User talk:MelanieN/archive 84

SCOTUS Pages
It might make sense to apply some level of protection to all of the currently serving and recently serving justices, given how partisan views of the court and its members have gotten recently. Don't like the idea of pre-emptive protection, but it feels like that or constantly fighting fires. I added all of them to my watch list, but I'm only just getting back into Wikipedia editing. zchrykng (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, zchrykng, and thanks for the suggestion. I just took a quick survey of the nine sitting justices. All of them are currently semi-protected: five of them indefinitely, three for a year or more, and one for less than a year. I made sure the latter four are on my watchlist. That's how I spotted the need for protection for Justice Barrett. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Ah, cool. Hadn’t gone through and checked protection status on them yet. Ignore me, carry on. zchrykng (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Donald Trump
Hey I noticed you self reverted per 1RR. But just a heads up, the article is not under 1RR. Though if it were, referring to a strong consensus like the one you cited for the original revert is an exception generally. Reverts made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus. In order to be valid, such a consensus must be documented on the talk page, and the edit summary should link to the discussion. per WP:3RRNO and Template:American politics AE. Laters! PackMecEng (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

FYI
I have no doubt you think you are enforcing policy, but it is indisputable that the risk to Marek Kukula in a BLP sense, is extremely low, if not zero. By contrast, there is a far higher, albeit still quite low, risk of this incomplete biography being used to assist in further online or real life child abuse. The correct outcome here, is clear and obvious. You have probably put children at increased risk, and for no good reason. Not that there ever could be a good reason for that. I would say reconsider, if I remotely thought you were even capable of it. What you have done, was done for reasons of prejudice. You actually want those reports to be false, and you refuse to accept all evidence that they are not. And that is why you would never consider the possibility that you are wrong. I'll be keeping an eye on the court reports, and if a child is abused and this man's name is involved, and it turns out they used this biography to help groom his victim, I'll remember this moment well. Nobody would ever forget this. You have acted unconscionably. Christian Murray (talk) 00:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked sockpuppet. See Sockpuppet investigations/Brian K Horton --Guy Macon (talk) 05:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Here is something that you might be interested in
It is a report in Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard regarding these ip's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2600:8800:4003:ED00:69EA:B3E4:6D68:AEF8, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2600:8800:4003:ED00:FC38:3B6D:8293:98DD, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2600:8800:4003:ED00:C0B0:998D:5CBC:7DFB and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2600:8800:4003:ED00:99E:5BD0:15BF:9053. I and Another Editor (JDC808) agree that The above editors (identified as Tevin21) has used multiple IPs for several months to continue to try and add false information, despite talk page posts, warnings, etc., for why the information they're trying to add is false. We believe it is in fact the same editor as they have made the exact same, or very similar, edits across all of these IPs. Having seen them do this multiple times now, the warnings have become useless as they just continue to make the same edits from different IPs. It's been ongoing since March 2021. Chip3004 (talk) 02:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's been taken care of. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Sunshine
Happy first day of summer, MelanieN!! Interstellarity (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)