User talk:MelanieN/Archive 57

Beach and Bergeron
Do you know a solid wiki contributor good at differentiating pages and synthesizing biographies? Victor Bergeron doesn't have a personal page despite his biographies. What is there is a page named after his restaurant, but then it reads like it is supposed to be a personal page. Ideally there should be a separate article page about him and one on his chain. Donn Beach is in the same boat. His article is really more about him than the restaurant, but lists the restaurant as the name for the article. I realize he changed his name to Donn Beach, but he did not change it to Don the Beachcomber. It seems a nickname should not be the article's main title if it is supposed to be a person page. If separate articles on the person vs. the restaurant can't be done, it would seem that at least a person's legal name should be at the top. Regardless, there appears to be a lack of consistency. At a minimum it seems that the Don the Beachcomber page should be renamed to Donn Beach, with a redirect for Don the Beachomber wikilinks going to that page? I know the Don vs Donn is confusing; he changed his name to Donn, but only Don made it into the restaurant name. There was likely already other Hollywood "Don Beach"s.
 * , I'm not ignoring you; I just haven't had time to look into this yet. I definitely will take a look and see what I think should be done. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

No worries, was just a thought in case you knew someone. I did some basic improvements, and tried moving the page to Donn Beach with this reasoning: ''This article is ostensibly first about the man, and not the restaurant. There was more to Donn Beach than the restaurant. His legal name was Donn Beach.'' However, my attempt to move it failed, saying such a page already exists.
 * The Donn Beach page is a redirect. If we decide to do that move we can deal with the redirect page. But we should probably propose it at the talk page first. That's always a good idea when you are thinking of moving a page that has been at a particular title for a long time; we shouldn't assume the move is non-controversial. That is not a heavily edited page but a move discussion might bring out some page watchers. And if it doesn't but someone objects later we will have covered ourselves. I haven't even given it enough thought myself at this point. I'll look into the whole situation when I have a little more time. In the meanwhile you could go ahead and post something on the talk page. I don't think it would have to be a formal Move Request, just a talk page message with your suggestion and reasoning. I'll chime in within a few days. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm on it. The article has been about the person, not the restaurant, from the day it was written, and the person's name is Donn Beach, so you are right that should be its name (with a redirect from D the B). I will take care of that. Then I will make some improvements to the article based on new searches I have done. Once I took a look you got me hooked. 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have done the move and added a couple of excellent references to the article, which I used to update and expand it. That's all I can do for now but there is a lot more good info in those references if you want to explore them - including about the drinks (he mostly used rum because it was cheap but extolled it as the finest type of liquor to be had) and the role of Sunny Sund. (I'm going to make a redirect from her name.) Also we need to check the article for name consistency; I think we should refer to him as "Gantt" until 1945 or so (apparently he did his military service under that name?) and after that should call him "Beach". One other thing: as a result of the move there are a lot of double-redirects out there now, see this. Would you want to tackle those? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * P.S. It will be a day or two before I can look into Bergeron/Vic. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, you have done more than enough and things I can't do. I was thinking about needing to add Sunny as well but had no good material on her (a shame). She deserves her own page. Beach had been totally obliterated on the International Market Place page, so I added some things there instead. I will look at your citations later to expand after I finish some other articles. Thank you again.
 * Here's a couple more articles with biographical material about Beach and Sund.  (lots of good material there; the original bar had 25 seats!)  (according to this he DID legally change his name to Don Beach-comber - which is how he was named in a 1942 LA Times article - and Donn Beachcomber before settling on Donn Beach). There is a wealth of material out there! and at that I had to reject a couple of things as not reliable. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And one more - I think we almost have enough to expand Sunny's redirect into a page. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Revert
Hi, I don't want to revert for the third time but look at this edit hitory. Two IPs are trying to give false information without proper ref or consensus. Since they are IPs, they won't be very responsive and I would like remove the false info ASAP. Please let me know what best could be done here. THE NEW  Immortal  Wizard  (chat) 08:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like the IPs got bored and left. In future, I would request semi-protection of the article at WP:RFPP and cite WP:ARBIPA. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not really Indo-Pak, more like India-Bangladesh, but it will work anyways. THE NEW  Immortal  Wizard  (chat) 17:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

FAC review
Sorry you to bother you, but unlike others' advice, I decided to be bold and started commenting Featured article candidates/Alf Ramsey/archive1. It would be appreciated if you, or any other expert have a look at them and give me feedback. Thanks! THE NEW  Immortal  Wizard  (chat) 14:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I just dropped in on the FAC myself. I'll admit part of it was trying to rebuild bridges with, however as I did the original GA review and have supported the improvement of the article to FAC for some years, it should be clear it's something I would have done regardless. As for your comments, I think there are insightful and welcome - I asked you to focus on content, and that's exactly what you are doing, so that's good. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Revert 2
I just wanted to reach out to because removed my tag here because apparently he doesn't think it is required. However, he didn't reach for consensus on the talk page where my provided reasons. I leave it up to you. THE NEW  Immortal  Wizard  (chat) 22:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What I use as the ideal source requirement for an article is: at least one inline citation per paragraph (except the lead which does not require sources), and sources for any direct quotes. Looking at your list on the talk page, I agree with it; pretty much everything you have listed does indeed need references. You name some paragraphs, like the last paragraph of “playing career” and the first of “1995-98”, as needing an additional source. You are also correct in listing direct quotes; those do need to be sourced. And you are right about “Appointment and first years”, it has multiple paragraphs without any sources at all. If this was a Good Article it would need all of these things fixed. Note that people are often less demanding, or less compulsive about sources, for articles which are not identified as Good Articles. Don’t demand Good Article standards at pages which have not been nominated as such.


 * So having identified the problem, how best to deal with it? I don’t advise putting a “sources needed” tag on the entire article; it just annoys people. People will often object to or remove a general tag on the article if MOST of the article is well sourced, which this one is. If an individual section is really bad, like the Manchester United section which has whole paragraphs and even whole subsections unsourced, I would tag that with a section tag for references needed. Anyone who looks there to see “hey, why is that tagged?” would immediately see the problem. It can actually be best to put your list on the talk page WITHOUT tagging the general article, just saying "I notice there are some places that need additional references," and wait a few days to see if page watchers will respond.


 * A tip about your list of places to improve: You list a dozen or so sentences without saying where in the article they are, which is unhelpful; a person trying to add references doesn’t know where to look. Always say what section you are talking about so they can find the problem sentence easily and not have to search through the whole article for it. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry MelanieN I didn't read this prior. This is a wonderful explanation and exactly what I needed. Please check the message I left at Ferguson talk after reading this. THE NEW  Immortal  Wizard  (chat) 23:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!
Hello MelanieN, I want to thank you for everything you've done for me. I am grateful there is an admin like you. Without you, it wouldn't have been possible for me to remain an editor unblocked. THE NEW  Immortal  Wizard  (chat) 01:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the note, Wizard. I am glad you have a new mentor and you are listening to him and doing what he says. You will be a productive and respected member of this community yet! -- MelanieN (talk) 05:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Wraper11: Thanks for the barnstar. To answer your question: Do what you are supposed to do: Go to the article talk page and explain your position. Not by attacking Lester1231, not by trying to "protect the film and its composer", but by explaining WHY you want the material removed, based on Wikipedia's rules. Lester says the allegation is reported by sources. He cites sources to prove it. Why do you object to that material? Is there something wrong with the sources? Do they not say what he claims? Wikipedia uses what is reported by Reliable Sources, and that will determine what goes in the article. The result will be determined by discussion among you, not by me. If you and the others there can't agree on what the published material says, I can ask a Chinese speaking Wikipedian to come to that article talk page and help interpret. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@MelanieN, I sent you an email about two questions as in private would be better as those contents are not published yet. Can I ask you another question here about using Wiki: now the page is protected and we're talking in the talk-page. What about if after the protection period is over and Lester1231 come back and just went ahead and made those changes again despite the result from talk-page, will that behavior be considered a violation of Wiki's rules? Wraper11 (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you have commented at the talk page. That is where this will be decided: by discussion among the involved people there. At this point there are three of you discussing; if that is all there are, and if two of them are in agreement, then that will be the decision. If Danny does not have an opinion, as he says, then it is still just you and Lester, I could try to find additional Chinese speakers to comment. But the bottom line is: try to find a compromise, try to find some kind of agreement on wording. For example he seems to have changed his proposed wording from "copied" to "trace of suspected mass imitation". Maybe you could propose something like "commentators have noted similarities to"? And maybe you can reach some agreement about the "additional composer" you seem to be arguing about.

At the talk page you claimed that Lester1231 is the operator of the "Soundtrack" magazine. How do you know that? If you don't have specific evidence - for example, that he has admitted it himself - then you must not make that kind of accusation. Just as I have told him to stop describing you as the "film crew". Anyhow, if you look at his talk page, he seems to have agreed not to use Soundtrack as a source, so that isn't important any more. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@MelanieN Here's the specific evidence showing Lester1231 is the operator of the soundtrack magazine(I have drawn arrows for you hope it's easier to understand, start looking at top right): https://www.dropbox.com/s/1vhrkg89cq4ywsb/Screen%20Shot%202019-03-05%20at%209.48.34%20PM.png?dl=0 Wraper11 (talk) 12:47 pm, 6 March 2019, last Wednesday (2 days ago) (UTC−8)

@MelanieN you said "he seems to have agreed not to use Soundtrack as a source", I only saw he said "I will follow you to remove the "Soundtrack Magazine" title from the main page or just keep the media name in references" meaning he is still using it as a source and keep it in the reference. Correct me if I'm wrong. Also, how about the case that if Lester1231 is intentionally sabotaging the reputation of Roc(the main composer) and Wandering Earth by adding suh copying issues word, what can we do in such case or deal with such person? All the sources he used are all started him, you don't have to belive me but I noticed he started personal attack Roc ever since 2012. Wraper11 (talk) 21:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Look, you really need to STOP ATTACKING LESTER and start focusing on what the article should say. For example, "Soundtrack is not what Wikipedia considers a reliable source, so we should not use it for anything." Wikipedia policy on talk pages is "discuss the content, not the other editors." -- MelanieN (talk) 02:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * BTW Lester said, at the talk page, that you once said you were "official film crew". Is that correct? -- MelanieN (talk) 03:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@MelanieN Ok, thanks for the advice, but I really really have one question: on the talk page I didn't post the evidence that Lester1231 is the operator for soundtrack magazine (Lester1231 is operating soundtrack magazine) because I don't want to attack him anymore, but look at what he just posted, attacking me. Now under such circumstances should I go ahead and post such evidence to the talk-page? I haven't done so because you said stop attacking, but I think he should remove his attacked part too. Wraper11 (talk) 7:24 pm, 6 March 2019, last Wednesday (2 days ago) (UTC−8
 * Well, you might start by answering my question: did you tell him you were "official film crew"? -- MelanieN (talk) 7:53 pm, 6 March 2019, last Wednesday (2 days ago) (UTC−8)

@MelanieN No, I have never told him such, and I'll appreciate you help me using Wiki better. How should I deal with such case that IF I know someone is intentionally doing the vandalism? Wraper11 (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * For starters, stop calling it vandalism. It's an editing dispute, a disagreement about what should be in the article. Discuss it at the talk page, see what the consensus turns out to be. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, so even if I know someone is intentionally sabotaging, but I should not call it vandalism publicly, and there's no other way to report him and the only way is to use the talk-page from one page to another page, am I correct? Wraper11 (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I have listed evidence showing soundtrack magazine and it's operator personal attacking roc chen the main composer at the talk page. Do you think this is a way, according to the rules of Wiki, to prove soundtrack magazine can not be trusted as a reliable source at the talk page? Wraper11 (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't ask here - ask at the article talk page. Where people who can read Chinese can evaluate what the operator said. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I just want to check in with you if the way I wrote, is in a good manner according rules of wiki. Wraper11 (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi MelaineN, is it right that I delete my own words from your talk page, or that's against the rule that you the talk-page owner can delete them? Wraper11 (talk) 05:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wraper11, I don't want anything to be deleted, but if you want I can "hat" (hide) this discussion. Is that what you want? -- MelanieN (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * MelanieN Yes please hide them. Also, since the protection period is over, and it looks like pretty much everyone is not supporting the idea of add Lester1231's words into the page, just wondering, what will happen if Lester1231 or someone come back and just edit it similar what Lester1231 have done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wraper11 (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Cathedral Catholic High School
Thanks for the second eye and comment. I have a very messy local school case that seems related but worse than this one. A school was replaced by a new building on a different site (same school name). 20 years later the city opens another high school in the original building. Both schools now claim the history of the original school.There's a similar case in Montreal, but the original school never actually closed. A new school was build and took over the name and history (trophy cases, etc) of the original school.. An unexpected enrollment crunch lead to the original school not closing, and continuing under a new name. Again, which school is the continuation of the original school? Meters (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Meters, I see that you have been keeping an eye on the CCHS article for a long time: thank you! I have posted a discussion at that talk page with some options. I was going to ping recent editors of the articles, except that there really don't seem to be any current users following either article. If I can't get any participants maybe I'll ask for opinions at WikiProject Schools. Do you have any other thoughts where I might publicize the discussion? I suppose I could make it into a formal RFC, what do you think about that?
 * BTW I realized that part of the problem was that our treatment has been inconsistent: the USDHS article said it "was" a school and had "closed", while the CCHS article describes USDHS as predecessor and lists it as "another name" in the infobox. So I BOLDly changed the lead of USDHS to say that it moved to the new location, rather than being dead. That situation is actually pretty straightforward, although how to handle the alums is unclear.
 * Yikes, those other schools sound messy! Can they just both be allowed to claim the history? Or do they each insist that it's minemineallmine? -- MelanieN (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm a member of the Schools project and I watch more than 2000 high school articles I'm.embarrassed to say that I had forgotten that this issue had cropped up before on this page. Rather than continue making changes (and possible mistakes) I decided to leave it as was while your thread settled. I don't know if there is a hard and fast rule that determines that a school that is replaced by a new school is a continuation of the original school even if the name changes vs a closing of the original school and an opening of a new school. Either way the articles have to be consistent. We either have one school which moved to a new location and changed its name, or one school which closed and was replaced by a different school. In the former case we should have one article and one set of alumni, and in the latter we should have two articles and two separate lists of alumni. I'm not a local so I don't know the history of this case, but I'll do some digging looking for refs. Sometimes in cases like this there is clear evidence the schools are separate entities (e.g., an overlap period where both schools were in operation while grades were gradually phased out at the old school and in at the new school) or that they are they same entity (e.g., the school board's stated intention to "move" the school).
 * I'll do some fact finding to add to the talkpage thread, and t'll check the school project archives to see if this has been dealt with before. If not it's worth getting the project involved both for the input and to formalize the decision for future cases. Meters (talk) 07:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I am a local so I'll see what I can find in the way of contemporary sourcing. It is my recollection that the Diocese (rather than a school board) intended all along for the schools to be regarded as a continuous entity - first it was a high school for boys, then a girls school was merged into it to make it co-ed, then they needed a bigger campus so they moved it to North County - changing the name in the process. Some evidence: the entire faculty, adminstration, and student body moved together to the new campus; the "new" school maintained the same traditions (mascot etc) as the old school; I would bet money (not having seen it) that all the old athletic trophies and such from USDHS are on display at CCHS. Your logic suggests that the school articles and histories should be merged. That would certainly settle the alumni issue! Merging would be a big job but I might take it on if that is the decision. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Can you help me with vandalism on Cousin marriage law in the United States by state
User 71.6.23.178] keeps vandalizing [[Cousin marriage law in the United States by state. I am undoing the edits. But I am not sure what to do if the user persists. Thank you in advance. HoldingAces (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Nevermind, the user appears to have stopped. HoldingAces (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * HoldingAces, thanks for being on top of this and deleting them so quickly. The user stopped, even though nobody had warned them. In the future if you see this kind of activity, you might post warning notices on their talk page. If you use WP:Twinkle, you can use its phased warnings (level 1, 2, 3, 4). If you don't, just create a section heading "Month, year", such as "March, 2019", and use templates listed here. The reason to post the warnings: if they continue to be disruptive, the warnings make it easier for an admin to block the user. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Great! Thank you for the links. I will study up on them and be prepared for the next time. HoldingAces (talk) 15:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

BLP violation
Hi,

I just saw this edit summary. Does this need revdelling? Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 00:42, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess so, because somebody already has. Thanks. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There's nothing about it in the deletion log, so it must have been suppressed, not just revdelled. Adam9007 (talk) 02:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Right, because I can't see it either. Whatever it was certainly must have needed to be outtahere. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk Page
Sorry to bother you, could you check out the LONG thread on my talk page and let me know your thoughts / weigh in? I know you know this topic. Nicholas Nastrusnic (talk) 16:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm just out the door for an overnight trip. I'll check it tomorrow. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, Nicholas. I took a look at the article and the discussion. I'm sorry to say that the other user is correct: we can't keep that as an article because there aren't independent reliable sources about it. I know that is unpleasant to hear; nobody likes to see their hard work criticized or even deleted. The other person suggested putting it through proposed deletion; that's not terrible, because even if it gets deleted, it can easily be recreated later. The alternative is Articles for deletion, and if an article gets deleted by that process it is much harder to recreate. What is clearly really needed is an article about Jeff Berry. If you feel like you can't tackle a BLP article, maybe I could try; you have some good sources there about him. Here's what I'm going to do: I'm going to suggest that the article be taken out of the encyclopedia for now and moved to your private namespace. That will preserve the information and the references, for possible use in a Jeff Berry article. And if you later find more references you can add them and move it back to mainspace. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

"Wannabe Demagogue"
I'm not as familiar with you as others seem to be, but I found your argument for Trump being a "wannabe demagogue" absolutely superb. That whole [Talk:Demagogue] page is pretty fascinating. And I admit I went there knowing Trump would be a major topic.

Anyway, the way your argued for this particularity is worth further consideration. I think you should totally write up an essay on it and submit it to a news service that might be receptive. You see, the thing I like about the "wannabe demagogue" concept is that it is both a negative and a positive. The negative is obvious. But it's also a bit of a positive because the foundations of the US have this far successfully prevented full blast demagoguery.

That is a perspective that fits reality more than most others and I just think it is worth being communicated to the masses.

Cheers and thanks for your contributions :) lethalenoki (talk) 05:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, lethalenoki, nice to "meet" you. Thanks for the suggestion but I think I'll pass. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019
Hello. It appears your talk page is becoming quite lengthy and is in need of archiving. According to Wikipedia's user talk page guidelines; "Large talk pages become difficult to read, strain the limits of older browsers, and load slowly over slow internet connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." - this talk page is KB. See Help:Archiving a talk page for instructions on how to manually archive your talk page, or to arrange for automatic archiving using a bot. If you have any questions, place a notice on your talk page, or go to the help desk. Thank you. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:30, 12 March 2019
 * When you’re done explaining talk page archiving to Melanie, maybe you could find time to explain to my grandma how to suck eggs. There’s probably a template for that too. —Floquenbeam (talk) 03:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not even that big of a talk page. Leviv&thinsp;ich 04:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I assume this was a joke. Mkdw  talk 18:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Never assume. I don't know Jax but I gather, from discussion elsewhere, that this is his usual way of leaving a calling card. Thanks for visiting, Jax, and please leave your card on the silver tray by the door. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you
Nicholas Nastrusnic (talk) 01:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Insights needed
Hello! I'm currently in the process of cleaning up a few articles related to ethnic and racial stereotypes and managed to come across this "gem". The problem seems quite clear - the article obviously conflates Arabs and Muslims, and adds a profound religious element to a page that is supposed to be dedicated to race. I was considering starting a discussion on the talk page regarding this, but it seems to be rather inactive. Taking into consideration that no other article exists devoted purely to stereotypes of a particular religion (apart from Stereotypes of Jews, but Jews are an ethnoreligious group), removing "Muslims" from the title seems like the most reasonable option. As someone with a diplomatic potency in dealing with sensitive matters, you seemed like the perfect person to ask: what steps should be taken next? Esmost  let's talk   01:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and thanks for the note. This is not an area I work in so I think it would be good to find other people who are more familiar with it. (Any stalkers want to take a look?) But offhand I think your analysis is correct; the article is largely about Arab stereotypes rather than Muslim stereotypes. The article may have taken its its title from that report "100 Years of Anti-Arab and Anti-Muslim stereotyping". Go ahead and start a Move discussion, and I will chime in. The last section needs to be dealt with; it illustrates the conflating of "Arab" and "Muslim" that happened after 9/11, but it illustrates it by example rather than defining it. We need some sources, preferably scholarly, that analyze that conflation. But I think the article title could be changed even before that gets fixed. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Signature
Pst! You may want to add your signature to your most recent comment at Talk:2019 college admissions bribery scandal. :) --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip! (I should reread my advice at my own user page: "Use page preview!") 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No prob! :) --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Hey, good to see you! Drop me an email now and then to let me know how you are doing. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

A laugh tracked to you (or was it Mrs. T?)
May your laughter stay large, and your angst ever small. Lindenfall (talk) 23:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's cute! -- MelanieN (talk) 23:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Even I can't believe I'm back already, making you work for it again. That darn Watchlist! Seems this account is all vandalism: User talk:40.140.51.166. You can steer me to take my copious complaints to the front desk, if you like. I'm unsure of the protocol. Lindenfall (talk) 00:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Even though it is probably the same person all along, we don't assume it is - because IP addresses can and do change. So we warn them, in a section titled "Month, Year," and it creates a track record so that an admin can block them the third or fourth time they do it. Even then the block is not indefinite, because again the IP can change. Frustrating, isn't it? But you did the right thing; you warned them. And I warned them for the other one they did. And if they keep it up we can shut them down for at least a little while. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oddly, that IP has never been blocked. I guess they know how to play the system: make two or three vandalism edits, then go away for a month. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Mrs. T... so, you don't mind me coming to you with these? I just don't want to put you to extra work unnecessarily. That other one never got blocked, either. It seems to me that they have several accounts going (...so they can talk to themselves, perhaps, as mentioned previously... is that sockpuppeting? Or, just schizophrenia? lol) Not sure, but these may be more of those, too: User Talk:2A01:388:475:150:0:0:1:297 and User Talk:198.46.119.2 (no TALK, and USER red-linked, so: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=198.46.119.2&namespace=&tagfilter=&start=&end=). Every time I go back to unravel that swath of law firm edits from February, I seem to only find more weirdness and fakery instead. Lindenfall (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with you coming to me. (I remember from when I was new here, how helpful it is to have an admin that you "know" and can ask about stuff.) I will not always be able to give you definitive help; for one thing I am not a CheckUser and am not especially active with vandalism control. But I may know who to ask if we need someone in that area. About the ones you linked above, I too am baffled why they would add promotional material to half a dozen different law firms. What's up with that? I see that one person warned them about it on their talk page. Your question at User Talk:198.46.119.2 was very insightful: they may well have been trying to establish a track record. (Not that it will do them any good: they need to have a registered username to become autoconfirmed.) Here's the real problem: those long IP addresses, the ones called IPv6, tend to change frequently - multiple times a day sometimes. So it really does no good to warn them or establish a record of their problem edits or even block them, because they will be back in no time with a new address. About the only defense against them is revert the edit and protect the article - except in really egregious cases where we can do what's called a rangeblock (blocking an entire range of addresses). If any of my more tech-savvy stalkers would care to chime in here and explain the problem of IP vandalism more clearly, be my guest. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * For IPv6 addresses, blocking Special:Contributions/2A01:388:475:150:0:0:1:297/64 - a /64 range block - does basically the same thing as blocking a single IPv4 address, and so helps with the whole changing IPs thing. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, — would that I knew what that meant, lol. The link goes to an IP that may be part of this spiderweb, but I don't get your meaning... blocking that IP would block the network of recently problematic profiles? (As in, you can see that they are linked to the same IP range? And, not that I'd know what to do with that, if it's the case... After all, I'm here bugging Miss Mel over it, because she seems nice and is patient.) Lindenfall (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The gilded game remains on, Mrs. T. Is it okay to stick this template https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Requests_for_checkuser on a user's page? (TALK page?). I keep looking, but I can't find the instructions for the CheckUser thing to happen that you'd mentioned before, and we seem in need of it. (I didn't want to put the actual template on your page.) Thanking you, Lindenfall (talk) 00:22, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, could you point me to someone who knows much more than I do and is good at curtailing vandalism? Or, does CheckUser take care of that, too?Lindenfall (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Lindenfall. First, a request: when you want to start a new discussion, start a new section, at the bottom of the page. Don't tag it onto a two-week-old discussion and make me go hunting through the talk page to find the new stuff.
 * Will do. (, since there are already three sections about this here, I'd merely hoped to not make you chase through multiple sections to ascertain the status quo of essentially one topic.)Lindenfall (talk) 20:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Next, about CheckUser. CheckUser is not a generic anti-vandalism thing; it is a way of determining whether two Wikipedia accounts are being operated by the same person. We call that sockpuppetry and it's against the rules. The CheckUser tool requires a very high level of trust and even most admins don't have it. Some of the limits CheckUsers observe: they will not publicly connect a username to an IP address for privacy reasons. (Although they may take action themselves, if they find out information they are not willing to share publicly.) They will not go on fishing expeditions, along the lines of "this editor seems like they are not a new user, would you please check and see if they match any existing user?" What they will do, is check whether a particular user might be a sock of some particular previous user. You usually have to have a specific question, not just "please check this person and see if they have any other accounts". They will run a CheckUser if you have a legitimate suspicion of who it might be, but they won't usually just run a check on somebody's whim. And no, you can't just slap the Template:Checkuser needed on someone's user page. (The thing you referenced above is not a template; it is a category, a list of pages where someone has used the template. It is usually empty because that template is rarely used.) What you can do: if you suspect someone is a sock of some specific other user, file a report at WP:SPI. That's complicated so it's easier to go to the talk page of a CheckUser and see if they are willing to look into a suspicious account. Some CheckUsers will respond to general queries. Here is a list of current checkusers: WP:Checkuser. You will find User:TonyBallioni to be approachable and able to explain this stuff better than I can. He can certainly explain, better than I can, when you should (and shouldn't) request a CU, and how to do it. For that matter, if you are having a problem with a particular user, you can always see if Mrs. T. has any general advice to offer.

As for how to curtail vandalism, there are several things you can do - in addition to reverting the vandalism. One is to post a warning on the vandal's talk page, using the standard warning formats found here: Template messages/User talk namespace. There are escalating warnings, from a mild one (level 1) to a final warning (level 4). We go through the warnings to give them a chance to stop it; we don't just jump right to level 4. Put the warning template on their user talk page, in a section headed with the month and year, for example "April, 2019". Each time they vandalize, you can post the warning again, at a higher level each time. What that does is establish a track record - evidence - making it easier for an admin to evaluate the person's record and block them if that becomes necessary. Another thing you can do, if they are persistent and currently active, is report the user at WP:AIV. Another is to request protection of the page they are disrupting, to prevent any vandals from editing it; you do that at WP:Requests for page protection.

There, have I confused you enough? Do keep asking questions; that's what I'm here for. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Generic comment here: the best thing to do if there is a legitimate suspicion of socking that requires the user of CheckUser is to file a report at WP:SPI (you can use Twinkle to do this). Just note that CheckUsers will not publicly connect accounts and IP addresses, and that evidence of socking needs to be presented in the form of diffs before we will run a check. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Fair use
There are two reasons why I think the image here Exotica_(Martin_Denny_album) should be fair use for here: Tiki culture. I wanted to see if you concur, and if so, how to "bot proof" the image.Nicholas Nastrusnic (talk) 00:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Nicholas, you should read this: Non-free content. My hunch is that it would not qualify, per rationale #1 - i.e., you could find other images that could serve the same purpose - but this is outside my area of expertise. you do a lot of work in this area; can you give Nicholas any advice about whether he can use that album cover image, Exoticamartindenny.jpg, in the Tiki culture article? -- MelanieN (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I wanted to check first. It seems because that album is what eventually gave the name to the entire genre featured in the subheading it would qualify, as well as being in tandem with the article's mention of the person on that very cover as well. It "fits" very nicely in that regards, and I can't think of a single different picture that would be a better fit there. I will defer to the two of you and your expertise, thank you.Nicholas Nastrusnic (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree WP:NFCC (Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.) will probably kill such a use. No other images on that page are non-free, and there is already one image in the quoted section. I also suspect it would also fail WP:NFC (Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.) You can always ask at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. There are lots of images on Tiki Culture on commons - have you checked all of them c:Category:Tiki culture? Ron h jones (Talk) 17:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Ron and Melanie - thank you for the advice as always. There is indeed a different cover I could use there, but it is being allowed on commons under the same premise I am proposing for the other and I don't want to "highlight it" and get it kicked off :) The one I would use is even better than it using the same rationale, but with that said I really don't want to create a problem or negative energy for another person by using their image as an after the fact litmus test. Since I have you on the horn (thank you again) I'm OK with just letting go of it and trying later just to see what happens and learn, maybe it would pass muster but it sure seems tough! If I can take advantage of your further appreciated coaching, Donn Beach could really use a TRUE head shot of really ANY kind. Do you have suggestions on how to tag a low resolution commonly found headshot of him taken off the internet for such use? The man has been dead for I think about 30 years now. I'm not asking for any guarantees or either of you personally sanctioning it. Just general thoughts. Thank you again :) Nicholas Nastrusnic (talk) 23:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * About album covers: my impression is that under fair use we generally allow the use of the album cover in the article about the album, and that's all. Just as we allow the image of a book cover in the article about the book, and that's all. I think you should plan to only use photos which are released for general use. As for taking a head shot of Donn from a picture "found on the internet", forget it. If that picture has been on the internet, it is regarded as "published," and we can't get around that just by cropping out a part of it to use. I admit that copyright restrictions are annoying, especially when there is a PERFECT picture we would like to use, but Wikipedia cares very strongly about copyright and we just have to live with that. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * At this point I would take ANY picture, but OK. It just seems incredibly odd that a dead person can have a biographical article on wiki without even a head shot to identify him or her. The published books who are using the very same pictures don't hold the copyright to them, so you can't go to them to try to get permission. If one can't determine where anyone holds the copyright for a picture, and those people even if found can't demonstrate that they even own it to give permission for wiki to use it, seems like a lot of tail chasing when everyone but wiki is using the image. At some point selective omission of factual information (even if graphic, as in what a dead person looked like) is as detrimental to knowledge as inaccurate information. Cheers.Nicholas Nastrusnic (talk) 03:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, let's talk about copyright. Wikipedia cares very strongly about copyright, and here is why: misuse of copyrighted material can get us sued. Lawsuits cost money. Losing a lawsuit can cost a LOT of money. Wikipedia doesn't have much money - since it doesn't take advertising and relies on donations and grants. So it is very important to Wikipedia not to do anything that could get them in legal trouble. That explains our strong policies about WP:Copyright infringement and WP:Biographies of living persons. Quite aside from the lawsuit issue, the arrangement at Wikipedia is that anything published here is free content; anyone else can take and use it for any purpose. They are supposed to credit Wikipedia for it, but they often don't. See Wikipedia. There are even book companies whose content is entirely copied from Wikipedia articles; they are called Mirrors and forks. So when we put something here on Wikipedia, we are announcing to the world that they can use this anywhere for free. We mustn't do that unless the material really is that freely usable.

Pretty much EVERYTHING that has been published - whether in print, or online, or just on someone's facebook page - is considered by us to be copyrighted. There are a few exceptions, and they vary from country to country, which is another reason to be careful. And some things are OK to use because they are in the WP:Public domain. Pictures and images are particularly tricky; see Copyright. Even for a picture that you took on your own camera, you own the copyright unless you release it. I can't begin to explain all the rules for images, except that they are complicated. My own approach is to use only images from Wikimedia Commons, because those pictures have already been screened as appropriate to use here. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Saikat Chakrabarti‎
the arguments against keep are better reasoned and more persuasive Open palm, insert head. You have got to be kidding. Trackinfo (talk) 06:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Protection
Hello,thanks for protecting Delhi Capitals in 2019 article, but I also want to protect following 6 more articles

Thanks(Mr.Mani Raj Paul (talk) 08:14, 24 March 2019 (UTC))
 * Chennai Super Kings in 2019
 * Kings XI Punjab in 2019
 * Kolkata Knight Riders in 2019
 * Mumbai Indians in 2019
 * Rajasthan Royals in 2019
 * Royal Challengers Bangalore in 2019
 * Mr.Mani Raj Paul: I am taking a look. But first, a warning: it looks as if YOU were the one who copy-pasted that material into the Season Summary section here: Don't do that, ever. See WP:COPYPASTE. Rewrite the information in your own words, and supply the source in a reference citation. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I have taken a look at all six articles. I see that you are very active in improving the articles; thank you. But I don't see vandalism that requires protection, so I am declining to protect at this time. I do see some people disagreeing with you, particularly about whether or not to include a certain table. But disagreement over content is not vandalism and is allowed. Please realise that you don’t own the article. Other people, even unregistered people, are allowed to make constructive edits. I see in a couple of places you and an IP editor are disagreeing about whether to include a table or not; that’s a content disagreement and should be discussed on the talk page. That doesn't mean, revert them and say in the edit summary to go to the talk page. That means, YOU go to the talk page and start a discussion. In a content disagreement, both parties are equally required to discuss. Thanks for the note, and ask again if actual vandalism starts to happen. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for suggestion, But I also rewrite the information(Some Words) with my own words.is there any tool to check Copyright material?(Mr.Mani Raj Paul (talk) 02:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC))
 * You yourself are the primary tool - when you add something to the article. Assume that everything is copyrighted. Don't copy/paste it. Don't even do a WP:Close paraphrase where you change a word or two but other wise use it directly from the source. There should not be a single sentence that is actually copied from the original. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I now written a Season Summary in Delhi Capitals in 2019 ,I written it with my own words ,is this Okay?? Please check, Thanks (Mr.Mani Raj Paul (talk) 11:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC))
 * Well, it is not copied so that's good. (Is the "Season summary" going to be a paragraph about each game?) Some tips: don't use words like "magnificent", that is not neutral. Also: Put a space after each period (full stop) and every comma. I realise that in Indian English there is not a space after a full stop, but that is the way it is done in most other countries and at Wikipedia. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, IP users always interfere with these articles,they always remove sections ,this is not good thing ,help me regarding this.i always talk with IP Users but they not respond. I not want to vandalism these articles. Help me regarding this.so I think article protection is good choice.(Mr.Mani Raj Paul (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC))

Clarification
Hi, you denied my request for full protection of a page here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=889486152#The_World_Factbook_list_of_developed_countries saying there is a content dispute. There is not. The list is online right here https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/appendix/appendix-b.html That is the only valid source. The list is being changed to be inaccurate. There is no reason for me to argue with anyone about it, or for the page to be left showing an inaccurate list. The list is right there, you can see for yourself. Click the CIA.gov link, then the letter "D", and the world factbook developed countries list is right there on top. Led8000 (talk) 00:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Then explain it - not to me on my talk page, but on the talk page of the article. No one has touched that talk page in years. It is there to resolve disputes. Go there, lay out what the issue is, and explain why it should be the way it should be. Courteously. And ping the other editor so that they can come and reply or be convinced. You can't take the attitude that "I am so right that I don't even have to explain why I am right." That makes you look equally at fault for the disagreement. If you justify your edits on the talk page, then you have the high ground. And if they don't respond and just keep adding the "wrong" edits, then you might have a case for calling them a vandal. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you please apply indefinite full protection to that page, based on my past explanations? The temporary protection just expired and I know it will continue to get vandalized. You can see what I did on the talk page, and there was no response or explanation before or after it was vandalized again, which happened before I corrected the page again and it got temporarily protected. Led8000 (talk) 12:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, let's get one thing straight: we do not full-protect articles indefinitely. We full-protect only when necessary to stop an ongoing edit war, and for the shortest time possible. If there is a problem with ongoing edit disputes, we try to resolve them rather than locking the article. I see you did get someone to full-protect the article for a week. When the full-protection expires, we will not extend it just on the possibility that edit warring might resume. We do not protect pages pre-emptively, but only when necessary to prevent disruption and for the shortest time that will accomplish that. So, let the protection expire and see what happens. If the other user resumes their changes, let me know and I will talk to them on their talk page, ask them what they are basing their changes on, if they have a source or what, and explain what can happen if they keep adding unsourced content. (BTW is there really not a more up-to-date source for this list than 1991?) -- MelanieN (talk) 15:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for recognizing it and saying you can help out with the article. The list is technically up to date. It has been published as an identical list in every World Factbook for over 20 years. I think that Wikipedia should properly represent sources and should not be inaccurate. This link https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/appendix/appendix-b.html is the part of the current CIA World Factbook where you can see the current list of "Developed Countries", according to the World Factbook. If you click the letter "D" after you click that link, the list is the first entry. Led8000 (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Led8000: I notice that the article lead is self-contradictory: it says "This list of DCs is identical to the list in The World Factbook published as early as 1991" but then it says 10 countries have been added since then. So it's not identical to the 1991 list? You might want to clear that up, now that the protection has expired. Maybe change from "identical to" to "based on". -- MelanieN (talk) 16:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It is identical. There is a list of "developed countries (DCs)" and "less developed countries (LDCs)" in the World Factbook. The Wikipedia article said 10 countries were added as members of the "Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development". It inaccurately said India was added as a member of that organization. I corrected and updated a few things in the article. Led8000 (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Is this the right place to contact you about a protected page/ edit you have made?
Or is there another section of the website that is more appropriate?Scotthart1 (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, Scotthart1. Yes, this is the right place. Unfortunately I am leaving town in a few hours and won't be back until Sunday so I probably won't be able to respond in time. I am guessing you are talking about the discussion at Talk:Donald Trump that I closed. Go ahead and make your comments about it there; other people may want to chime in too, and if most people want to re-open it, that can be done. Put your comments at the bottom of the section, underneath the line that says . That way your discussion will be outside of and below the closed part. As for why I closed it: Wikipedia talk pages are subject to  WP:Talk page guidelines: "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic: the talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not vent your feelings about it." Talk pages are for discussing what should be in the article, but not for expressing opinions, or engaging in political or philosophical discussion or disagreement. A little bit of such discussion can't be helped, especially at political articles, but when it becomes a long debate it is disruptive to the page. Closing it was not intended as criticism of you or any of the others participating in that discussion; it was just a recognition that the section was going very far astray from discussing specific changes to the article, and was becoming a political debate rather than a Wikipedia discussion. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)