User talk:MelanieN/Archive 55

Yosemiter and the Russian National Hockey Team
Hi, you previously warned Yosemiter about edit warring on the Russian National Men's Hockey Team page, and it seems that he's back to making revisions that are degrading the article. For instance, instead of saying that the Russian Men's National Hockey Team "participated in the Olympics" which took place in February of 2018, Yosemiter's claiming that saying that the "Russian Men's National Hockey Team was cleared to participate" is an improvement to the article. Instead of saying that the "IIHF awarded the points to the Russian National Team" (which they did,) Yosemiter's claiming that saying that "the IIHF considered the OAR games for the Russian team in its rankings" is an improvement to the article. His other edit includes claiming that comparing different coaches' performance during different seasons is an improvement over comparing said coaches' performance during the same season. Can you please take a look at it when you have a chance? Here's the edit that started the tangent: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russia_men%27s_national_ice_hockey_team&type=revision&diff=875726394&oldid=874708590

Thank you! 47.144.143.169 (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note, but I'm not going to get involved with the content of the article. My only input was that I saw a request for full-protection due to edit warring, and I decided to issue a warning instead, which was heeded. I see that the two of you are discussing your differences at the talk page; that is the right way to handle this. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Can I also request?
If I or the anonymous Editor can't edit, Could you please tell someone that is more knowledgeable about the Page's details. I suggest, Chinese Show Editors. Jiangye (talk) 03:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I assume you are talking about the article Ever Night, which I full-protected. Tell whoever you want; it's up to you. More important: start a discussion with the anonymous editor on the talk page. That is the whole point of protecting an article: to get the editors to stop reverting each other and start talking. Start a discussion there, explaining why you are doing what you are doing. See if you can get them to come and explain their position. Try to reach agreement. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If you need outside help, you might post a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China, asking for someone to take a look at the article and comment. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * I replied at the article talk page. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Why you put Protected on 1995-1996 Government Shutdown article
What gives you the right to put fully protected on 1995-1996 Government Shutdown article? You are a disgrace to WIKIPEDIA! You denied other folks to edit the article. You remove that padlock right now! >:(

I'm very disappointed at you! This is supposed to be The Free Encyclopedia...NOT UNFREE! Remove the padlock and let them edit right now! Spencer H. Karter (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, Spencer. I assume you are talking about United States federal government shutdowns of 1995–1996. I semi-protected the article temporarily because of recent disruptive editing by brand-new users. Since you are not a new user, the protection does not affect you and you should be perfectly able to edit the article. Semi-protection is temporary, and as soon as it expires all users will be able to edit it again. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Gillibrand
I just saw this edit of yours at Donald Trump, and I wondered if you would care to weigh in on a similar issue I am having at Kirsten Gillibrand. I started a discussion on the matter at Talk:Kirsten Gillibrand if you are interested. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!
 Happy Adminship Anniversary! Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day! Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:39, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, CAPTAIN! How time flies when you're having... uhh, fun? -- MelanieN (talk) 23:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

The Fix(er) is in
Hello, MelanieN. I had thought to return to the fixer page and categorize the various types of fixers, when I noticed that the list I had added was shortened by yourself. I'm not sure why you might think that I would add a name on the basis of "Just being a lawyer for thugs or a PI for celebrities"; the most notorious of known Hollywood fixers were deleted. Your point on there being no direct mention of the exact phrase on those individual's pages was well-taken, however, and I might have thought of that sooner. Though you did not encourage adding sources, I have, nonetheless, now remedied the lack thereof on individual pages, and so have restored the names to the list. Thank you for your apparently sharp eye.Lindenfall (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that you had added and restored some entries - all properly sourced at their articles! 0;-D Thanks for adding that list - a good idea and it definitely improves the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC) P.S. Does that make you a fixer (in the British sense)? -- MelanieN (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ha! You caught me out. I do "fancy myself" as making my exacting Scot mother proud by improving grammar and punctuation, and by recording correct details... she was quite a fixer herself, back in the day. (Were she among us, Mother might say that I "just fancy myself," though, and really catch me out!) Lindenfall (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, and you earn the title. You not only added good content to the article; you gave me an example of a freelance fixer (American sense) which I did not have up to then. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Too kind, thank you! Lindenfall (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Me, again — I had added match fixing thus to help prevent names being added there, instead of on the more exacting match fixing page, and rather than having repetitive lists. I also don't see match fixing linked on the page otherwise, as your reasoning had noted. Bit confusing. Lindenfall (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "Match fixer" in the article was hiding under a piped link. I have clarified it. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Egad, it's me, again — I feel like I'm the only one bothering you here. (BTW that Melania photo cracks me up every time I do, adding to the allure.) So, I've edited the match fixing section in a way that I think is more suited... I can only hope that you like what I've done with the place! Lindenfall (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, you have definitely improved the article. As for Melania, that's been a running joke ever since someone gave me a templated conflict-of-interest warning for editing the Melania Trump article. They were actually serious, but it seemed like too good a joke to let go. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Great, and "Melania" is now even funnier... best joke (that was not a joke) ever! Lindenfall (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Since you commented on the picture, I decided it would be worthwhile to add the link to it. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That just cracks me up! So nice to encounter an editor with a sense of humor, Mrs T. Lindenfall (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Hoax, again
Hi. Thanks for deleting Draft:Famiglia Di Alshibli a couple days ago. User:JonesBrown1992 has created it again, and I doubt he will stop. Maybe SALT? Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 15:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * User:RHaworth has block said user and deleted the page. Let's hope that stops the page from being created in the future. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 16:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like RHaworth salted it as well. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Thank you both. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 16:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)