User talk:MelanieN/Archive 60

RFPP
Hello MelanieN, thank you for you for your work on here. You declined two of my reports at RFPP and I just wanted to offer diffs in case you missed some of it. These diffs are from the last few days. Clearly some of these edits wouldn't look like vandalism to someone unfamiliar with the topic area so I understand. I am only expecting to get a short protection period, to get the ball rolling. Since these articles about upcoming major events always suffer from heavy vandalism/disruptive edits, there will be multiple protection periods in the future. StaticVapor message me!   18:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * AEW All Out Unsourced addition, unsourced content, deliberate factual error, vandalism, and unsourced addition
 * Extreme Rules (2019) Deliberate factual error, factual error, vandalism, and deliberate factual error


 * Hello, StaticVapor, and thanks for the note. What I'm seeing is not a whole lot of editing activity at that article, and the problem edits are rather spread out. Also, there does appear to be some constructive editing by IPs. So I hesitated to impose semi-protection. However, this could be a good case for WP:Pending changes protection. Do you think that will allow you to deal with the unsourced and problematic errors adequately? I see that you already have the "pending change reviewer" right. An advantage of PC protection is it can be for a longer period of time (since it does not totally block out IP/new users but just requires that their edits be screened before they go live). -- MelanieN (talk) 20:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I would think with pending changes it might end up getting out of hand. I see myself requesting semi protection for these articles again in no time, based on how this usually goes with scheduled PPV articles. I would be open to it for the time being, if you think semi protection would be too much. A problem with PC is I have seen factual errors and unsourced changes get accepted before. StaticVapor message me!   23:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's true that PC means that the "regulars" have to keep monitoring the page. But it does give you some control and it can be imposed for months at a time. I'm going to put PC on the articles and see how it goes. If you find it more trouble than it is worth I can take it off. PC can only work if editing is fairly slow; it is a pain in the keester if there is a lot of problem editing. But when that happens we can add a few days' semi-protection without removing the PC, and the PC will persist when the semi ends. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. The PC will last until the events are over. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for giving this issue some attention, I really do appreciate it. StaticVapor message me!   04:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Unlock the hulk page those edits were not vandalism but correcting an error
The incorrect information was being placed please unlock it Hhggtg3279 (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Yo, Hhggtg3279 (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Please unlock the hulk page it was not vandalism Hhggtg3279 (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

www.imdb.com/name/nm0001570/ Hhggtg3279 (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

That shows norton provided vocals as hulk Hhggtg3279 (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * IMDB is not a WP:Reliable Source. Adam9007 (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

First, Hhggtg3279: DON'T make your comments in a string of single sentences, as you did here and as you are doing at the article talk page. That makes it hard for anyone to reply to you. Say what you have to say, in a single edit as I am doing here, and wait for people to respond.

Second, I see that you are offering a couple of sources at the talk page, but they are not Reliable Sources. One is IMBD, which is not reliable because anyone can edit it, and the other is a fansite. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Third, if you continue to edit war your own version into the article you are likely to be blocked. Edit warring is against the rules here even if you think you are right. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok here's a website www.behindthevoiceactors.com/Edward-Norton/ it says norton voices banner and thus is not a fan site Hhggtg3279 (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Here another one that states norton is is Banner / hulk nerdist.com/article/marvel-6-re-casting-avengers-infinity-war-2/ Hhggtg3279 (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Heck it even says on Edward Nortons filmography that he didn't portray Bruce Banner but also the hulk en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Norton_filmography

The point I was trying to make was that on the hulk film page it should be Bruce Banner / Hulk Hhggtg3279 (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I was edit-conflicted when I tried to reply. That's what I meant when I said don't keep making multiple short edits. It makes it hard for people to reply to you.
 * What I was going to say: Make your arguments at the talk page, not here. But I doubt if behindthevoiceactors qualifies as a Reliable Source - which we define as a publication with editorial control and a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Nerdist is not a Reliable Source. What we need is PUBLISHED sources that have a good reputation for being accurate and authoritative. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok how's this it clearly states in it norton portrays Bruce Banner and the hulk in the 2008 film, this is an old article from 2008 by the Seattle times concerning the release of the 2008 reboot.

www.seattletimes.com/entertainment/movies/the-incredible-hulk-brings-out-the-best-8212-and-the-beast-8212-in-edward-norton/ Hhggtg3279 (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Let me say it one more time: my talk page is the wrong place for you to be making your arguments. Show your sources at the article talk page and get consensus there for what you want to say. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Here's another one www.mtv.com/news/2593169/tim-blake-nelson-will-battle-hulk-as-the-leader-in-incredible-hulk-2-with-or-without-ed-norton/ Hhggtg3279 (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Game of law
Dear First in Lady name, (I would tack this on to the same, old topic, but I gather that is not your preference.) 1. Would you mind checking that I did this right, please? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Histnewbie#Proposed_deletion_of_Adam_Dodek (There are so many various procedure pages to be found about most things that I seldom feel confident that I'm doing many things correctly.) 2. I found this quite odd, and I mention it because I come across it not infrequently, by editors new and old. Beyond as I have, I have no idea what to do about it when patterns are seen, (which I am as yet unaware of in this case). I'd appreciate your advice, if you have any and can spare the time... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Melcous#Reed_Smith Thank you, Madam T.Lindenfall (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Replying elsewhere. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Is this a legal threat?
This, considering his strange edits at Dean Lonergan. Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 00:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * (stalker) Probably. However, per WP:DOLT, they have a point.  I've removed what I consider BLP-violating material, but haven't touched the NLT issue. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:19, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Something's just occurred to me; I can't remember if I've asked this before, but does threatening to go to the Old Bill (or saying they're involved) constitute a legal threat? Or is that reserved for things like suing? If it wasn't for his use of the word 'legal' I might not have considered it a legal threat. Adam9007 (talk) 01:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for handling this, Adam and Floquenbeam - also Liz. I think your interpretation of "bluster" (aka "bluff") is correct; imagine the police taking an interest in somebody removing content from Wikipedia! But it did alarm Jack, as well it might. I agree with you, Floq, that some of the content you removed might have been acceptable but the sources are shaky. If Liam re-adds it, we'll deal with him on his page or the talk page. If Jack re-adds it, which I doubt, we can talk to him about sourcing. IMO the remaining question now is, what if our blustering friend doesn’t remove the apparent LT on his talk page? If reverts it, fine. If he doubles down, banhammer. If he just quietly goes away - ignore it??? -- MelanieN (talk) 02:19, 6 June 2019 (UTC) (BTW I am always learning at WP. "Old Bill" was a new one to me, I had to look it up. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC))
 * Sometimes folks who overplay their hand at trying to intimidate other editors back down when confronted. This editor might just disappear but if they don't, they've been warned. I take a literal view towards legal threats--I want to see the words "I, or my lawyer, is/will be suing Wikipedia", not just "legal action will be taken if you don't listen to me blah blah blah"--but I know many admins will block with even a hint of legalese. It's a judgment call. Liz Read! Talk! 03:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a judgement call. Personally, I think ignoring things and see if they fade away is an underutilized skill here.  That's what I'd recommend.  But as Liz says, some admins would block at this point. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Unda
Hi, the current version of this page contains unsourced and incorrect information added by a sockpuppet. Don't know why this guy is doing this. Page was protected for adding unsourced/poorly sourced contents, but unfortunately the sock re-added the content just before the protection and still remains there (also added two non-RS sources). It needs to be undone. 2405:204:D006:D0B7:D8F0:BB2D:ACDE:7557 (talk) 08:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello. Thanks for the note. I have reverted the edits by the blocked sock. -- MelanieN (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Optional_RfA_candidate_poll
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Optional_RfA_candidate_poll. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Misuse of talk page?
Hi,

Lately I've noticed several queer posts at Wikipedia talk:Create a new language in Wikipedia that don't seem to have anything to do with the redirect (not to mention some of them seem to be BLP violations to boot). I have no idea how they got there, but should the posts be removed? Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 03:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Weird. Why do people do this, at that article of all places? Anyhow GAB has now indefinitely semi-protected the talk page. I see that kind of post was routinely removed throughout 2018; the last half dozen have been left alone but I think you would be justified in removing them all. After all you have GAB's word for it that they are vandalism. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That's what I was wondering. I'm not seeing anything in the log, nor am I seeing a notice when I click 'Edit' . Adam9007 (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * My mistake, GAB protected the redirect page, not the talk page. And that was back in September. Must've not had my coffee! I'll protect the talk page and clean it up. And maybe trout myself for not paying better attention to what I was saying. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Press mention
You were mentioned in the press here.  CookieMonster755 ✉  17:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

That's a very good article, and your work at Donald Trump is exemplary, MelanieN. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  03:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes. Got it in the "press section" of my talk page already. I agree, that was a very well researched and written article - an unusually realistic portrait of how things actually work here. We had quite a discussion of that article at the Trump talk page, here. Thanks for the notice, CookieMonster - and thanks for the kind words, Cullen. The incident they recount with the compromised accounts - that was a pretty wild ride for a week or two there. Not gonna say how we finally solved it. Trolls have ears. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link to that talk page discussion of the Slate article, MelanieN. Also well worth reading. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)


 * On an unrelated note, its unusual that I get the honor of handing out an awarded I first suggested, so thanks for that as well :) I do wish that the story had made note of the consensus section on the talk page though, at the moment he's got the only 'current consensus' list among the living presidents which is I think to be part of the reason that the article's body stays in something akin to a decent shape. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow, a barnstar from the author! Would you mind autographing it for me? 0;-D Yes, the consensus list does get argued over from time to time, but it does make it easier to deal with (most of) the perennial suggestions and comments. Some of them keep resuming no matter what. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC) P.S. Actually Talk:Barack Obama has an "FAQ" page which serves pretty much the same function. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That point I do concede, however the subtle difference between the two (at least to me) is that the FAQ appears more diplomatic than the current consensus list :) Perhaps it is the difference in the respective administration's priorities, or maybe Obama was better at building bridges than Trump is. Or it could simply be that the people embraced Obama as one of them as opposed to rejecting everything they believe (or perhaps perceive) that Trump stands for. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Lowkey suspect COI editing as Milania Knauss (dont stab me) --NikkeKatski &#91;Elite&#93; (talk) 16:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oops, you caught me! See, there's even a picture on my user page. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Capitalization of "first lady"
Per MOS:JOBTITLES, "first lady" should be lowercase in most instances. (If WP doesn't capitalize "president," we shouldn't capitalize "First Lady.")

Eyer (talk) 03:26, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Please go to Talk:First Lady of the United States (note the capitalization in the title), where I have launched a discussion. I ask you not to do any more of this controversial retitling until consensus is reached at that page. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Done. Eyer (talk) 03:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Mudasser Zaheer a page that might of been recreated that you have salted
Okay so I found a page title Mudasser Asif Zaheer. I'm not sure if this is the same article as Articles for deletion/Mudasser Zaheer or not as the AFD didn't really tell me much if anything about this guy. Since you salted the original article I figured you might be able to tell. Thanks. Wgolf (talk) 00:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, Wgolf. Yep, it's identical to the previous ones. I deleted it per G4 and salted it. Thanks for catching this. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Admin help
Hi. I've actually never come across something like this. Back in 2015, an editor created the page Henry L. Brandon. However, they apparently worked on it on their user page, User:Brandonwikipage. A (now former) Admin, redirected the user page to the article, with the expressed rationale of maintaining attribution history. However, my feeling is that if this were a simple redirect, it would be eligible for speedy deletion under the cross namespace option (although that deals with redirects out of mainspace, and this is a redirect into mainspace). I was simply going to undo the redirect, to re-establish the user page. Thoughts?  Onel 5969  TT me 20:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a new one on me too. ("Brandon"wikipage? Way too late to ask them about any COI!) Apparently a histmerge was done so there is no need to maintain attribution. I agree, undo the redirect and then blank the page. I see the user is still currently active. Do you want to post a note on their talk page explaining what you did and why? Although that might not be necessary since you just pinged them. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your insight, as usual MelanieN. Have taken the steps you suggest above, and left a message on the editor's talkpage. Pretty bizarre, especially since it's lasted over 3 years. Onel 5969  TT me 21:30, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * A history merge wasn't done before. I just did one now. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 23:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, - so I'm guessing I don't have to do anything further?  Onel 5969  TT me 00:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, JJMC89! I confess I didn’t check, I just believed the edit summary (redirect due to merged history). What is the saying about what happens when you ASS...U...ME? 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 00:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem. You don't have to do anything further, Onel5969. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 00:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. That!
This is why I shouldn't edit on no sleep! Thanks for moving the notice.  Promethean  (talk) 23:55, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Thanks for putting that AfD out of its misery. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:20, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Request Admin assistance regarding a page
Ryzen page has been disruptively edit by multiple times by unregistered IP at random times. The article may be written from a fan's point of view too. There many playing the stalling game to prevent change too in talk page. What should be done? 1 2 3

These fans opinion editing mostly started to rise after the announcement of a newly release product - [|AMD Ryzen 3000]

Regice2020 (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi MenalieN. I think he must be talking about me. I tried to engage Regice2020 (or anyone, for that matter) in a discussion about the future of the Ryzen article when he nominated it for deletion without first leaving any comment on its talk page or even trying to improve the article. Within a matter of hours after his deletion request was refused he tried to get the article protected, not once but twice within a matter of a few hours. I'll let you judge for yourself whose edits have been the more desruptive but whatever your verdict I won't be dragged into an edit war. Sorry to have troubled you. Thank you. 87.75.117.183 (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

(Edit conflict; this was written before the message from 87.75 above. I'll respond to that next.) Hello, Regice. I remember you; you’re the one who kept trying unsuccessfully to get this Ryzen page protected. Now you are going through and deleting enormous quantities of what appears to be sourced content. And redeleting it all when it was restored. I see no contributions by you - zero - to the article’s talk page. The IP whose edits you object to has posted there several times.

This is about microprocessors, and I don’t have enough technical knowledge to evaluate the article. So I can’t tell whether you are right that the IP edits are disruptive, or if you are wrong and are disrupting the article yourself. So I am not able to assist with this situation. However, by posting it here on my talk page you may have called it to the attention of other people (admins or not) who know enough about the field to figure out what is going on.

Meanwhile, you ABSOLUTELY need to state your case on the talk page: not by throwing around words like “disruptive” and “fan,” but by stating clearly what material you believe does not belong in the article and why. If you keep removing this stuff without explanation, you could wind up in trouble regardless of the rights and wrongs of the situation. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello, 87.75.117.183. Your description of the situation matches my research into it. I'm hopeful that maybe a talk page stalker here might be "techie" enough to look at the article and see what content it should have. Unfortunately the page doesn’t appear to have any regular watchers except for you and Regice. Or maybe I can ping a tech guru or two and see if they want to weigh in. We used to have a WikiProject devoted to computer hardware, but it appears to be inactive. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm going to back off for a while and see if anyone wants to discuss the best way to proceed with the article. Many thanks for your time. 87.75.117.183 (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm a techie, and I'd expect to see lists of models and tech specs, it not in the article then in a list. Not sure if that's the norm however, but it's not something I'd be surprised to see in such an article or list. Adam9007 (talk) 21:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input, Adam. Looking at other articles in Category:Advanced Micro Devices x86 microprocessors: I see that Opteron has such a list with a lot of technical detail. So does Athlon. I wonder if that suggests that such material is commonly included? The disputed edits here removed virtually all of the technical information. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:20, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's been a while since I was actively into that kind of thing (other stuff got in the way, if you know what I mean...), but donkey's years ago (well before I became an editor here) I seem to remember getting a lot of my technical knowledge from Wikipedia. I certainly remember seeing lists of models and tech specs in CPU articles. I distinclty remember one processor in particular I needed to know about (Pentium II) and there was similar suff there if memory serves. Adam9007 (talk) 22:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

The goal is to move forward with the big changes to address most of the issues since 2017. No more stalling / no inactivity > Move Forward > Organize > Submit. Now easy to correct page. That was the goal. Ryzen article was improve with Advanced Micro Devices, List of AMD Ryzen microprocessors and Ryzen. Regice2020 (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I compared the two versions. It looks to me as if the material Regice wants to add, and 87.75.117.183 wants to delete, (my mistake; this is longstanding content) Regice wants to remove and 87.75.117.183 wants to retain consists of: most of the content of the “Product lineup” section including virtually all the technical data in both prose and table form, and the entire section called “Known issues” thus removing all negative information about the item. Regice, is that accurate? What is your reason for removing that material? -- MelanieN (talk) 22:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The security flaws under known issues was improved to another article. AMD now has that security flaws information. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Advanced_Micro_Devices&oldid=903123571. It make more sense since this not just Ryzen security flaws. Regice2020 (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It make sense just to put it under the hood of the company page just like Intel page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel#Pentium_flaw Regice2020 (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The security flaws are specific to Ryzen processors, not to AMD, the company. 87.75.117.183 (talk) 22:25, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Look, I don’t understand microprocessors, but I do understand Wikipedia process. That was longstanding content. You removed it. The removal was challenged. That means it should be restored, and you CANNOT remove it unless you get consensus to do so on the talk page. When material has been in the article for a long time, the default is to keep it unless there is consensus to remove it. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What consensus ? The Ryzen talk page is very inactive. I mean i had use the AFD1 just to get their feedback? What? Edit Activity started in main page after a AFD was made. That was not acceptable way to get feedback. Rework was made as they wanted in AFD, but again undo. Regice2020 (talk) 03:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a very strange way of getting people's attention. Why didn't you post on the talk page? I would have answered you. Meanwhile you ignore advice and just keep arguing. I had to fix the three articles you messed up. 87.75.117.183 (talk) 03:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Firstly, you can stop using the edit summary to repeatedly accuse someone of vandalism. No one wanted delete so it was keep for a rework. There was no damage cause but a rework was made base on the feedback. It was undone by you personally.  Please use own account to talk to contact me instead to make sure you are not the  people that voted keep in that AFD thanks. The Ryzen page wanted only AMD fan-based changes, so i am out of there going back MMA-related Wikipedia page. Regice2020 (talk) 03:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN, be aware that this discussion has spilled onto ANI here. --Jprg1966</b> <sup style="color: #003366;">(talk) 01:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Legal threat?
Hi,

Could this be construed as a legal threat? Report me to whom? The Old Bill? The Ip was adding copyright violations and making personal attacks when I removed them. Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 01:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow, what a sweetheart! Acroterion seems to have taken care of them - blocked them, blocked talk page access, and revdel'ed all the rants. That person has a serious problem. But I don't think you do. I wouldn't take that as a legal threat. "Report you" most likely means to Wikipedia. More likely yet, it doesn't mean anything. I wish the block was longer, but by the time it expires they will probably have found someone else to harass. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * On reflexion, I'm wondering if I was a bit heavy-handed in reverting the copyvios? I knew they were copyvios on sight (I encountered the same copyvios last night (I think)), so I used the quickest method to get rid of them ASAP and hopefully avoid edit conflicts. Not to mention my mouse is starting to go haywire, so I didn't want that preventing me from removing the copyvios. Maybe that's what got him vexed? Adam9007 (talk) 04:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You did exactly right. IMO this was a person who didn't need any excuse to explode. They learned their "manners" in the nastier corners of the internet, and they enjoy deploying them at the slightest excuse or no excuse at all. I'm just sorry you were the target. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Tom Trbojevic
You recently protected Jake Trbojevic, his brother's page is suffering similar vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.150.71.154 (talk) 02:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know, I have given it temporary semi-protection as well. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:17, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Etika (streamer)
Hi,

Was this proper? Hope you don't mind. Adam9007 (talk) 20:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input, but I removed the RM tag. I don't think an RM is necessary in this case. It would just delay the decision which is urgently needed. The article is brand new (less than 24 hours old), about a high-profile and very sensitive subject, and is being very heavily viewed and edited. The page has been titled and retitled three times in the last few hours. It is currently move-locked at a title which is not ideal. I believe consensus will be reached very quickly and the page can have the permanent home it needs, long before the usual 7-day period an RM takes. Call it IAR or admin discretion. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

HM Prison Thameside
Hi,

Just wanted to respond re the declined request for protection. I am new to Wikipedia policy, so perhaps semi-protection is unjustified in this case, however I would like to dispute the claim that the IP edits are constructive. They are indeed malicious, as evidenced by the fact that the same IP has made 2 edits in 5 days each with different company/director names. I further note that Tesco is actually a supermarket and Easyjet is an airline, both of which clearly have no business operating a prison.

Since you are away on vacation I will re-raise the request for protection, but having read the policies more carefully perhaps pending changes is more appropriate. Obviously please let me know if you disagree!

Hope you enjoy your vacation :) Saint1997 (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Since Melanie is on vacation I might as well see whats going on Saint1997. It looks like the IP had kept updating the info incorrectly, replacing Serco with Tesco. But I'll look further into it to see if theres any shenanigans. For now the IP might not persist these changes any longer. If it does persist you could likely re-try page protection or other action.


 * I’ve taken care of it. Happy holidays! --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you in behalf of Melanie :D. Me, Along with many other wikijaguars (who only watch this page because its milania knauss) will be watching this page, doing our duty to serve the superior MelanieN (A Fine member of the Mop Corps if I do say so myself) --NikkeKatski &#91;Elite&#93; (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Malcolm. I love my stalkers! -- MelanieN (talk) 21:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Malcolm. I love my stalkers! -- MelanieN (talk) 21:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)