original thread - it's all part of the same thing. But, yes, you could close the first one - after all it has been almost a month, with little participation. That may suggest you are not going to get much interest in the second one either. But you could, if you want, close the first, as "no consensus", and then see what happens with the second, more specific one; that's up to you. And if nobody goes for it, don't feel bad. That happens to a lot of us when we think we have a great idea and it just doesn't seem to grab anyone else. --MelanieN (talk) 01:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok. I don't really have the feeling of having had a great idea, so much as having felt uncomfortable after reading one or two BLP related articles which seemed unwarrantedly accusatory. It could well be that I'm over sensitive and my sensibilities are not serving me well in assessing the suitability of the language used. I actually joined and made an account because I was cringing every time I saw bands named after scientific phenomena sticking their names on hat notes of said articles in a way I thought was overly promotional. It turned out nobody cared too much and gently told me to sit down and go back to doing something else. Such could be the case here also - after all, it's not a huge difference is it? Edaham (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)″
 * Maybe try a simpler approach, rather than trying to get a change in guidelines: if something bothers you at a given article, just fix it. Insert the word "convicted" before "criminal" and see if it sticks. After all, you are a Wikipedia editor now; you don't need permission to make an edit; you can boldly make it, per WP:BRD. If your edit stays, then that one article is improved the way you want it. If someone removes it, discuss at the talk page. If it gets consistently removed, you can take that for consensus that it shouldn't be there. And if a BLP article seems too accusatory in other ways, just fix it. --MelanieN (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. And in the meantime, just leave your request at WT:BLP alone, watch it, and see what happens. --MelanieN (talk) 14:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright! Sounds like a good plan

Organizing off wiki workshops related to wiki-project feminism.
Regarding this: Consensus And any other related policies, Can you see any problems or pitfalls with my plan listed here and at meta-wiki (gender gap) (in progress), to introduce and coach new users at Wikipedia-themed workshops aimed at bringing new Chinese users to the English and Chinese projects via locally-based feminist discussion forums and symposiums? Edaham (talk) 04:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow! That is ambitious and you will need a lot of help and advice. I am not the person who can give it to you. You will need to talk to people who have organized such events (there is probably a Wikiproject that coordinates them but I don't know what it is). You will need to recruit some local partners, and possibly coordinate with the Wikimedia Foundation. About local collaborators, I had a look at Category:Wikipedians in Shanghai, and nobody grabbed me as the kind of high-powered help you will need. But there might be others who have simply not put that tag on their userpage. I suggest you ask User:Rosiestep for advice. She is very well connected and experienced in this kind of thing, and she can tell you if this is a reasonable proposal, who would need to help you with it, and what is needed to make it happen. --MelanieN (talk) 15:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. Any stalkers care to chime in or advise here? --MelanieN (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * reply to you and/or stalkers : At the moment the only local partners I have are not regular editors, but people who organize feminism related events and forums as well as theater and exhibitions etc. Those events are preexisting and I don't need to arrange spaces and so on or handle tickets or set up. I simply pitched the idea to these contacts and found that they would be willing to allocate time to the workshop. At present I just have to work out content and make sure insofar as possible that myself and attendees do not infringe policy in some fashion.
 * I'm addressing this by limiting the explanatory talk to:
 * A brief summary of the gender gap page followed by a short discussion including:
 * A quick explanation of the source and visual editors
 * 5p
 * Account creation
 * Chinese Wikipedia
 * keeping things technical/instructional and not intentionally pointing people to contentious or controversial stuff
 * providing some source material on (non-politicized/uncontraversial) Chinese culture or person, requiring an article
 * writing up the article in a sandbox as a draft
 * moving it to the mainspace.
 * I'll run through this process, get some screen shots ready etc. If anything like that's been made before, that would be awesome. Would plan to create something a bit like the Wikipedia adventure, but add points concerning both gender gap and local Chinese site use issues.
 * Edaham (talk) 16:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * also might have thoughts on this. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * my sister lives in Beijing. I can see if she has any suggestions. Thanks for pinging me in, . :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input, Tony and Megalibrarygirl. Edaham, I suspect there is already a lot of material available on this kind of project. We just have to find it so you don't have to re-invent the wheel. I'll snoop around and see what I can find about similar projects. --MelanieN (talk) 17:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, here's a site that could be very useful: How to run an edit-a-thon. The talk page of that article could also be a resource for you to find people. Here's something I found on that talk page: Wikipedia talk:How to run an edit-a-thon. That is from a WikiMedia Foundation person, User:Astinson (WMF), who has created training material and could be very helpful to you in other ways. --MelanieN (talk) 18:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi . In addition to the helpful links which pointed you, too, you might be interested in Primer for creating women’s biographies and Writing about women. I know some Chinese Wikipedians but not in Shanghai so I'm going to ask on our social media pages and get back to you on that. When are you thinking of facilitating your workshops? --Rosiestep (talk) 19:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * not for at least a month as some of the organizers are either traveling or have other commitments. I have a favor to ask, during these planning stages, it would be great to demonstrate that this idea has gained some traction within Wikipedia, and this thread seems to have done just that. If I direct my friends to view the info here however they may turn up with questions, I'm a bit concerned about the number of alerts the long-suffering MelanieN is going to receive from new users. If she doesn't mind, then that's great. If it would be more appropriate however, could we move/copy this thread to an appropriate project talk page and continue the discussion there? Edaham (talk) 23:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks all for the contacts and info provided above. A list of info I've been given has been placed on my user page I'm going to contact those people and notice boards and go over the info today! Looks great and very informative. Edaham (talk) 23:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict, that's more or less what I was going to suggest!) I have no problem with people using my talk page for this. But it's not a logical place for it, and it's likely to get lost amid the clutter and be unfindable in the future. It might be better for the historical record, and for continuity, if you moved discussion to your own talk page, and let future planning go on there. That would give your project a central location and would keep all the information in your own records where you and others can easily access it. (Of course, the beauty of using my page is that like most admins I have knowledgeable, helpful stalkers. They are welcome to chime in either here or elsewhere.) How about this: why don't you COPY this whole discussion to your talk page, while leaving it here as well - and we can refer future commenters to your place. ("Your place or mine" - did I just say that?) --MelanieN (talk) 23:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Please continue further discussion here for convenience. Thanks for getting things started! Edaham (talk) 00:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi
I would like for you to at least consider protecting the Talk:June 2017 Brussels attack talk page. The two editors are just going at it, but especially TheGracefulSlick shows no interest in having any kind of fruitful discussion, but seems very eager to continue the dispute and disruption.,,. While E.M Gregory actually tries to come to some kind of agreement over what should be done and not. I just think that the protection of the article will end tomorrow and the two are nowhere closer to an agreement than when the protection tag was added. I leave it up to them or you to make some action. BabbaQ (talk) 23:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * BabbaQ: Thanks for your note. Talk pages are rarely protected, and this one is in no such dire need. However, I noticed that an AfD discussion had been was closed improperly and I reopened it. If edit warring resumes when the protection expires, it may be time for some EW warnings. --MelanieN (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * TheGracefulSlick is sadly starting to show signs of Wikistalking as an reaction of recent events, using baiting techniques. This is not my first rodeo so I will not react but I just though I let you know. ,.BabbaQ (talk) 06:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Paul Deb
Hi,

Do you reckon this COI situation is worth keeping an eye on? I think there's a chance he might try again. I've left him a COI note, but I'm not sure I handled it too well. Cheers. Adam9007 (talk) 03:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I'm not really concerned about a COI, because I concur with PROD, and I think all that stuff about long-ago local issues is UNDUE. I have deleted that whole section, pending a decision on the PROD. --MelanieN (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Roy Moore
FYI, there's still a paragraph in the lede on the accusations. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 22:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I missed that. --MelanieN (talk) 22:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

MelanieN, would you please reduce the protection on Roy Moore and restore this edit? There is very clear consensus to keep this material in the article. Thank you.- MrX 23:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Already done. The only issue still under discussion is whether to put it in the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 23:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but the article is still locked with a gleaming gold padlock.- MrX 23:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, for another hour or two, while we decide on the talk page whether to put it in the lede or not. I want to get that settled before opening it back up to a possible resumption of edit warring. --MelanieN (talk) 23:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

<-- Use it or lose it to the template police. Atsme 📞📧 22:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations
I think the AFD is clearly going to be a keep. Would you think of withdrawing your nom so it can go ahead and close?Casprings (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't do any good. Withdrawal by the nominator only resuls in a speedy "keep" close when there are no "delete" !votes. In this case there have been multiple delete !votes. So it will have to wait to be closed in the usual way. MelanieN alt (talk) 04:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Notifications...
has anyone alerted women-related projects about this? From what I can tell, the bulk of the notifications are going to projects relating to politics, politicians, the state and law. Atsme 📞📧 21:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

 * Haha, not sure why you're giving the standard template to an admin.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Wasn't aware... She doesn't subscribe to the admin newsletter I guess. Could use the help all the same though ;) —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  09:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thanks for trying to recruit new reviewers. We certainly do need more. (But I do subscribe to the admin newsletter so apparently that's not a valid screening tool. ) MelanieN alt (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Forgot to ping MelanieN alt (talk) 16:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

BLP
This edit of yours is deeply problematic. If you really believe that the BLP subject did not partly deny approaching or dating teenagers, then that edit of yours is fine. But otherwise it runs afoul of WP:BLP. I specifically said in my edit summary that it was a blatant BLP violation. You could have temporarily revised my edit in various ways if there was something substantive about it that you disliked, but instead you reverted to a dishonest or at least very misleading lead, and that problem should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, which is what I did.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, Anything, I've been expecting you. The existing language was not a BLP, much less a blatant one, and you do your own credibility no favors by claiming that it was. I reverted it because you were wrong to unilaterally insert your own, brand new, undiscussed language into a section that is under discussion, with heavy participation, at the talk page. Look, there are things in the lede that I don't like, but I have put them up for discussion at the talk page, hoping to achieve a consensus wording, as we are supposed to do. As for acceptable language, I have proposed a new wording at the talk page. See you there. --MelanieN (talk) 04:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think you really believe that the BLP subject did not partly deny approaching or dating teenagers.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * there's a difference between dating 14-year-olds and dating 19-year-olds that the word "teenager" obscures. Constructive suggstions to avoid that ambiguity are appreciated. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 04:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't include unsupported allegations in the lede of a BLP, and we certainly don't include them in the body without in-text attribution. Doing so is a violation of BLP and NPOV. There is no smoking gun - it's he said - she said - and if my memory serves, the guy has filed litigation against his accuser. Atsme 📞📧 04:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually he has not filed litigation; he has only claimed he is going to, as people in his position commonly do. (See also Trump "I am going to sue every one of these women.") We do include Moore's denials in the lede as well as the article. The argument is exactly how to word his denials most accurately. --MelanieN (talk) 04:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Regardless, it's an allegation and may even be considered a crime if minors were involved and it can be proven. As it stands now, there is no smoking gun, no supporting evidence, nothing but he said, she said in the news. You might want to drop in and see how the NOTNEWS survey is progressing: Village_pump_(policy)#Option 2: WP:NOT#NEWS should be more strongly enforced. The community is supporting stricter enforcement. I've also had in-depth discussions regarding how we handle contentious labels and allegations. Visit my sandbox when you get a chance - I'm in the process of creating an essay that explains why in-text attribution is required in such cases. It will be a travesty if anything happens to Anything over that edit. The material that was included in that BLP is noncompliant and comprises cherrypicked statements that created a BLP coatrack. SYNTH was also used, cherrypicked from 3 different sources in order to create the worst-case scenario in that BLP. Atsme 📞📧 06:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Discoveries and Innovation Section on Stanford
In your summary for the RV of Discoveries and Innovation section you don't address any of the issues I presented. Universities don't found companies, people and alumni do. To credit a university with founding a corporation is absolutely ludicrous - Google was founded by an MSU alum (Larry Page) - Shall we put Google under the MSU Discovery and Innovation section? You are going to start a dangerous precedent with editors and IPs from certain universities wanting to credit their university with founding Facebook, Microsoft, etc. when often corporations are founded by people from a variety of institutions. More importantly, I repeat, universities don't found private companies. Academia, in principle, kind of totally goes against that. As for academic discoveries, these belong in the research section found on most university pages. I can't see how your revert edit (given your entirely vague summary) is anything but an indulgence of your institutional pride. Pdyusmep (talk) 16:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As I noted in my summary - I am more than willing to have a list of Stanford alumni and their respective start-ups/achievements, but it's frankly gauche to frame it in context of a university. Pdyusmep (talk) 16:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, User:Pdyusmep, and thanks for your note - although we really should discuss this at the Stanford talk page rather than my user talk page. Maybe we should copy this discussion there, but I'll answer you here for now.

The Stanford article's "Discoveries and innovation" section has a "see also" note whose purpose is to show that many other university articles have the same kind of section - suggesting that there is Wikipedia consensus to include such sections. Most of the discoveries and innovations listed in that section are not just things discovered somewhere sometime by alumni; they were actually done at Stanford or begun as Stanford projects. For example, you mentioned Google: good example. Actually Google got its start as a research project by two Stanford grad students while they were working on a Stanford project, and Google's search engine originally ran on Stanford servers.

The Stanford article's section also includes a "Businesses and entrepreneurship" section listing companies founded by students, professors, or alums. You said "More importantly, I repeat, universities don't found private companies. Academia, in principle, kind of totally goes against that. " Actually, that is a total misconception on your part. If you read the intro to that section it makes clear that Stanford University itself has a strong bent toward encouraging its students and faculty to start private companies - a tradition going back to Hewlett-Packard, whose founding was strongly assisted and mentored by engineering professor Frederick Terman, later the university's provost, to the point of initially giving them free office space on University land. Varian Associates was another early Stanford-spawned tech company. Such entrepreneurial encouragement on the part of the University led directly to the creation of Silicon Valley. The university continues to encourage its students - undergrads as well as grad students - to start companies. These are important and well-sourced facts about the University, part of its identity, and worthy of inclusion in its article.

I hope this demonstrates that there is a strong rationale for this section at the Stanford article, as well as consensus to include such a section at major research university articles generally. If you still think it should be removed, please start a discussion at the talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think any of the examples provided demonstrate a rationale for connecting an academic institution to a private company. Firstly, Academia in principle does not mix with the private sector. This line is blurred in practice, but regardless a separation is still maintained between the academic institution and the private company with the alumnus or affiliate as the intermediary (note the alumnus ≠ the institution). "Actually Google got its start as a research project by two Stanford grad students...". Facebook was started in a Harvard dorm room by Harvard students on a Harvard server; shall we credit Harvard with starting Facebook? Same goes for Microsoft. Jeff Bezos' interest in Space Exploration began while he was a member/president of the Space Exploration Club at Princeton; shall we credit Princeton for BlueOrigin? Warren Buffet states he follows a single investing philosophy he extracted from Columbia Business School; shall we credit CBS for his billions and the success of Berkshire Hathaway? You've merely demonstrated that Stanford alumni and others with some affiliation to the university have founded these companies in their spare time. All major universities encourage their students to be entrepreneurial. I apologize for any offense, but your rationale amounts to the type of discourse which follows: "I go to Harvard and we have John F. Kennedy", "I go to Penn and we have Elon Musk". As if achievements and identity of the individual are one with the alma mater. This is reductionist and simply stupid thinking. As for Wikipedia consensus - all of these sections have been created by a single user - Minimumbias. Pdyusmep (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been copied to Talk:Stanford University so I will continue discussion there. --MelanieN (talk) 03:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)--MelanieN (talk) 03:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Friendly Reminder: Regarding User Account "Pdyusmep" above
Hi MelanieN. I'd like to point out why account User:Pdyusmep gets so deeply involved with Stanford's page, and please be cautious of this account. And sorry for the trouble.

1) First of all, some brief history. Based on my preliminary review, account User:Pdyusmep is highly likely the resurgence of the blocked account User:RabidMelon, which was affiliated with Columbia University and controlled over 10 socket puppets. Account User:RabidMelon had been blocked indefinitely earlier this year (2017) by administrator "Bbb23", and what's more it was first blocked in 2010 (but was somehow unblocked in 2011). However, few months ago several New-York-based IP addresses such as 74.108.156.96 User_talk:74.108.156.96 appeared in Wikipedia, displaying almost identical editing behavior and language as that of User:RabidMelon. But the IP was again blocked for disruptive editing by administrator "Drmies". Now it comes this account User:Pdyusmep.

All these accounts and IP addresses are contributing/protecting the page of Columbia University, even though account User:Pdyusmep now pretends to be a Harvard graduate student (the User Page is just set up today). These accounts show protectionism of Columbia University Wiki-page and uses double standards while viewing other universities. Their standard tricks include Sock puppetry, threatening, bluffing, disrupting, and consistent reverting of other editors' revisions. They appear offensive/aggressive, using insulting words sometimes, when talking to other editors whom he/she does not agree, for recent instances: User talk:Pdyusmep (see section "Your COIN comments"), User_talk:Ber31 (see section "Regarding IP '74.108.156.96'"), and on your own Talk page.

2) Secondly, one of the socket puppets of User:RabidMelon was User:PrincetonNeuroscientist, who was protecting fiercely Columbia's Nobel laureate count when I first started to restructure the page List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_university_affiliation. Several unqualified affiliates were excluded from Columbia's count. From then on, User:RabidMelon together with its socket puppet accounts, including today's User:Pdyusmep, had been following my editing, making unreasonable reverting and reporting me from time to time Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard - of course, nobody really supports him/her, but he/she would continue to argue with other editors.

Now, since I have edited Stanford's page, establishing categories for "Discoveries and Innovation" and adding in information for companies (I've done it for other schools including Carnegie Mellon University, MIT, UC Berkeley and UIUC), account User:Pdyusmep simply follows me and begins to revert my edits. He/she could use whatever argument he/she thinks of to argue with you. Sorry for the trouble. Minimumbias (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, in case this is useful for the investigation, account "Pdyusmep" and the highly likely socket puppet IP 74.108.156.14 has engaged in editing war with several editors in Columbia's page . In addition, he/she has removed everything from his/her User Page and Talk Page. Minimumbias (talk) 09:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)




 * Thanks, I added it. But WP:SPI is badly backed up. --MelanieN (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, Minimumbias, you called it exactly right and he is blocked. I'm glad you mentioned PrincetonNeuroscientist, I could never have pieced together the evidence without that. --MelanieN (talk) 02:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * BTW it's sockpuppet, not socket puppet. The image is: you put a sock on your hand, use it as a puppet, and pretend it is you talking. Kinda like this. --MelanieN (talk) 02:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Haha, my bad, it's indeed sockpuppet. Thank your very much for your help. Minimumbias (talk) 02:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "Haha" also goes to the picture of sockpuppet you set to the right - that's very funny lol. Minimumbias (talk) 03:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

FYI
I reopened your nom at AfD. Atsme 📞📧 03:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Refname in Roy Moore
What did you do to fix that? When I looked at it, it was displaying an error. That's why I changed it to the actual link. Txantimedia (talk) 20:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I restored the original refname because it was cited under that name later in the article. When you removed the refname, those later citations were orphaned and showed as errors. I don't know what error you saw, but sometimes those error messages can take three or four tries to fix. (Let me try this; page preview; no, that didn't do it, how about this; page preview; etc. Thank goodness for page preview!) --MelanieN (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Question

 * Question - knowing a blocked, possibly site banned sock made the following edits, why were only 2 of his edits reverted? You can simply review the edit history for the diffs.


 * (cur | prev) 17:24, November 27, 2017‎ MelanieN (talk | contribs)‎ . . (49,373 bytes) (-71)‎ . . (→‎See also: remove: BLP violations) (thank)
 * (cur | prev) 17:22, November 27, 2017‎ 2600:1017:b415:1e0c:21c7:c02b:3c0a:767f (talk)‎ . . (49,444 bytes) (+23)‎ . . (→‎See also)
 * (cur | prev) 17:21, November 27, 2017‎ 2600:1017:b415:1e0c:21c7:c02b:3c0a:767f (talk)‎ . . (49,421 bytes) (+48)‎ . . (Add see also)
 * (cur | prev) 17:19, November 27, 2017‎ 2600:1017:b415:1e0c:21c7:c02b:3c0a:767f (talk)‎ . . (49,373 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Sp) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 17:19, November 27, 2017‎ 2600:1017:b415:1e0c:21c7:c02b:3c0a:767f (talk)‎ . . (49,373 bytes) (+176)‎ . . (C/e) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 17:15, November 27, 2017‎ 2600:1017:b415:1e0c:21c7:c02b:3c0a:767f (talk)‎ . . (49,197 bytes) (+1,347)‎ . . (Revert vandalism Undid revision 812444754 by Heat fan1 (talk)a) (undo)
 * This is the same vandal/sock that has been chiding me on my TP. Atsme 📞📧 23:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

If you are talking about 2600:1017:B415:1E0C:21C7:C02B:3C0A:767F, that address is not blocked, and I have no information about any other addresses they may have used. I reverted and revdeled two edits that were BLP violations, and warned them on their talk page. The rest of their edits at that article appeared to be more or less constructive. If some other admin is aware of this as a sock of a blocked user, they should take the appropriate actions. --MelanieN (talk) 00:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. Thanks. Atsme 📞📧 00:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Turns out to be an old friend. Disguised himself too well this time. And just for the record, he is not site banned. Just blocked, in all of his many incarnations. --MelanieN (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, MelanieN. Atsme 📞📧 03:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Need an unbiased opinion regarding Book of Abraham youtube video
Hi Melanie,

I am involved in a discussion over the content of a youtube video in that above article at Talk:Book_of_Abraham regarding the inclusion of an excellent video which details and describes the background of the book of abraham and the Joseph Smith Papyrus. Another editor who identifies as LDS has made some statements that certain "anti-mormon websites" are not considered WP:RS and are not allowed in the article. Unfortunately, that type of censorship seems to fly in the face of Wikipedia's rules. I think it would be good for an independent impartial party to review the content and let me know if the other editors views are in fact accurate as far as WP policies about inclusion of youtube content. Thanks in advance for any assistance you can provide. I have not posted a straw poll for inclusion of the video since I may not be correct in a my assumptions. Thanks in advance. Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, October, thanks for the note. I will caution that I really haven't done any work on religion-based articles, so I looked at this purely from an editorial point of view. I did not listen to the whole video, just the beginning, but from that and reading the discussion between you and the other person I think the answer is pretty clear based on Wikipedia principles. I'll post at the article's talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

List of Largest Stars
Hey, thanks for protecting the page first of all. I'm wondering if we are going to need a range block on that IP, should the disruption continue after the protection is lifted. Also, I love the fact that the blocked account said they were 14, yet this is their niece? Me thinks we are getting trolled. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Certainly smells like a troll. I would suggest that someone knowledgeable go through the edits of the second one. Many of those edits have not been reverted, and I don't know enough about the subject to know if they should be. As for a range block, if they resume you should ask someone who does range blocks (I don't). IMO it hasn't gotten to that point yet. Anyhow, look at it this way: this person can be blocked on sight because of their admission that it's a shared account ("Joey" and his "niece"). 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Much obliged Melanie! RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And with a recent edit to my talk page, I'm thinking it might be needed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds like it's needed. Lucky you. See item #1 on my list of Things I've learned at Wikipedia. I find NinjaRobotPirate very helpful with rangeblocks. Or see Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to make range blocks. --MelanieN (talk) 18:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I already reached out to a CU to make sure there isn't a ton of collateral damage first. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Good thinking. Is there a known master, so we could establish an SPI archive? Or just always IPv6s? --MelanieN (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * User:JoeyPknowsalotaboutthat is the master and the IPv6 range has been blocked for a month FYI. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well done! --MelanieN (talk) 16:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Rollback
Hi. I saw this:, and I hate it too, because it's so easy to click by accident. I put undefined in my user css years ago to hide the links, and I've never regretted it. Twinkle offers a much better option, with friendly edit summaries. I guess the only time it might be an issue is if you want to use one of the "nuke" or "mass rollback" scripts, which rely on those links being present, but it's easy enough to temporarily remove from user css in that case. Apologies if you already knew all this. -- Begoon 10:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info, Begoon. I had it removed years ago. But when I became an admin it got restored, as part of the admin toolkit. I don't know if that can be removed, or if I just need to be more careful. In this case I have a new mouse and it doesn't always do what I want so that is how this happened. With any other button you can always cancel the accidental click; what I hate about Rollback is that there is no chance to undo it. I'll probably just live with it. This was the first time in more than a year that I rolled back someone and had to apologize. --MelanieN (talk) 15:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Balance & consistency - missing in WP?
Inappropriate and challenged. We've touched on this topic in the past but it appears partisanship raised its ugly head when that POV paragraph was added to the lede. Yet, similar information added to Rachel Maddow, a primetime competitor of Hannity's, is quickly reverted. There are plenty of RS that have written rather extensively about Maddow's conspiracy theories,, , not unlike what's being alleged about Hannity in these media wars to win the lion's share of their bait & click propaganda, so maybe you can explain why what's good for the goose is not good for the gander? The partisanship is just plain wrong. Atsme 📞📧 20:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * How is this not canvassing? You've linked to the thread on Jimbo's talk page and now... this? 207.222.59.50 (talk) 21:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And I'm probably going to initiate a CU investigation if MelanieN doesn't do it first based on your patterns and comments. Atsme 📞📧 22:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)