User talk:MelanieN/Archive 45

Regarding Hope Hicks lede
MelanieN, I suck, unfortunately, at using technology. I'm sure I'm writing this in the wrong place, but I don't know how else to reach you.

I twice put into the Hope Hicks lede that CNN claims she left partially as a result of Trump chewing her out for the "white lies" comment, but Maggie Haberman of the NYT, quoting "multiple sources", tweeted that the decision to leave had been made prior to those recent events.

I have tried and tried, but for the life of me I can't figure out how to k Vcuttolo (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Whoops. Told you I sucked at this.

I have tried to figure out how to link sources on Wikipedia, and I can't figure it out. But it should be really, really east to find the CNN report, and even easier to find the Maggie Haberman tweet. BTW, it was Haberman who broke the story of Hicks announcing her departure.

As to the question of placement: The lede clearly gives the impression that Hicks left as a result of the fallout from the "white lies" comment, and I believe that needs to be balanced out.

Thank you. Vinny C. Vcuttolo (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, Vinny, and thanks for your note. Don't apologize, we were all new once. I have moved your note here to the bottom of this talk page so we can find it and discuss it.


 * As you know, I removed your information from the lede while I looked for sources. It seemed to me that was too much detail for the lede, and I planned to move it to the body of the article with sourcing. I searched, but I could not find any CNN or other source saying that Trump had chewed her out for that comment. So when I added it to the "Career" section, I just included the Haberman comment that Hicks had been planning her departure for some time and that it was unrelated to her testimony. If you can find the CNN article(s) you saw, just copy the url or title, and paste it here in a note to me so I can check it out. (We can talk about how to cite references later, if you would like a lesson.)


 * We would normally discuss this at the article's talk page, but this works too; wherever you are comfortable is fine. --MelanieN (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, I now find the New York Post quoting CNN that he yelled at her about it. But we don't consider the New York Post to be a Reliable Source. The Post provided a link to a CNN live feed "Today in politics", and digging through it I eventually found a brief three-paragraph item saying he had "berated" her, and another White House source denying it. Apparently none of those brief "live feed" items made it into an actual article. I don't think this is solid enough to put in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 21:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

A Fantástica Fábrica de Cadáver
Hi, you salted A Fantástica Fábrica de Cadáver a couple years ago but it has been recreated at A Fantástica Fábrica de Cadáver (album by Eduardo). Can you check that it doesn't qualify for G4 recreation and, if shouldn't be speedily deleted, move to the original title? Thanks. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 19:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, User:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. I am torn on this one. It actually does qualify for G4 speedy deletion, since the new article is much less developed than the original salted one. On the other hand, the AfD, deletions, and salting were three years ago, and one of the main reasons for deletion given at the AfD and the two previous speedy deletions was that the artist had no article of his own. Now he does, so maybe it deserves another chance. It would be possible to rename this new article to the original salted title and then redirect it to Eduardo rapper instead of outright deletion. What do you think? This album does appear to have gotten a little bit of recognition, per the references cited, but probably not enough to pass NMUSIC. --MelanieN (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * P.S. The new article has been expanded and IMO it no longer qualifies for G4 speedy deletion. --MelanieN (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Adding archive links to live links
Hello MelanieN! Let me first say I found you when doing a search on message boards regarding the issue of adding archive links to live links, although I didn't call it that until yesterday. I noticed on this talk page that you are also friends with Atsme. Anyway, I just looked at your Contribs and noticed in the Administrator board "Automated tool use" that you are still of the same opinion regarding this issue as you are in the messages I found in these boards: and. I first encountered this issue when having a good article review done to an article I wrote Charmayne James a few months ago. In fact, Atsme actually helped me prepare the article for review, my first one. The reviewer waited until they felt the article met the criteria, then ran the bot and then immediately put the GA on the article, without saying a word that they were going to do it, making it difficult to revert the change. A very stealthy move. I was eventually able to talk them out of it on the talk page, I listed reason after reason in defense why it wasn't a good idea. Eventually they reverted without really saying much in defense of their position. But the zealousness of wanting this edit on a page they would probably never edit again remained in my memory. Then, a day ago, this happened to me again with an article I wrote, which wasn't truly complete, in a DYK queue. I reverted, he reverted and twice again, he turned out to be the quality control person in DYK, who told me he used this feature on over 400-500 articles. I finally realized that he wasn't following the terms of service, being responsible for the bot's changes, not verifying the links, etc. I posted the message where cyberpower mentions the bot's terms of service. A great link. This editor appears to be on a crusade to run this feature on as many articles as he can. So far he has his way, but my mentor, montanabw, did try to help me. She is also a friend of Atsme but she knows The Rambling Man too. All of the talk regarding this took place on montanabw's talk page and the article talk page, J.W. Harris (bull rider). I admit I wasn't always as courteous as I should have been, I had already been through a long issue on that same article getting it edited and prepared for DYK. In fact, it's on the main page right now. But the heart of the matter is, through my experience in working at software companies for 20 years, I believe that if you use third party software, with a similar TOS, if you are not willing to be responsible for its use, then another editor, perhaps the creator or a steward, can reject its use on the article? I'd rather be proactive if it happens again, not reactive. But I'm a newbie only been editing 1 1/2 years here so what would you say the best course of action is? I'm also wondering if you can provide me any updates on the status of this feature? And I would be happy to assist in any way I can, also. Thanks for listening. dawnleelynn(talk) 00:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, User:dawnleelynn, nice to meet you. You've seen the discussion at AN, which like most such previous discussions seems to have wound down without a consensus or resolution. My advice: don't make a battle out of it, or edit-war. If I object to this on a particular article I ask the other user nicely to self-revert, with my reasons. Example: In response to this edit at Barack Obama, which increased the size of the article by 22.6% without finding a single dead link, I asked the other person to revert and they did. If they don’t respond to my request and I feel strongly about it, I may start a discussion at the talk page. That’s what happened at Talk:Donald Trump; after it was done twice, December 2017 and February 2018, and opposed by consensus both times, a note was added to the “Current Consensus” summary at the top of that talk page, where it is consensus #25, “Do not add web archives to cited sources which are not dead. (link 1, link 2)”. But, bottom line, I haven’t found any appetite for a Wikipedia-wide approach to this and I think it will have to be handled on a case-by-case basis. --MelanieN (talk) 22:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response MelanieN and nice to meet you too. I had also posted a note on Dennis Brown's user page after this, and he also says he is not finding wide consensus that objects to this issue (yet). What I did both times was to revert and in the edit summary politely declined and obviously that did not work. In fact, in the first case it took a long series of edits in the article talk page before the editor finally reverted with a sigh in the edit summary. And the other, just recently, well the links are still there. It's out of DYK now. So obviously, that is not working. These editors are very zealous about it. I have nothing to lose by trying it the way you suggest should it happen again. Seriously, I know I have been uncharacteristically argumentative and blunt, but the last few weeks, there has been an an unusual amount of issues. Thanks for the all the information and links before I forget. Also, Dennis Brown said we can't enforce the TOS of the IA Bot. But he thanked me for the information, said I did some groundwork for him....and whatever helps is great I said. Yeah, the Obama and Trump examples are really strong ones. There are other reasons too if we ever get to that point.
 * I just remembered. Did you know you can add to your source code to stop the bot from running on your article? Whenever anyone tries to run that feature we don't care for, they will get the same messages they get when the tag is not there. They will think the bot has failed when they go to check the article, but not know why. However, it also stops the bot from fixing dead links. Which you can do yourself by running this tool: . Just a thought. Maybe not for all your articles, just barack obama and trump... dawnleelynn(talk) 16:25, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I'll ask at the article talk pages if we want to do that. Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have tested it a few times. I hope it helps! dawnleelynn(talk) 16:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC) p.s. You could always take the tag out briefly to run the bot manually to fix dead links with the archive links to live links option unchecked. dawnleelynn(talk) 16:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, I just realized this but if you are using the IA Bot yourself, Checklinks or a combination of both to handle broken links on your article, you can truthfully say you do not need the archive links feature on your article. No one can really argue with that. I mean, I just realized that was one of the things I do on my articles but I didn't bring it up until now, it didn't occur to me. But it was one of the reasons I did not feel the need for the feature, rather I felt it would get in the way of my stewardship of the references. It is what I should have said at the time, rather than arguing. Sure, it's important to document the issues that come from the the use of the feature, which I did on Dennis Brown's talk page. He was thankful. He said "we can and should pass policy prohibiting "rescuing" links that don't need rescuing. The community hasn't seemed to want that at this time, based on previous RFCs. I will check more into this later, thanks for doing some footwork for me." From now on, I intend to ask nicely if they would revert the edit and tell them that I use the bot sometimes and the Checklink tool to handle my references. It is the truth. I am not sure if I come across another editor who is obviously trying to add this feature to as many articles as they can if I should make them aware of the TOS or not. Hopefully, there are not many. Hope this helps. dawnleelynn(talk) 20:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Andrew McCabe
I only pinged Diannaa because I knew she could give a better explanation than I. I knew the reason, I'm just not good with explaining things. You can remove me from that discussion. Thanks, Corky  06:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Akhlaq Choudhury redirect
Hi, I made a redirect request here which KGirlTrucker81 accepted. However, the redirect on Akhlaq Choudhury from the target title of Akhlaq Ur-Rahman Choudhury hasn't been done because it's salted. Can you please do this? Regards. Tanbircdq (talk) 13:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ --MelanieN (talk) 22:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

DS sanctions warning?
This editor has huge ownership issues, edit wars, and is totally resistant to collaboration:


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AReal_News_Update&type=revision&diff=828814604&oldid=828808166

The article talk page needs an American politics DS template. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It appears they have already received a template warning and also an edit warring warning. Now all that's needed is a block, and since they are NOTHERE, maybe something more.... -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Slow down, BR. I don't see anything blockable here. I am about to go to the talk page and try to talk some sense into everybody. Please join in that discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 00:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy question
Help me out here. You seem to be saying that any simple calculation equals non-allowable, "synthesis." For instance, hypothetically, if our source says "Individual A," did x on Monday, and did x again on Tuesday, we can't paraphrase and say "A did x twice in two days," because that would involve aggregating data? Activist (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Come on. You can paraphrase text, obviously. You can't take a table full of figures, single out a couple of the figures, do some math, and extract a conclusion that no source has pointed out. That's WP:Synthesis/WP:Original research. Anyhow, I can't even see how you got to your conclusion from the sources you provided. From the syracuse report, it looks like she is kind of in the middle of the NY delegation. From the other report she doesn't stand out, certainly not even close to the top of the list nationally. Basically, she appears to be a run-of-the-mill Republican candidate on this issue. --MelanieN (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Interpretation of Donald Trump's military uniform
Donald Trump was never drafted and did not serve in the United States Armed Forces. He went to a military high school. He did not go to a military college such as Army or Navy. The ONLY military uniform that he could have worn was his uniform at New York Military Academy. The inclusion of information about the uniform in the caption of the photograph is absolutely unnecessary. I don't know who arrived at the consensus, but I positively disagree with it. Anthony22 (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * All of that is true. But there were people who felt strongly that using that picture, without clarification, was an attempt to hint or suggest that he might have had some kind of military service after all. Also, it was pointed out that not all readers are American and they might not be familiar with the American institution of private "military" high schools. I found one discussion in the archive, it is here. I think there were others. If you want to start a new discussion at the talk page on the subject feel free, but it has been in the article in that wording for a long time, so it should be retained unless consensus is reached to remove it. --MelanieN (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I respectfully refer you to the article text that appears immediately to the left of the photograph. The text explains that Trump was never drafted into the military and did not serve in the Vietnam War. My older brother also went to a military high school, and his yearbook photo was very similar to Trump's photograph. Coincidentally, my brother also never served in the military and never wore a uniform again. I know that some people are not very well informed about history and current events, but it is not the job of Wikipedia to spoon-feed unnecessary and trivial information that shouldn't be in a photo caption. Anthony22 (talk) 23:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Then seek a consensus for a change. That's the right way to do this. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:30, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What BR said. The talk page is thataway. --MelanieN (talk) 00:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Your edit summary sounds very dismissive of Wikipedians
You just removed 4 pending changes with the remark "Reverted 4 pending edits to revision 830823231 by NorthBySouthBaranof: Revert all just to clear the decks"/

Just to clear the deck? That is not very nice. It is only 4 edits so please review each one and approve or deny them.

I am not very interested in McCabe but like technical subjects, like aircraft. Therefore, I added a technical point that is very non-partisan. It is about his pension. He is not losing all of it. He may not be able to take EARLY retirement so that he can not work but won't collect benefits until regular retirement age of 57-62.

Please kindly fix this. Vanguard10 (talk) 04:30, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't reviewed these edits at all, but this is pretty standard as pending changes is an absolute nightmare to implement technically when you have more than one pending edit, and often times the only way to get the software to actually work is by reverting everything or approving everything. I personally have to ask other admins for help with it sometimes, and oftentimes the solution simply is to clear the deck. Tbh, this is why semi-protection is often more useful. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)::I see you went back and did some sorting out. Thank you. Please try maintain a happy Wikipedia atmosphere. In articles, like McCabe, it might be hard but all efforts are worthwhile. Vanguard10 (talk) 04:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Tony, maybe some rethinking to pending changes and how to manage nightmares? Vanguard10 (talk) 04:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, as we've already done more than enough RfCs on that. It is why I personally am very hesitant to use it because it is just difficult to use on any page where you have more than a few edits a day. I think Melanie is nice enough where she will take your criticism well, but I think anyone who knows her here will say that she didn't mean to insult you but was literally just trying to fix an active page where pending changes was becoming too much of a burden before switching it over to semi-protection, which would be the way to read her actions if we were assuming good faith. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for your note, Vanguard. As you can see, I immediately restored your edit after "clearing the decks". It's just like Tony said: Pending change is an absolute nightmare if there is a lot of activity, because if there is one edit needing approval, it creates a logjam blocking all subsequent edits, and you can't revert the original edit because of the later ones. As soon as I cleared the logjam I replaced pending changes with semi-protection. (If I had been thinking ahead I would have done that this afternoon. By the time the news broke I was away from my computer, checked my phone and saw what was happening, but couldn't fix it until I got home.) Should all be OK now. --MelanieN (talk) 04:54, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Question
I apologize but I am confused by this "consensus" thing. Can you please explain why I have to wait 24 hours to re-insert the info if it is reliably sourced and accurate? Just because other editors here don't like the information I added why do they get to censor Wikipedia? Everything I added is balanced, accurate, and taken from reliable sources. What is going with Wikipedia? PZP-003 (talk) 05:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * PZP-003, I am just in the process of writing out an explanation of the Discretionary Sanctions, which have already been explained to you once, and I will post on your talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 05:37, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Volga Tatar and Irreligion in Saudi Arabia
I wanted to know why you reverted my edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsi786 (talk • contribs)
 * Hello, Arsi. I didn't revert any of your edits. What I did was protect the article to stop that anonymous user from reverting your edits. You should still be able to edit the article, and the anonymous user should not be able to revert you. --MelanieN (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for that just wannted to be sure.

Organophosphate page protection status
Hello,

I am with a group of four other graduate students and we have been assigned to edit a Wikipedia page relevant to a group project we are currently working on. We chose to edit the Organophosphate page as it is relevant to our group project topic ("Health effects in agricultural workers with chronic exposure to organophosphate"). We saw that it was recently locked and wanted to know how we could gain access to it again. All of us are pretty new to Wikipedia editing but have been trying to follow the policies put in place. And of course being graduate students we are very cognizant of proper citations, reliable sources, etc. Thank you for your help. Fasano.m.a (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, Fasano, and thanks for your note. Are you already in touch with the Education program? If not I recommend it. The folks there are good at helping you deal with the sometimes arcane or unfamiliar policies and guidelines here, and can help smooth your interaction with other Wikipedians. You might be able to find an Education Program Ambassador here to help you out. I notice that User:Biosthmors specializes in content covered by WikiProject Medicine, which seems related to your topic, but they don’t seem to be very active at the moment. Same with User:Keilana. A few that are quite active currently are User:Czar, User:Koavf, and User:Yunshui. One of our most prolific editors in the medical area is User:Doc James, but I don’t know if he functions as an advisor to students.


 * To answer your question, when an article is protected, the way you can get material added is to propose it on the article’s talk page, Talk:Organophosphate. You can say "I propose to add this" and insert it between the codes "and", adding so that the references will list and be visible. If another editor agrees with it, they will add it. If they want changes to it, you can discuss it on that talk page. If you run into a brick wall, and ambassadors can’t help you, let me know and maybe I can suggest additional people to talk to. --MelanieN (talk) 01:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Duh - I forgot to ping Fasano.m.a. --MelanieN (talk) 01:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Please, by all means post to my talk page if you need help. The Education Program is being shut down and I was active during its heyday. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that, Justin. Is there anything taking its place - to which I can direct students trying to edit an article? --MelanieN (talk) 01:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I got this information from here: Education_noticeboard. That noticeboard is the best place for info (I don't want to mis-answer so the best I can do is refer you elsewhere.) ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Justin: I asked about this here. They said the Education Program isn't being shut down, they are just getting rid of an old software program. They suggested telling the students to tell the instructors how to register with the program; that doesn't really help the students so I will probably continue to refer such students to individual ambassadors like yourself for help. (I think the vast majority of the time, instructors don't communicate with Wikipedia at all; they just tell the students to write or edit a Wikipedia article as part of their coursework.) --MelanieN (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , Melanie's advice on using the talk page is good, but if you'd prefer, you can copy the article to User:Fasano.m.a/sandbox, work on it in peace, and copy the changes over when ready. Though if your changes might be challenged, I'd recommend adding them incrementally so that they can be individually reverted and discussed on the talk page if necessary. Let me know if you need a hand with any of this. czar  01:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you all for the help! Fasano.m.a (talk) 02:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Will provide you some additional guidance on your talk page. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to a bonfire
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Meetup/San Diego/April 2018. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you
as always, for being a voice of reason. You are a better person than me :) Regards, --Malerooster (talk) 23:14, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yikes, wasn't Kipling referring to someone just killed? Sorry, long day. O3000 (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * LOL, O3000! And thanks for the compliment, Malerooster. Sorry to clutter up your talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * O3000, thanks for reference, I didn't know where that came from, but that certainly wasn't my intent :). No worries MelanieN about my talk page, its amazing how the removal of one word can cause such a tempest in a teapot. Cheers, --Malerooster (talk) 23:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, I knew it immediately. "Though I've belted you and flayed you, by the living God that made you, you're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!" Right? --MelanieN (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * In my youth, I neglected to complete high school. (Which saved me a great deal of time – later to be well wasted.) But, one tends to pick up literary refs as they can become useful at appearing learned. Besides, I think I had a drink with Rudyard and Lewis Carroll in a pub in Guildford. Or, was that a dream? In any case, I learned that: “If you don't know where you are going, any road will take you there.” O3000 (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Tara Aghdashloo new page
Hi Melanie, I just published the new and edited page Tara Aghdashloo. Please let me know what you think. Thanks.Takinson (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm out of town. I'll evaluate it tomorrow. MelanieN alt (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, Takinson, I have taken a look at the article and compared it to the previous one that I deleted. It is significantly different and expanded, so I have tagged it with a notice saying that it is not eligible for speedy deletion as a recreation of a deleted article. I don't have any comment or evaluation on the article itself; at some point a New Page Patroller will take a look at it and evaluate it. In the meantime, congratulations on the recreation. --MelanieN (talk) 04:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Donald Trump's disclosures of classified information
I see that you have been active on the Donald Trump's disclosures of classified information talk page in the past. I'm wondering if we should re-evaluate this article and have started a talk page comment, but I do not know if I should ping everyone who has commented since. What do you think? Mr Ernie (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

West (name)
Hi User:MelanieN, sorry to ask if your busy, but can you add a summary of the origin of the West (name) for the article please? I've found a reliable source (here ), but couldn't find the white pages from the name's countries of origin (England and Germany) or much on the family history of Kanye West specifically, or the wider African-American usage of the surname (could you have a look please).

The reason I'm asking is I'm not good at paraphrasing and presentation of articles is not a strong point for me and I've seen your edits to another article which was phrased and presented very well. If your busy editing, please get back at some point to let me know. Cheers, --Theo (contribs) 23:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello, Theo. I'm sorry, but I don't have any experience with this type of article and wouldn't even know where to begin. I see that some surname articles do have such a summary (White (surname), Taylor (surname)) which could be used as a model. Many don't (Peters (surname), North (surname)). I looked to see if I could find people with interest in this kind of article and I think there might be someone at WP:WikiProject Surnames, which is mainly a genealogy project. Members of that project who are currently active include User:Dan Koehl, User:Another Believer, and User:Gap9551, and I am pinging them here to see if they may be able to advise you. --MelanieN (talk) 04:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries, thanks for pinging them and if they don't get back I'll try asking the people who edited the White/Taylor articles. --Theo (contribs) 06:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for
keeping an eye out on Shooting of Stephon Clark, and making other improvements there ! Cheers, -Darouet (talk) 15:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Darouet: You're welcome, and thanks for the important work you are doing to keep it neutral and accurate. I originally went there to see if the article needs protection, but so far it seems fairly calm. Let me know if a vandalism problem develops. --MelanieN (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Funny, you made this edit around the same time I made an edit that was exactly the same (except for the edit summary, of course). I guess you were just a little bit faster.
 * I also saw that you deleted some revisions per RD1. However, the content in revisions like this or this is still visible to us mere mortals.
 * Separately, I noticed that the content added in this edit was an almost 1:1 copy & paste from NYT. I tried my best in paraphrasing the content, so you might want to consider deleting revisions between 04:39 and 17:58. Thanks. Politrukki (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You're right, I missed those intervening edits between the first addition and the second. I have now zapped them. As for the NYT material, it does have several phrases that are the exact same, and your revision is a big improvement - but I don't think it was a blatant enough copyvio to need revdel.--MelanieN (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Phrases are covered by fair use, especially when wording is critical. Then we do want to quote. Otherwise paraphrasing is good. In real life (not necessarily here), depending on the "public good" (there is a legal term), much larger exact quotes (as in huge) are allowed. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, and we've reached the point where we need semi-protection, and I have added it. I expected we would get to that point as the story became more widely reported. The problem in this case wasn't vandalism; it was improper or unsourced edits made in good faith by new users. Good faith or not, we still have to keep them out. --MelanieN (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

FYI
Per your UAA request, has been username blocked until either a new username is selected or identity is verified via OTRS. --kelapstick(bainuu) 19:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Which he has done. -kelapstick(bainuu) 21:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Great, that was fast! Thanks, kelapstick.--MelanieN (talk) 21:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * uw-famousblock, block first ask questions later :) I was surprised how quickly the OTRS request went through. Glad it all went through quick though. --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)