User talk:MelanieN/Archive 65

Poland in No-Go Zones
Hi, I just wanted to tell you that "Polish LGBT Free Zones" are places that declared that LGBT will not be promoted by goverment. That's all. LGBT people have all the same rights in those zones as in the rest of Poland. "LGBT Free Zone" Stickers were made by a newspaper and made this whole declaration popular in media but are not supported by goverment. You have restored this info to Wikipedia, could you either fix it, add whole Poland to it (as LGBT is protected equaly in whole Poland) with countries like Croatia, Lithuania and Cyprus (LGBT are more discriminated in those places than in Poland - https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra-eu-lgbt-survey-main-results_tk3113640enc_1.pdf ) Together with those countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_for_homosexuality and places like North east England and Wales (https://www.stonewall.org.uk/system/files/lgbt_in_britain_hate_crime.pdf)82.3.126.207 (talk) 02:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Discuss it on the article talk page. You and the others have two days to figure out what to say, while the article is locked from editing. But if you are trying to say we should remove the material, you will have trouble convincing anyone - because the current paragraph has twelve reliable sources. You need a really, really good reason to delete information that is supported by lots of reliable sources. Talking about what happens in other countries is not a good reason. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Dear MelanieN, thank you for upholding your solemn duty to protect WP:THEWRONGVERSION. Icewhiz is smiling down upon us today. Elizium23 (talk) 12:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * LOL! Thanks. I studied hard for my RfA, so I know my duty. 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 15:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Whack-a-mole


Are we having fun yet? -- MelanieN (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, but zzuuzz is currently at the top of the score board. Curses! Favonian (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've got a banhammer around here somewhere. I get bored quickly these days. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

123Movies
Hi MelanieN. You replied to my RPP appeal for 123Movies for greater protection. The thread is now archived so I cant reply to it. I overhauled this article in early 2019 (there is little more to add to it as it is now shut down). Since doing this, it appears almost daily in my watchlist for IP vandalism. Because there are other movie streaming sites that use a derivative name of 123Movies, the IPs are actively trying to embed spam links to their sites into the WP article.

As I said at RPP, it is running at well over 30 reverts per month for vandalism since overhaul. I am surprised that such a situation is just pending changes, the lowest level of protection? Shouldn’t we use semi-protection? I have done a decent few RPPs on WP and have seen all types of WP vandalism and gotten various types of protection applied, but I have never seen an article in WP with this level of vandalism? Sorry for this, but it just sees so extreme to me? Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 22:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for coming here to discuss it, Britishfinance. Different admins have different standards for when to apply semi-protection vs. PC protection. (BTW, PC is not the lowest level of protection. The lowest level is no protection at all.) I freely admit that PC protection can be a pain in the posterior for the page watchers, who have to review each non-autoconfirmed edit and either accept it or revert it. And 30 reverts per month is a little more than what can work for PC; that's why Muboshgu gave you a month of semi-protection. You should be happy about that, rather than objecting that it wasn't longer. A month is a very long time to have semi-protection, which is supposed to be imposed for the shortest time that will do the job. In contrast, PC protection (since it does not lock anyone out) can be for much a longer time - months or a year or longer. PC is ideal for an article which has occasional, but recurrent, problem edits; a typical pattern might be several bad edits a week over a period of many months. This article exceeded that. So you got what you asked for: semi-protection, and for a good long time at that. After the semi-protection expires, there will still be protection, namely PC. At that time, if problem edits are still being made at too great a rate, it can be considered whether to semi-protect again and for a longer time. A second imposition of semi-protection would probably be for an escalating length of time, but don't expect it to be a year. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks MelanieN, I appreciate the response. I have a feeling that this will go on for a period until movie streaming sites stop using 123movie derivative names. I would be interested if you consider adding to you watch list.  I feel bad having fixed up this article to see pending changes editors having to work on it almost daily. And as I said there is little more to add to it has it is now closed (there are few other refs on it). Thanks again. Britishfinance (talk) 22:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Rather than me putting it on my watchlist (which is kind of heavily loaded already), I suggest you wait a month to see how this turns out. After the semi-protection expires, give it a week or two to see what happens; wait long enough to establish a pattern. And if unconstructive editing resumes at too heavy a rate, you can ask me to take a look at it again. Or if you prefer, you can take it to RfPP again. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, of course, I understand. I will do that. Kind regards, Britishfinance (talk) 01:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry to badger you on this MelanieN, but today, just post the new protection, we have an editor with 33 edits but been around since 2013 (meets the semi-protection, I don't know how these accounts get done, but I see them frequently on WP), pasting in a spam-link to a blog article listing the alternative live streaming sites (all illegal) to Movies123. . As I said, even though Movies123 was shut down, the WP article still gets a massive amount of hits per day, and it is a magnet for spammers? sorry. Britishfinance (talk) 11:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * In the case of an autoconfirmed user like that, all we can do is revert any problem edits, and that is what you should do. Be sure to use an edit summary explaining why. If they try to edit-war it back in, or if it turns out that the user makes a habit of problem edits, I can warn them to stop. I see that most of their edits consist of adding a link to an article - different links to different articles - but I don't know enough about the situation to know if those are problem links or not. Most of these edits have not been reverted and are still in the articles, which leads me to assume they are not problematic. Recent examples here and here. Were those links to illegal sites, or to sites that are unrelated to the subject of the article, or were they legit? -- MelanieN (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Third opinion sought at Talk:The Daily Caller
I am having a conversation with a paid editor at Talk:The_Daily_Caller. The Flynn and Sackler stories look like something we might actually be able to work with (though so far I have only found secondary sourcing on the former), while the Bachmann item looks like it would be a BLP violation. A third opinion would be greatly appreciated, particularly since this week I seem to be juggling work obligations and a cold. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Questions about a recent deletion from Epstein Death article
Hiya Melanie, I noticed you removed Barr's remarks because "he doesn't know anything". Barr's comments are worthy of inclusion because he is in charge of the investigation. Barr is the "ultimate authority over the investigation" and as such, the deletion in question strikes me as odd.
 *  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   02:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, Petrarchan, thanks for asking.. What I meant was that he has no specialized knowledge about the autopsy, any more than anyone else who read the autopsy report (if he has even done that). He's not a pathologist, he wasn't present at the autopsy, and I very much doubt if he was briefed on it or has ever spoken to anyone in depth about it. The Inspector General of the DOJ is actually investigating Epstein's death, and when the IG comes out with an opinion, that will be worthy of inclusion. But Barr's comment was about as passive and vague as it could have been, giving no indication he has given it a minute's thought or investigation. His total comment was "I have seen nothing that undercuts the finding of the medical examiner that this was a suicide." A comment like that adds nothing to the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding. My thinking is that as an official statement regarding the autopsy, it was important and encyclopedic. According to NYT, "Barr is personally overseeing the four federal inquiries into the matter and is briefed on them multiple times a day... He stayed apprised of the autopsy...". It also says they are closing in on a "definitive account of the failings that led to Mr. Epstein’s suicide", so you'd probably be more accepting of his words if summarizing the definitive account. My only concern is that the decision to include or delete this is entirely subjective and it really shouldn't be that way. Is he important to the story? He could hardly be more important. Was it well covered by RS? Yes. To have the overseer of the investigations uphold the NY medical examiner's finding is entirely encyclopedic, and while I don't really care, and I don't like or trust the guy to be honest, it bothers me that inclusion of his statement depends on whether you think he's being briefed sufficiently. I'd like to think the rules for sourcing and inclusion are pretty clear, and in this case I do not agree that your speculation justifies deleting it. Again, I don't really care, but it's frustrating to think I can understand PAGs yet someone's opinion can override them. Does this make sense? I don't want to offend you but am trying to explain from my side of things.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   04:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was my opinion. I still believe it was a nothingburger of a comment and added nothing significant to the article. But if you wish to restore it, I have no objection. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:09, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I do think it's a data point worthy of inclusion given that it is the official position of the US government. I realized after writing to you last night that my concerns extend to your entire edit which removed 3 bits, all well-sourced and encyclopedic, in my opinion. I am following the story very closely, but for those who aren't, I can see how your deletions would make sense. You may have never heard of the meme "Epstein didn't kill himself", however it is making headlines and I thoroughly expected it to be included in the "death" article. Otherwise, our readers will have no idea what this was about:
 * A GOP congressman hid a meme about Jeffrey Epstein’s death in his impeachment tweets
 * The meme has been covered by RS, here are a few articles:
 * Why “Jeffrey Epstein Didn't Kill Himself” Started Trending Almost Three Months After His Death
 * 'Epstein didn't kill himself' meme joins the mainstream as viral craze now infiltrates Congress
 * 'Epstein didn't kill himself' and the viral power of conspiracy theory memes
 * As for the ABC story, it is a big one. The editor used a shoddy source, which may be the only source you've seen and would justify your edit summary, "this isn't the National Inquirer". The ABC story was first reported by NPR this summer. It re-emerged when footage of Robach complaining to her producer was leaked to media. In short, Virginia Roberts Guiffre was in hiding after getting free from Epstein 15 years prior and had never given an interview. ABC/Robach talked her into coming out of hiding and telling her story for the first time. Roback's words are informed by extensive interviews and the research she put into making the piece. So her summary of the situation is RS. The story and the subsequent fallout are notable and getting lots of press; here is a sample: DB, NPR, WaPost, BI, Newsweek, BI2. It's a story that belongs in both the main and "death" articles. Should I raise these issues at the talk page instead, or would you be fine with manually reverting your edit based on these sources?    petrarchan47  คุ  ก   23:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The other two issues you mention - memes and Amy Robach - have already been restored with better sources by other people. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * P.S. And my edit summary didn’t say "This isn’t the National Enquirer." It said "Removing Amy Robach item: trivia, and non-reliable source." The source cited was insider.com. According to Insider.com, "The official website, insider.com, launched in May 2016 and focuses on lifestyle articles, with Facebook pages dedicated to topics such as food, art, and travel." I think I was justified in regarding it as a non-reliable source. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You were absolutely justified for removing both bits citing unreliable sourcing. I'm not sure where on earth I got the idea that you made the edit summary I quoted. Sorry about that! Have a nice weekend   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   23:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You were absolutely justified for removing both bits citing unreliable sourcing. I'm not sure where on earth I got the idea that you made the edit summary I quoted. Sorry about that! Have a nice weekend   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   23:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Question about possible WP:DE
I just want clarification. Let's say that someone that is "participating" in the discussions by keep throwing in the same canned comments over and over again, would that be considered WP:DE? I think this would violate '''Rule #4. Does not engage in consensus building''' since someone who is just throwing in canned comments is clearly not engage in consensus building. TheHoax (talk) 22:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a sticky problem. Should I be dragged through the same old unvarying "discussion" that has occurred on countless previous articles – usually embarrassingly circular and repetitive even within a single discussion – simply so editors new to the issue can read that? Or should my fully-articulated !vote suffice for those new editors? On balance, I think the latter. And it's only the new editors where it makes a difference, the regulars at these discussions are already well familiar with the arguments.And failing to be swayed by opponents' arguments does not mean one is "not engaging in consensus building". I have carefully considered all opposing arguments and I have not found them persuasive – just like you, Hoax, and every other participant in the discussions. Like most issues, there is little room for compromise on this one, but I have already agreed to support inclusion of names on a very selective basis for individuals who played a significant active role in the event (dying at the hands of another is passive, not active). That's about as much consensus building as I can muster. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Mandruss, why don't you just make a bot that automatically searches Wikipedia, open RfC, and copy & paste your canned comments? It seems like a waste of time for a human to do it. TheHoax (talk) 23:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, let's just stop this. You saw that I hatted a bunch of unproductive accusations at the article page; don't bring them here. Bottom line: there is nothing disruptive about reverting an edit, as some people tried to claim; that is exactly in line with how BRD works. There is nothing disruptive about using the same arguments to support your position at different articles; everybody does it, since the same issues tend to come up over and over. On the other hand, I think it could be considered disruptive to remove the RfC tag from an RfC, but I will let that be decided at the ANI. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Not to put too fine a point on it, but whether Locke Cole needs a sanction, which is the only issue relevant at ANI, is apart from whether the discussion needs the RfC tag. You've stated in two places you feel the discussion needs to be an RfC, so why don't you restore the tag as an interested non-admin? I would like to see the tag restored, but I'm the wrong person to do that at this point. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Here we have Mandruss agitating once again for legal action against another editor, gaming the system as usual. MelanieN—how can you say ? When the reverting of the edit is Mandruss or WWGB removing victim names it is disruptive. Others can remove victim names; Mandruss and WWGB cannot. They are hovering over every article of this nature at its inception to bypass ordinary editing as may be done by myriad editors. This is their thing. They are overlords. We do not need overlords. Every aspect of what Mandruss and WWGB do in relation to victim names is gaming the system. Nobody else is counting the hours to see if "status quo ante" applies. Nobody else is immediately initiating RfCs. There is no normal discussion preceding these RfCs. And Mandruss and WWGB by and large do not participate in what is supposed to be a process crucially involving dialogue. Mandruss won't engage in dialogue concerning "privacy concerns", arguably the key issue in whether or not victim names should be included. Only vague allusions to "privacy concerns" are made by Mandruss. There is no attempt to engage in dialogue about that key point. This is just gaming the system. And it is totally offensive and clearly disruptive. I would never post a canned comment to an RfC. I understand that editorial disputes are a natural part of collaborative editing. I try to meet other editors halfway. Is Mandruss really trying to engage in meaningful dialogue by posting canned boilerplate that he has posted at many other RfCs, many of which he initiated, and many of which follow from his removal of victim names added by others? This is anything but normal and anything but acceptable. And how often does Mandruss accuse others of disruption? This is the standard refrain heard from Mandruss: others are being disruptive. Wikipedia would function fine without these two overlords immediately reverting edits by others that happen to add victim names. This is disruption pure and simple. Mandruss and WWGB should not be permitted to immediately revert any addition of victim names. Bus stop (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As I already said (and sorry, MelanieN, for interjecting), both sides are repeating arguments because the dispute remains the same. Which is to say, open-ended. That's nobody's fault and is just a product of the case-by-case basis (versus overarching policy). I don't think that either of you should be calling to ban members of the opposition, but at any case, I find that when consensus is especially uncertain, the best way to codify it —per the given case— is through a discussion that is properly closed. But the number of these can, indeed, be daunting. An overarching policy or guideline would, therefore, be much sought after and therefore worth pursuing. El_C 01:02, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input and for chiming in here; I completely agree. Except that you are proposing a kind of false equivalency here. Both sides are not calling to ban members of the opposition. Just one is. This is the first time I have seen that kind of talk and I hope I don't see any more of it. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, I meant what I said: there is nothing disruptive about removing an edit. In fact. removing an edit you disagree with is absolutely in line with BRD. You have really crossed the line here when you try to assert some kind of ban: “Others can remove victim names; Mandruss and WWGB cannot.” “Mandruss and WWGB should not be permitted to immediately revert any addition of victim names.” That is an absurd proposal. As for “canned comments:” You are on one side of this debate; Mandruss is on the other; naturally you both tend to make the same arguments every time the subject comes up. Your accusations - “gaming the system”, “totally offensive,” “clearly disruptive” - are unjustified and need to stop. I assume you got the message and will not be using any more of that kind of talk at the article talk page; in fact if you do any more of that there, I might block you myself. I am sorry to see such talk spilling over to here. You might be wise to give yourself a voluntary topic ban: stop talking about Mandruss. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * MelanieN, in fairness, Mandruss was also calling for sanctions against Locke Cole. El_C 01:34, 18 November 2019 (UTC).
 * Sanctions, yes, through process. Not some kind of unilaterally imposed topic ban against making a revert that Bus stop doesn't like. But I see your point. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * While we're being fair, I have commented on various article talk pages that Bus stop was "flirting with" or "begging for" a topic ban, probably more times than I could fit on the fingers of one hand. Wrong venue, yes, but at least MelanieN knows how I feel about the inefficacy of ANI for addressing such long-term problems in established editors. It is a problem not of my making. But I claim a difference between that and lobbying admins on their talk pages for said ban. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes,, MelanieN, but shouldn't administrators such as you and El_C know more about that process than I? Honestly, I don't get into the legalisms of Wikipedia. It should not be necessary to know every rule in every nook and cranny to contribute constructively to this project. And I should add—to avoid creating unnecessary disruption.


 * And there are also calls for sanctions against me:


 * "As I've said elsewhere on this page: uninformed, and, since it's persistent, disruptive and begging for a TBAN."


 * "I'm done responding to your irrational, uninformed, and disruptive comments."


 * And possibly other times but too difficult to search for. Bus stop (talk) 02:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * It's not that complicated. An editor may be sanctioned by an admin for simple disruption, via blocks-only. They could be sanctioned by the community through an AN/I discussion (blocks and bans). Or they could be sanctioned through Arbitration enforcement (blocks and bans), singularly, by an admin; or, following a request at AE. El_C 02:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * —I envision something far simpler, at least as a first step. They should be told they should not hover over every article at its inception that might have victim names added only to immediately revert that edit. Easy peasy. This is not to say other editors can't remove victim names. And that is not to say they can't weigh in to Talk page discussions including RfCs. But it is blatantly obvious that the present actions, for instance at the Saugus High School shooting article, are part of a well-rehearsed routine. It is that routine that should be broken up at its source. These arguments may still continue. But it is the unfairness of these "specialists" that I find troubling. And I actually think that the drama would be reduced if the procedure was reduced to normalcy. These sorts of discussions can be found on Talk pages even 5 or 10 years old. Rarely do they even involve RfCs. A dozen editors weigh in and "consensus" is declared. That involves far less drama. Bus stop (talk) 02:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm less interested in potential drama than I am in getting further outside input and concluding with a formal close to the discussion that can leave little uncertainty. [A] well-rehearsed routine — indeed, but on the part of both sides, I challenge. El_C 02:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Not . Editors that I have never seen before commonly come to articles and add victim names. They are immediately reverted. They probably think they have done something wrong. When in fact they have not. Because policy does not prohibit the addition of victim names. Bus stop (talk) 03:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I disagree. I've seen plenty of variation over the last few months. I'm just not sure you're operating from a dispassionate and even-handed perspective here. El_C 03:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I definitely favor the inclusion of victim names. That doesn't mean I can't think fairly. I never add victim names. I have never initiated the adding of victim names. But I am a purist about Wikipedia's purpose: we are here to provide information. When a question of this nature arises I want to know first and foremost: are there privacy concerns? I don't think Wikipedia should do harm. Wikipedia should only do good. But there can't be privacy concerns. Common sense can tell you that if all the major media publish the names plus other information pertaining to the deceased plus photographic images, it can't then be argued that we are violating privacy concerns. But my opinion should not be foisted on other editors. What we want is sane discussion free of the many blemishes that can be found at Talk:Saugus High School shooting. Bus stop (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I never add victim names — this revert from yesterday speaks to the contrary. El_C 03:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * On fairness,, I think that was referring to adding victim names the first time, and not to restoring those names after they were removed by other editors. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  03:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Thanks, I could not make sense of that assertion. El_C 03:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That is correct, . Perhaps I was unclear. I do not believe I have ever initiated the adding of victim names to any article. Bus stop (talk) 08:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, Bus stop, on the 16th you added the names THREE TIMES in a 24 hour period. One more and you would have been blocked for edit warring. I was out of town that day so I missed it at the time, but you were undoubtedly the reason El C put in the 1RR restriction in the first place. Your claim "I never add victim names" should be modified by "but as soon as someone else adds the names, I will carry out a one-person edit war to keep them in." -- MelanieN (talk) 16:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * MelanieN—I do not initiate the addition of victim names to articles. I never have. I reverted in the midst of a dispute not initiated by me. Yes, technically reverting constitutes adding. Technically you are correct. But for the sake of this discussion can we recognize a distinction between initially adding material to an article and reversion in the midst of a dispute? Bus stop (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do recognize the distinction. Initially adding the names to the article would not be disruptive; that would be a normal thing to do, the first step in WP:BRD. On the other hand, edit warring to keep the names in, while the issue is still controversial and under discussion - that I consider disruptive. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * But there can't be privacy concerns. There's where you're wrong. That there are potential privacy concerns is a completely legitimate argument in these discussions, whether you agree with it or not. See WP:BLPNAME for other kinds of names that might be omitted for privacy reasons, even though they appear in the news. It is your persistent and aggressive failure to understand basic things like that about Wikipedia editing that makes me speak of topic ban. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * But your novel and idiosyncratic ideas have been debunked by numerous experienced editors before, including admins, and yet you keep regurgitating them at article after article. So I don't expect that being debunked once again this time around will have much effect. We'll see them rear their heads next time around, I have no doubt. You simply don't hear what you don't want to hear, from editors who know what they are talking about and have no skin in the game. That fairly sums up the Bus stop problem. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Mandruss, I have asked Bus stop to quit attacking you and stick to the content issues. I now similarly ask you to quit criticizing Bus stop. The war between the two of you is the main thing which has poisoned the Saugus discussion. Don't continue it here - or anywhere else, please. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Following this, I'm lost. It just sounds like some people aren't happy with how wikipedia works on a basic level. --NikkeKatski &#91;Elite&#93; (talk) 15:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it. It's about a perennial disagreement that always comes up when there is a mass shooting. There are two people who personify the opposite sides of the debate and make it personal against each other. My main goal has been to try to stop the personal bickering and focus on the content question. As you can see, I have not been very successful in that endeavor, but I'm still trying. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Your efforts are very much valued almost anywhere in wikipedia :P --NikkeKatski &#91;Elite&#93; (talk) 20:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Canvassing and postponement
I blocked TheHoax, so I'd rather limit discussion on the talk page of a blocked user. Anyway, in answer to your comment: I get the sense that fairness has been potentially undermined too much now — that regardless of how things transpire in the workshop phase, the proposal stage could be too tainted at this point. A month or two postponement may be the only way to be really sure. But I'm willing to wait a few days before we arrive at a decision, sure. El_C 18:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That seems to be the way things are going at the proposal. Canvassed people are going there to argue for inclusion. I agree with hatting them since they don't understand what that proposal is about, but it is still tainting the process. (God help us, by the time a month or two pass, we may have more of these articles to argue about. ) -- MelanieN (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Reversal of your hatting
Hi MelanieN. You recently hatted a number of editor comments at Talk:Saugus High School shooting. I have no problem with that, and understand your reasoning. However, another editor has recently reverted his comments from inside your hatting back to the open talk space. Here is the diff:. As this now-unhatted comment includes a quote from me, and criticism of me, it is out of context and unfair. Would you please have a look at this and, if you agree, return the comment to hatting. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * WWGB Hi, WWGB, thanks for the note. I noticed that the reply to you had been pulled out from under the hat (twice - once by the IP, and after you put it back, again by Bus stop). My feeling is that it really does belong in the main thread of discussion, as it is content related, but as you say it is missing context; your comment that Bus stop was replying to is still under the hat. So I have pulled your note out as well. (I had started the hat at that point because of your dig at the IP, but if someone is going to reply to you, either both comments should be under a hat or neither should.) -- MelanieN (talk) 00:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Your comment at AN/I
Hi, I just wanted to ask if you could double check the diffs you provided at your comment on AN/I, I think you may have mixed up the timestamps (and thus made an incorrect assumption about my behavior). —Locke Cole • t • c 05:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, Locke. According to the time stamps, in the history and in your contribution list, you added it on 11/16/19 at 17:02, and re-added it on 11/17/19 at 23:31. That was allowable, per 1RR, by 6 hours. As I said, it was a few hours past the 1RR point. It was not a 1RR violation. (If it had been, I wouldn't have just described it; I or someone else would probably have blocked you.) In any case, that ANI report has been closed without action, so it doesn’t matter. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Update: While the discussion at that article is ongoing, Locke Cole just re-added the names to the page - after implying earlier in the day that he wouldn’t do that because of the 1RR restriction.
 * To be clear, you have that backwards. I re-added the names, and after that, said I wouldn't do it again. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * OK. In any case, you didn't violate 1RR and the matter is closed. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Barr
Melanie, regarding your revert, let's work out something neutral, shall we? I hope that we can agree on a version to try to insert. I'm all ears.  starship .paint  (talk) 01:17, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * We could possibly do something about the Mueller report in the lead. We'd have to base it on the Mueller section in the article text. Something like 1) he did not recuse himself from the Mueller investigation despite calls to do so, 2) he held up the Mueller report while issuing his own summary of it, a summary which was called misleading by Mueller, 3) he later issued a redacted version of the full report. We might also want a sentence about his refusal to cooperate with congressional investigations, but it would have to be in the article text first. Want to add something there and then we can talk? -- MelanieN (talk) 03:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Copying these comments to the article talk page. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Melanie on Timothy MOrrison
I just wanted to thank you for your edit to this article. I was appalled at the editorial slant that was there before, but I am not familiar with how to edit with citations so did not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Molly+leo (talk • contribs)
 * Thanks. In that case it wasn't necessary to add any citations, just to remove the biased commentary. I'll post some suggestions on your talk page about how to do reference citations and otherwise learn your way around Wikipedia. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Epstein meme merger proposal
Hey, Mrs. T... didn't see you weigh in here, thought you might want to... Talk:Death of Jeffrey Epstein. Lindenfall (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the alert. I commented there. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Answer
Look, i appreciate your input, i really do, but i don't think you are getting a real grasp of the situation, putting me and him on an equal footing. I mean, i did try to make contact, he could have answered me at any point but he deleted both messages and then congratulated himself for acting the way he did? Like i said, this don't look like someone who is showing any williness to talk, even going to the extreme of removing an notice warning about the discussion involving the EW thing that might end in blocking, not even bothering to defend himself or dismiss it all together. He deleted all warnings, made sizeble changes to the article without quoting or referencing any sources (which can be revemoved at will, per WP:UNSOURCED) and when he did he used sources he used the ones that were already in the article that didn't mention anything about what he was saying (i mean, WP:OR is still a bad thing, right?). In light of all that, to say that we're engaging in a similar behaviour is, quite frankly, a bit disingenuous, with all due respect. But i'll try to follow your advice, i'll try to use the talk page now, but remember that the person who adds an unsourced infor to an article (especially one of political nature) and the person who removes it are not engaging in similar behaviour (WP:V). Thank you very much.


 * Ps: at any rate, i did open up a discussion on the matter, and mentioned the the other user's @ so he gets a notification. Coltsfan (talk) 11:32, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Ps²: just a fyi, i deleted my post on the Administrators' noticeboard and i'll refrain from making any further edits on that article. I left my opinion on the talk page and now i'll spare myself the headache. I just don't care one way or the other anymore.If unsourced, controversial and potentially false information is to remain in a article about a political group connected to living people, hey, have at it. I literally don't care all that much, i'm sitting this one out. But, i just ask you to keep in mind what i said before about putting someone like me (a user reverting someone adding unsourced content) on the same level as someone like him (a vandal). Just something to think about. Thanks for the wise words, and have a good one! Coltsfan (talk) 11:56, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Coltsfan, thanks for your comments. My intent was not to accuse you of anything or suggest that you two were on the same footing, not at all. My intent was to advise you, for the future, how to make the record clearly show that you are NOT on the same footing - how to prove that you are the good guy. You do that by explaining your edits on the article talk page. That's especially important if you are reverting someone over and over; you've got to make it clear WHY you are doing that, and why it is covered by one of the exemptions to WP:3RR. Edit summaries are not very helpful in that regard, and posting canned warnings on the person's talk page does not count as explaining or discussing. Sure, you can do those things too. But to really make it clear to any observer what is going on and why you are the one in the right, explaining the situation on the article talk page is essential. That simply means explaining what the issue is, and it could be a single sentence without any great need to justify your actions. (Example: "all sources (source, source, source) describe this party as "far right"; the other person keeps changing it to "right wing to far right" but that is not supported by sources.") You have now posted on the talk page, and better yet, someone has agreed with you, and the other person has not showed up. So the record is much clearer now. You would now be justified in continued reverting, and in taking the person to a notice board if they continue to insist on their version. You have now made it clear that this is not a content dispute, but an issue based on WP policy. (Up to now the "unsourced" issue has not been clear, because the other person WAS adding sources. You needed to show why the sources were bad - as you have now done.) -- MelanieN (talk) 23:30, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Some vegan turkey for you!

 * LOL! Thanks. Looks more like a Greek salad. Maybe if I pour a little gravy over it... -- MelanieN (talk) 23:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * A little green at the gills, but tasty.  SPECIFICO talk 23:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Green at the dills, you say? -- MelanieN (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * All I can say is that it looks tastier when you click for the enlargement. Happy American holiday.  SPECIFICO talk 23:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)