User talk:MelanieN/Archive 48

"Create a blocked article?"
@MelanieN (talk) Since I am not an Administrator is it possible for you to create an article for me that you block this person's name? [] How can I send it to you for you if this article of the person is Wikipedia worthy? Wiki Gainz (talk) 05:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note, Wiki Gainz. Sorry, but no. You should stop trying to write an article about this person. He does not meet our requirements for having an article, which are listed here and here. He would either have to be a professional athlete in the highest level of his sport, or else to have received a lot of coverage in sources like news articles. Articles about him have been deleted multiple times, under the names Michael James Tamondong, Michael J Tamondong, and MJ Tamondong. All these names have now been “locked” to prevent articles from being written, since he does not qualify to have an article here. Please stop trying. --MelanieN (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Need your help again with the Volga Tatar, Tatar and Irreligion in turkey
I think the same ip guy is back while operating under various other ips accounts and a google serasch of those ip addresses show the guy is from russia like the other ip account he is starting to revert my edits on these three wiki pages the first two ones he reverts my references in which he puts the reference which links to an interactive map of the region tatarstan which also has a large russian population so it should not be used as refering to individual tatars that are mostly muslims unlike russians that are mostly christian or atheist and in the irreligion in turkey wiki page the ip is not targeting my deism entry but the beginning section that is linked to a article made in turkey so could you please add protection onto these pages so that ips don't keep messing with the wiki page.Arsi786
 * Looks like it's been taken care of. --MelanieN (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

question
Beg pardon as I don't know you, but can tell me how to hat a part of conversation on a talk page that is disruptive? Bodding (talk) 04:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * - Typically, you would use  at the top of the discussion, then  at the bottom. See Template:Hat for more information.  SQL Query me!  05:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Bodding (talk) 14:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Flow Hive
pp has expired & ip vandal has reverted [flow hive] again. Not sure what to do next. Clappingsimon (talk) 12:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC) Clappingsimon (talk) 12:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I have extended the protection. Looking at the article, I am concerned about the “criticisms” section. The criticisms seem to be poorly sourced, and the rebuttals to the criticism are not sourced at all. I removed one unsourced sentence that was pure puffery. Since you have an interest in this article, can you see about either fixing the sourcing or deleting the claims/counterclaims? Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Sítio do Picapau Amarelo (album)
You may want to keep an eye on this one – an IP editor and another editor have been ignoring the AfD result and have been recreating the article (with basically no meaningful changes from the deleted/redirected version). To be safe, I've added an Old AfD tag to the Talk page. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Good catch. I've locked it. Let me know if you see any more of these. This guy and his socks are awfully persistent. --MelanieN (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at User:Kudpung/What do admins do?
You are invited to join the discussion at User:Kudpung/What do admins do?. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Increased protection on an article
Hi, Melanie. You semi-protected Silk Way Airlines for a month because of sockpuppetry. Checking through the history I have found that the problem has been going on since at least as far back as November 2017, with new sockpuppets coming up after old ones were blocked. It therefore seems to me that a one month block is unlikely to make much impact: someone who has been edit-warring with numerous socks for that long won't be put off by a month's break, especially since the article has already been protected five times during that period, including once for two months, and the problem has not diminished. For that reason I have increased the protection to six months. Please let me know if you think I was wrong. I also see that in December another administrator imposed extended confirmed protection, saying in the protection log "disruptive users are autoconfirmed. semi does nothing", so we may have to go back there, but I am leaving it at semi for now. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, JamesBWatson, I'm good with that. --MelanieN (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

POV tags for whole articles?
Thanks for this. I can't think of a time when that use is ever justified. 99.999% of the time they're disruptive. Only specific placement, accompanied by talk page explanations, should be allowed. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * See my comment on the subject at WP:AE. --MelanieN (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've read them. I'm really wondering if we should get policy/guideline changed to deprecate this practice completely? I've never seen it serve any good purpose. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I Wish to Remove My Page
This page (Steve Marshall, Writer) was put up years ago when I was attempting to promote my career. It is a compendium of my professional accomplishments. I was since notified that Wikipedia frowned on autobiographical pages but I didn't know what to do about it. Anyway, the page is devoted solely to my career but in the wake of a highly embarrassing event in my life, someone saw fit to add it to the page. When I discovered this, I edited the material out and it stayed gone for nearly two years before mysteriously re-appearing. I have made several attempts to remove that information that have been labeled "vandalism." I am now retired and have no reason to have this page exist any longer, certainly not at the cost of having embarrassing information as a part of it. How do I go about having the page removed altogether? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.248.62 (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


 * {Cross-posted at User talk:Meters.) &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:29, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've posted this at AFD; Articles for deletion/Steve Marshall (writer). power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 00:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for handling this, folks! I love my stalkers! --MelanieN (talk) 03:09, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

....but her jacket!
I just noticed this removal and your "trivia" comment. When massive media attention is triggered, it ceases to be "trivia". That jacket choice was no "accident", and it garnered quite a bit of attention, and of an unfortunate type which was triggered by that choice. The media was gaslighted. This article is rather insightful: This fits the gaslighting pattern we've been seeing from the White House. None of this happens by "accident". -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Journalist Liz Plank Believes the Media Was Baited by Melania Trump's Zara Jacket. "The FLOTUS office saying they're confused about why the media is covering the jacket is gaslighting 101."
 * Thanks for your note, BR. I stand by my deletion, although you are welcome to take it up at the talk page if you want. What are you proposing - that we report on the jacket and then give equal coverage to a couple of conspiracy-theory editorials about it? (Basically Liz Plank and Chris Cillizza.) IMO we should simply ignore it. To me it is irrelevant whether she wore the jacket innocently/naively, or because she wanted to send a message that she really DOESN’T care, or as a kind of bait for the media. (If that was the idea, it was a dumb one; she got a lot more of the effluent on her than the media did.) Why she wore it is speculation, and the fact that she wore it is trivia - a flash in the pan, unworthy of the silly, massive, (but short lived) coverage it got. And in fact if we mention it in the article, aren’t we being gaslighted too? --MelanieN (talk) 03:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We'd be victims of it. The whole charade operates on "government by chaos", IOW using confusion, distraction, and lies, all from Putin's playbook. We can't document every part of it, but every seemingly trivial "event" is part of the whole:
 * Is Trump’s Chaos Tornado a Move From the Kremlin’s Playbook? It’s terrifying to think that the Trump administration is simply winging it, in a swirl of lies, contradictions, and Twitter rants. A scarier possibility is that there is, in fact, a plan, taken straight from Putin 101.
 * Controlling Chaos: How Russia manages its political war in Europe
 * Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin: Global rivals to be King of Chaos
 * What Putin Really Wants. Russia's strongman president has many Americans convinced of his manipulative genius. He's really just a gambler who won big.
 * Trump Is Already Wagging The Dog. The 1997 film was about inventing distraction, not starting an actual war.
 * Democrats are the last hope against Trump-era chaos and lies: Republican strategist. The press is overwhelmed by Trump's chaos and lies, making Democrats the last line of defense. I'm a Republican begging them to step up. Nothing else matters if they don't.
 * Then factor in what the dossier informs us about Putin's reasons for choosing Trump. It all makes sense. They aren't "rivals in chaos", but rather, Trump is creating the chaos Putin knew he'd create, and that suits Putin just fine. Chaos in the Middle East, Europe, and the USA, all serves him well. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I take an intermediate stance here. I do not think that we should include any content suggesting that she wore the jacket as an elaborate chess move from Putin's playbook. On the other hand, it is indisputable that she chose to wear that particular inexpensive jacket that contained a provocative message in the context of that particular trip, and that simple fact was covered by many, many reliable sources from a broad international spectrum. I cannot see how mentioning that fact, referenced to one or two high quality mainstream news sources, and perhaps a high quality fashion source, would be anything other than an improvement to her biography. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughtful input. I see there is a discussion now at Talk:Melania Trump so we really should move our comments there. --MelanieN (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, this belongs there. Right now it's a subject of discussion on This Week, with George Stephanopoulos, with comments that it was a deliberate message and notable deviation from normal practice for Melania (which says a lot), used like a sandwich board, but with uncertainty as to whom it was directed. It's a very notable event, and it should be mentioned, with some of the commentary and opinions. A paragraph should do it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Truly notable events per Wikipedia policy are not determined by whether or not George Stephanopoulos talks about it on his Sunday morning show. Notability of an event in a case such as this is characterized by whether or not inclusion of the event will stand the test of time.  After today's rehashing of it on the Sunday shows, it will end up yet another nothingburger. As I already noted at the article talkpage: WP:FART.  -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 16:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


 * BR - I know you don't take everything you read at face value...unless it's criticism of Trump, and then I always give you the benefit of the doubt and check it for validity...but the position you are arguing now, re:Melanie's jacket, is obviously based on media speculation and their attempt to further their own hate-Trump agenda (or to increase clickbait revenue). Sad. It is what I consider the extreme of the extreme, and liken it to speculating that the reason our beloved admin, MelanieN, has a picture of Melania on her user page is nothing more than a discreet attempt to advocate for Trump - yes, it is that ridiculous. That's how I view your argument about the silly $30+ jacket FLOTUS wore to board the plane. Atsme 📞📧 21:43, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, as you write, that's how you see it. This is Melania Trump's clickbait, chosen to create discussion, and the press fell for it. Don't blame them. I see a lot more, as do RS, especially since Melania Trump's spokesperson and Donald Trump disagree about why she wore it. Your view seems to impute a degree of ignorance or stupidity to Melania Trump, a view I don't support. I hope I'm wrong. This choice was no accident. She's smart and does nothing without a good reason, especially her wardrobe choices. Donald says she did it for a purpose, and so do most RS. The only quibble is the exact reason, and Wikipedia documents all kinds of matters. We do not document "just the facts". Far from it. We document the discussion as well. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope - it's reality. What you're seeing is spin and speculation. How the hell do you know that was on Melania's mind when she chose that jacket? You don't know - you're going by whatever biased media reports. What the hell makes them experts on her choices? There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE to support what the media is alleging and it is shameful, if not embarrassing for WP  editors to consider that "encyclopedic information".  OMG!! Again - read the essay Editorial discretion. It is junk like this that destroys WP's credibility. Atsme 📞📧 22:28, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow! You need to step back and listen to yourself. You're assuming a whole lot about what I think. I don't "know" what she had on her mind....at all. I have my own theories about some aspects of the matter, but I have not described them. The mutually exclusive and contradictory reactions from her spokesperson and Trump himself are cause for thought: one or the other is lying, and I suspect Trump is doing it, and tried to spin this to his own advantage, but I'm not a RS. That doesn't inform us about what she was thinking. The only thing that's obvious, and alluded to in that RS, is that it was done to create discussion, and that was what happened. She's not stupid. She doesn't do this type of thing accidentally. Why? We don't know exactly what message she was trying to send, but it did get attention. That's all we can be sure of. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:10, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, there are no aspersions in my comment - read WP:ASPERSIONS and learn the difference. Worse yet, you are attempting to push your POV on others which is based on nothing more than a conspiracy theory put forth by biased media who clearly have an agenda by trying to make it appear as though FLOTUS purposely wore that jacket because she doesn't care about those children. If she didn't care about those children, she would not have gone to see them firsthand to make sure they are properly being taken care of - and don't forget - she is an immigrant herself and knows full well what is required. Her entire agenda as FLOTUS has been about children - she has been promoting a public awareness campaign to help children; i.e., "Be Best.". Your POV is based entirely on clickbait speculation in the media - a conspiracy theory that you want to include in a BLP for no other reason than the media reported it? Read the BBC article - it is pretty obvious which spin you've chosen, and even more obvious that the media has no clue why she chose that jacket. Your bias has decided why she chose it, and that's why you need to step away from Trump-related articles. Please stop. Atsme 📞📧 23:43, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, you are way out of line here. He did not accuse you of "apsersions", but you did. You accused him of "bias" and "attempting to push his POV" and told him to stop editing the articles. You said his proposed edits are "shameful" and "embarrassing". Not to mention the "what the hell" and "how the hell" while BR remained civil throughout. I'm going to hat this thread, but first to tell you you really need to get your passions and partisanship under control. --MelanieN (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN - you hatted the discussion, but you need to know that your accusation against me was unwarranted - he actually did accuse me of aspersions in his edit summary, but I can understand why you didn't catch it. Please strike your accusation so it doesn't accidentally show-up on one of the drama boards that I was the one casting aspersions. Don't you just hate when that happens? Atsme 📞📧 00:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know - it's never happened to me! 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 00:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Burn! PackMecEng (talk) 00:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

SMirC-what.svg I figured it out....
...crazy happenings over the past few days, like me using the word "hell" in a comment, had to be the result of a crazy reason, so here it is. Atsme 📞📧 15:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As Gilda Radner used to say, "It's always something." 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 16:08, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Not that there's anything wrong with that...Atsme 📞📧 16:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)