User talk:MelanieN/Archive 66

Spooky
We seemed to have had the same idea just now lol &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 18:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC) As to the off-wiki comments, I didn't say anything objectionable nor did I make things personally about you. What I say offwiki is comparable to what another user might say here. People don't like me. Also, you may personally accept my apologies that if I even for a moment considered your purposes on Talk:Epstein didn't kill himself were anything less than sincere as you consistently implied I was fabricating images; it's conduct that I may have tragically picked up from better editors than myself. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 18:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , Considering the untruthful comments you made about me on Discord, you were specifically instructed not to post to my talk page again. I have no idea why you decided to do so again, but this is your final warning never to post there again. - SchroCat (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * SchroCat, I hope you didn't mind my posting there. I just wanted to let you know that 1) you have won your point and 2) you could un-bottleneck the process by withdrawing the RfC. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Melanie, I have no problem with you posting there at all: you are welcome to do so anytime. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You didn't ping me, so I didn't get notified. I don't watch your page, but I fail to see how this matters since I rolled back my edit anyways.
 * Isn't it funny, MJL, that there is an expectation on your part that others must say nice things about you all of the time, as well as address you using your preferred pronoun, but that that level of civility isn't extended by you to anyone else.   Cassianto Talk  23:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Editor editing self promoting links into other peoples edits
I have reverted the 3 edits by The Newseum, but in case you missed it they intentionally inserted a link into a previous response. This may mark a single user, or there could be a burst of shill accounts promoting this site over the next few days / weeks. Not sure where it would need to be reported for monitoring as it could be very disruptive if multiple links across multiple articles are ghosted this way. Koncorde (talk) 11:36, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know, Koncorde, and thanks for reverting the edits. I have blocked this user. This is not only promotional behavior but an unacceptable username. If you suspect this is being done again by others, let me or someone know. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:31, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

victim names at Naval Air Station Pensacola shooting
Here we go again. An editor adds the victim names. Along comes to remove the victim names. I have never heard of, the editor who adds the names. VanEman is just an editor at Wikipedia—not someone involved in the dispute over victim names. Soon, either WWGB or another regular disputant will revert, cite "status quo ante", and start an RfC. Do you not see that this is disruptive? I have restored the victim names. But I consider myself to be taking a hands-off approach because I am not initiating the adding of victim names. I favor the inclusion of victim names. But I am willing to refrain from initiating the adding of victim names. As I have already mentioned I have never initiated the adding of victim names to articles. The disruption arises when a regular disputant initially adds or initially removes victim names. This is planned disruption. It occurs at article after article. WWGB and a few other regular disputants use a well-rehearsed procedure to create this drama at article after article. The solution to this problem is obvious: regular participants in this dispute must butt out of editing the article to initially add or initially remove victim names. Other editors should decide on their own whether the article is to contain victim names or not. Bus stop (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Bus stop, there is nothing disruptive about this. I don't know where you get the idea that people who have a strong feeling one way or the other should not be allowed to add or remove the names. Their removal keeps it out of the article while the discussion goes on, but eventually discussion by third parties will determine the outcome. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "Their removal keeps it out of the article while the discussion goes on" Why can't editors not involved in the dispute keep it out of the article? Because we thrive on the drama of a disruptive RfC over victim names at every article that might contain victim names? Anyone should be allowed to weigh into an RfC. But the present standard operating procedure forces the immediate creation of an RfC. At the time of removing victim names the standard operating procedure is to cite "status quo ante", forcing the immediate creation of an RfC. It would be hard to dream up a more disruptive approach to addressing the question of victim names. And bear in mind that this has come up many times in Wikipedia's long history. There is nothing wrong with the question. I respect the point of view that victim names should be omitted—although I disagree with that view. In the numerous times this question has arisen, it was resolved with little fanfare, generally without an RfC. Editors argued for a bit and then consensus was declared. The present well-rehearsed procedure maximizes drama and disruption. This is disproportionately caused by a very few editors. All of us should be told that we are not to be adding victim names or removing victim names from articles. Bus stop (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Bus stop, it's how BRD works. If something controversial is added, then reverted, it stays out of the article until consensus is reached. I can see you feel that this is somehow unfair, and that the "keep it out" users are gaming the system - but it is the system we have. And it doesn't happen at EVERY shooting article. I noticed that in another recent shooting, the victims' names are in the article and there hasn't been any controversy about it. BTW you will be glad to know that I just closed the Saugus article as "include". I figured I could do that without violating WP:INVOLVED since I was closing it with the opposite result from the one I favored. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's only controversial when certain editors are involved. In 90% of articles about events like these, the names are included. Just because a vocal minority is pushing an agenda not based on policy doesn't mean the rest of Wikipedia should suffer WP:POINT violations... —Locke Cole • t • c 23:54, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * All of us should be told that we are not to be adding victim names or removing victim names from articles. That is a proposal for a multi-editor topic ban. Proposals for topic bans are not presented on the user talk pages of admins. The proposal has exactly zero chance of passing, so many would see it as disruptive, but it should at least be made in the proper way in the proper venue. I have reverted your re-revert pending consensus to include the disputed content. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:41, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I've reverted you since the vast majority of articles include such a list, and not including a list is a violation of WP:NPOV, the facts are not in dispute and are reliably sourced as well. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:55, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * —you write "That is a proposal for a multi-editor topic ban. Proposals for topic bans are not presented on the user talk pages of admins." I will agree to not add victim names if you will agree not to remove victim names. I think that would reduce disruption. Can we agree to that? Bus stop (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No we cannot. As MelanieN just told you above, I don't know where you get the idea that people who have a strong feeling one way or the other should not be allowed to add or remove the names. You and I have just as much right to participate in the decision making process as anybody else, and I choose to exercise that right. What you do is entirely up to you, provided you operate within the standard process that has been explained to you countless times by many experienced editors including admins. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

BTW Bus stop, I see you have made no comment about the closure of the Saugus article, but you might take note of this: the names were immediately added to the article by WWGB - one of the people you regard as a committed opponent of such names. You might give them a little credit for this gracious action. -- MelanieN (talk) 05:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

This isn't a war, Its not a fight where there is a winning side, the only way to win is to reach a consensus regardless of whether or not you agree with it. We show up, discuss how to improve an article, even if the changes discussed go against what you want you can still help perfect the article to be the best it can be. If you are tired of this there was a proposal workshop that was opened, and could use a push from a couple more editors. It may or may not bring what you want to come to pass but the point is it would give us a lasting answer to a lot of potential rfc's. (Also don't revert reverts without consensus please. Thats just asking for an edit war) --NikkeKatski &#91;Elite&#93; (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Albert Camus
Hi there. An IP editor keeps upgrading a conspiracy claim at Camus article without any consensus at Talk. ,,. Can you pls have a look? Thanks. Cinadon36 19:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC) PS-one more time. Cinadon36 22:07, 11 December 2019 (UTC) Just for the record, one more. Cinadon36 07:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, Cinadon. Sorry for the delay, I've been busy offline. Looking at the article I see that it isn't just a matter of that one issue, and that there has been reverting by multiple editors and discussion at the talk page. I have full protected the page to stop the edit warring, and I made some comments on the talk page. Hopefully consensus will become clear enough, during the two days of full protection, that further edits against consensus can be dealt with appropriately. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Where do you get off claiming there is consensus to back Cinadon's position that the theory he wanted to exclude entirely from the page has to be labeled and dismissed as a "conspiracy theory"? I see a plain consensus for not dismissing it. In fact, you really need to explain why it should be mentioned at all on the page if you're going to support his fallback position of rhetorically torpedoing the information. As for edit warring, if you had bothered to look back through even the last half year of edits, you would have seen Cinadon edit warring frequently with other editors - all of whose suggestions he repeatedly rejected and reverted. Cinadon seems virtually incapable of compromising with anyone even when he's vastly outvoted.04:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.134.243 (talk)
 * Hello. By full-protecting the article I have given you a chance to make your case at the talk page. You should be posting there, trying to convince people. I don't see you doing that. What would help is for you to lay out a policy-based rationale for what you want to include - so that you can convince other people and achieve consensus. Attacking Cinadon - who is not the only editor who disagrees with you - does not do anything to advance your position.  -- MelanieN (talk) 05:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. I had already posted my rationale, which Cinadon in his characteristic manner rejected out of hand without any serious attempt to respond to what I said. If you're not seeing me saying anything on that talk page, then maybe you need to take your Twinkle-blinders off and read what I actually said (and read what I originally posted). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.137.99 (talk) 03:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks! Cinadon36 18:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Oh, and get back to me when you have a credible explanation for why Cinadon deleted all the other edits I made on the page, without any attempt at discussion or compromise or seeking consensus, including things unrelated to the assassination theory that were not in dispute until Cinadon decided to dispute every single thing I posted. I'm sure you'll thoroughly exculpate him when you can figure out just the right excuse for that kind of behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.137.99 (talk) 04:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

update on Camus
Hi MelanieN. IP-user is still trying to push his version without consensus. . <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 08:12, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

IP range block requested - maybe?
Hi Melanie - hope all's well with you. I'd like to request an IP range block for 146.244.137 and 146.244.138. The range has been used repeatedly over several years for vandalism. See for their history of vandalism, which goes back at least to September 2016. As you can see, a short block won't help, as they come back after long intervals to do the same vandalism. There do appear to be good faith edits mixed in as well, though - not sure what the best solution would be, actually. Thoughts? Dohn joe (talk) 16:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, Dohn joe, long time no see. It looks to me as if there is a much simpler and less intrusive solution than a range block. The vandalism is infrequent but repeated over a period of years. That's too long for a range block, but perfect for pending change protection. That means it is up to the page watchers to catch and revert the vandalism, which can be annoying, but not horribly if it isn't too frequent. And at least the vandalism doesn't actually appear in the article while it is waiting to be reverted. I'll give it PC protection for a year and let's see if that helps. Happy holidays! -- MelanieN (talk) 17:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Melanie - great idea. I appreciate it! Dohn joe (talk) 18:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Forgot template?
Hi Melanie, just dropping a note that I think you forgot to update the protection template on Peep and the Big Wide World. I thought about fixing it myself, but I don't know the protection templates/syntax very well. Thanks! [Belinrahs|talk ⁄ edits] 23:07, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Scratch that, looks like someone came and fixed it already. Sorry about that! [Belinrahs|talk ⁄ edits] 23:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the alert. Yes, I did forget (because I did it manually instead of with Twinkle). Glad to see someone fixed it. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

BLP
Hi I have seen you have decided to lock Rui_Pereira_(architect). You have left an unreferenced BLP violation on the page. As you know BLP isn't a flexible policy, could you please fix this. 104.249.224.35 (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it is a BLP violation but I agree it is unreferenced. I have suggested to Geo Swan that he add a reference after the protection expires. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * P.S. If you believe it is a BLP violation, please explain why at the article talk page. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Reliable/ unreliable sources
How am I supposed to know? Google doesn’t tell me which sources are reliable and which ones are not. Does wiki have a list of reliable sources that we are only supposed to use? Thanks The unrelated kinsman (talk) 05:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Cinadon36 can tell you. A reliable source is whatever he says it is. Just the other day I learned from him that an undergraduate intern studying English in college is a reliable source for evaluating historical theories...something I would not have guessed. MelanieN has high regard for Cinadon's opinions.72.86.132.228 (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

The unrelated kinsman: Don't feel bad; of course you don't know. You will learn, and in the meantime no blame to you for being new here. Keep editing, and don't take it hard if some of your edits are reverted. At first until you learn your way around, try to stick to adding factual material - such as is reported in regular news sources - rather than opinion. As for Reliable Sources, our general definition is sources that have editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For example the New York Times does have such a reputation and is considered reliable; the National Enquirer does not and is not. One list rating sources is here: Reliable sources/Perennial sources. As for the Washington Times in particular, take a look at its Wikipedia article, which gives some idea of why most of us don't accept it. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Epstein didn't kill himself
Please see new note on your DYK review. Also, the merge tag is still on the article, so it shouldn't get a green tick. Yoninah (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Jim Rogers (California politician)
I noticed you're a big shot here, can you help expand the sources for this one with me and perhaps help me tackle the overhaul to Richmond City Council (Richmond, California).Ndołkah (talk) 09:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, Ndołkah, and thanks for the note. I'm afraid I can't help you. In fact I agree with the AfD proposal, that the article should be deleted because he does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOLITICIAN. Sorry I couldn't be more help. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the honest feedback and courteous reply Merry Christmas! Cineram 🎄Ndołkah (talk) 07:23, 25 December 2019 (UTC)