User talk:MelanieN/Archive 36

Add one to semi-protected institutes please?

Thanks for putting semi-protection on that slab of phone-spammed Indian institutes! However, I forgot one - JSSATE Noida - whcih promptly got spammed again tonight. Could you please add that one? Cheers! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done Let me know if you find any others. --MelanieN (talk) 14:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

'Nother one please: Krishna Institute of Engineering and Technology. Cheers! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

And another two: Ishan Institute of Management & Technology, DIT University. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:53, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done and I have requested a rangeblock. This is ridiculous. --MelanieN (talk) 15:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

No luck on the rangeblock. We'll just have to keep playing whack-a-mole. --MelanieN (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Whackity-whack :p Add Dr. D.Y. Patil College of Engineering, Pune please, and a whack for newest sock User:Bazar patna. - Dude must have an interesting business model... --Elmidae (talk · contribs)

Done and done. And I think I figured out who they are: http://admissionbazar.com/contact-us.php . --MelanieN (talk) 18:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I see! Does that allow some targeted blocking action? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I doubt it. Looking further I find that they insert different phone numbers into articles, and only one of the phone numbers led to that company, so even focusing on the phone number(s) doesn't seem to get everything. --MelanieN (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Google searching the phone numbers led me to another WP one from the sockmasater that we missed. I wonder if we need to double check that they are all cleaned out? [1] --MelanieN (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

No, that one should be covered - the majority of articles in the original RfPP list were based on the contributions of that account. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Two short protections earlier made by Oswah just came off again and immediately got spammed: Galgotias College of Engineering and Technology, Galgotias University. Please add. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Done. --MelanieN (talk) 14:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Next sock: Rahul Prakash 55555. - He may not be very bright, but he's persistent. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Blocked. The good news is: if he is now resorting to using talk pages, that means that the semiprotection is working. --MelanieN (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Galgotias University is getting it again from IP. Maybe protecting the talk page itself can be done? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Protecting talk pages is rare. I don't think we are to that point yet but let's see what happens; keep me posted. I blocked the IPv4 but that won't help much since they are so dynamic. --MelanieN (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Ajay Kumar Garg Engineering College has come off protection, and the IP is back. I'm guessing that this will happen to all the affected pages if they are coming off protection now.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Gave it a month this time. Keep me posted. --MelanieN (talk) 12:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Here we go again (IP): DIT University, C. V. Raman College of Engineering, Bhubaneshwar, Galgotias College of Engineering and Technology, Galgotias University. - All basically at the moment that MusikBot removed the template. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

All protected for a month. This spammer is certainly persistent! IMO they aren't really paying any attention to the presence or absence of the template. In several cases they did it while the template was still in place but the protection had expired. (The bot can take several days to get around to it.) In other cases it was a week after the protection expired. Most likely they simply tried every school on their list when they noticed that the protection had expired for some of them. BTW I noticed that in several cases you restored the template; if you were hoping to fake out the spammer, it didn't work, and merely made the bot remove it a second time. --MelanieN (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah no, that was just me undoing too lazily :p --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Isn't this fun?

Maharashtra Institute of Technology, this time with attempted impersonation of Head of Admission. Sigh. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:57, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Protected for a month. --MelanieN (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

More please: VIT University, Talk:DIT University (check out the modus on that one - quite inventive!), Amity University, JSSATE Noida. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

All of these hit again, and also add Dr. D.Y. Patil College of Engineering, Pune, R.V. College of Engineering, Lakshmi Narain College of Technology and Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, please! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Got 'em. I suspect it's this person [2], [3], somebody who claims to be able to help people get admitted to such schools. If they start up again after the protection expires, I'll try again for a rangeblock. --MelanieN (talk) 15:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

BTW these month-long semi-protections are going to expire in early July, and I will be away during part of that time. I think we'd better loop in another admin, maybe User:NeilN?, that you can ask for help if they resume the attack while I am AFC. Neil, you OK with that? --MelanieN (talk) 15:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I'm on vacation right now but will be free from the clutches of jam smeared hands and hunting for monster fairy vampires (yeah, I don't know either) next week. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Great, thanks, Neil. I'll continue to carry out what is needed in this case while I am available, but in a long-term case like this it's helpful to have someone else who knows the backstory. This particular adventure started in early May, and is repeated pretty much whenever protection expires. The spammers are all socks; I think RP singh love is the original sockmaster (followed by Rahul singh love and several others, until he caught on that registered socks can be blocked and IPv4s pretty much can't). Enjoy your vacation! and best wishes to the monster fairy vampires. I think I know how that game starts, we call it "yes and". "Let's be vampires." "Yes, and let's be fairy vampires." "Yes, and let's be monster fairy vampires." Big improvement over arguing whether to be vampires or fairies. --MelanieN (talk) 17:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Prithee, here's Krishna Institute of Engineering and Technology, and Noida Institute of Engineering and Technology forthwith, which one commendeth to your good services and sundry palliative ministrations. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

E'en so enacted according to thy entreaty. --MelanieN (talk) 15:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Rejoice, for Haldia Institute of Technology has arisen and promises great savings; and lo, witness ye also the Presence at Talk:JSSATE Noida (although, being a talk page, it may not be branded with the Mark of Cain). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Verily it appeareth the Haldia site hath been unfortified for more than a fortnight! My most humble apologies for this dereliction. It shall rectified. A rampart shall be erected forthwith.

This villain is unrelenting. If he persisteth in this malfeasance, I shall be compelled to... purchase a new thesaurus! 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

And thus it begins again... plus Maulana Azad Medical College Ravensfire (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Cjhard

Cjhard has been engaged in Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding behavior towards me. I have reason to believe they created the D.Pearson account in order to continue the harassment after you protected United Daughters of the Confederacy, because shortly after you created the protection they created a bad faith page claiming I made it as a sock puppet. What can I do to get them to stop hounding and following me please? Morty C-137 (talk) 23:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know, but I feel their suspicion about the new user is warranted, and I said so at the SPI page. A WP:Checkuser will determine who is who. (BTW your timing is off; D.Pearson started editing BEFORE I protected the page.) --MelanieN (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Simone Schaner

I am not sure she is notable, but the assertion that a person is even an assistant professor in a university is an indication of plausible significance. Please restoe, and then take to AfD if you like, but it doesn't fall under A7. (or move to Draft, if you'd rather do it that way DGG ( talk ) 08:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. There are tens of thousands of assistant professors around; Dartmouth alone has hundreds. Are you saying that basically A7 cannot be applied to any academic? Nothing in this article suggested to me that she is in any way "plausibly significant" - and any time someone is described as "rising" that is in my mind to equivalent to "not there yet". But at your request I will restore it and AfD it. --MelanieN (talk) 13:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

A7 can certainly applied to an an assistant professor at a 2-year college. I might conceivably apply to an assistant professor at an unknown 4 year college. Dartmouth, however, is a major Research University, Using a description of rising implies the article was written by PR staff who foolishly think it a complement. Where you are correct is that few assistant professors have been held notable at WP, but significance is a much lower bar than notability. And., although just an asssitant professor, it turn out she has enough of a publication record to show herself at least borderline notable. DGG ( talk ) 16:35, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

More R/D needed

Hello M. Thanks for protecting the RD Humanities. I wanted to let you know that - while you rev/del the initial post by the troll there were three more edits by the subsequent IPs that contain the same cr**ola. They are one, two and three. It seems they were removing another editors post to try and cover what they were doing. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 01:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert. They are scrubbed. I gather this is a familiar LTA who does this all the time? What is the matter with these people? --MelanieN (talk) 03:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning those up M. More often then not it is either this one or this person. Occasionally it is someone impersonating them. I hope that you have a pleasant Sunday! MarnetteD|Talk 04:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

User:redtoadmedia

It seems likely that this account is created by a business, http://www.redtoadmedia.com/. Its first edit was inserting a mention of Louisville, KY and I can't find any basis or source for that edit. [4] What is the appropriate procedure for such situations? Morty C-137 (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

@Morty C-137: Thanks for the note. With regard to this username, it looks like administrator Doug Weller is already on it. In general, the best procedure would be to raise a question about them at WP:Usernames for administrator attention. As for the Louisville insertion, you would be perfectly justified in reverting it if it was unsourced. --MelanieN (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Bunco Man

Easiest for you just to sanction him. He's violating the DS on AmPol that I warned him about, see the discussion on his talk page. Doug Weller talk 17:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Nope, it's over a year ago. But he knows, and there's the earlier block. I'll go drop the DS on his talk page again. Doug Weller talk 17:50, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

You might also want to add a DS notice to the Austin Petersen article, just so it is in everyone's face. And remind him that the sanction you threatened him with was a topic ban from libertarian topics, which is clearly the area where he is passionate - too much so sometimes. --MelanieN (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Reply

I'd appreciate it if you don't refer so vitriolic negative to my hard efforts at research and article writing.

Your choice of words will greatly impact the tenor of future discussions.

I'm quite happy to discuss See also sections with you.

In fact, I started a section at that particular article's talk page, Talk:Dismissal of James Comey.

I think you'll find I haven't undone your edits on most of the other removals, despite your quite hurtful choice of wording about my article writing efforts. Sagecandor (talk) 23:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I've posted explanatory notices at article talk pages. In a few cases, you did indeed actually remove articles that are directly relevant to the subjects of those articles. Sagecandor (talk) 23:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I posted a new section at Talk:Links between Trump associates and Russian officials and Talk:Donald Trump–Russia dossier. Maybe you can explain your reasoning there? Perhaps without negatively referring to my new article creation efforts? But rather keep it focused on the discussion in particular? Sagecandor (talk) 23:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN:Can we discuss on those talk pages? I'd like to hear your thoughts on those specific cases? Sagecandor (talk) 23:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN:I've gone ahead and reverted myself per good faith gesture and attempt at talk page discussion. [5] [6] [7]. Hopefully now we can talk more about these on their talk pages? Sagecandor (talk) 23:59, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, maybe I was a little harsh. Sorry about that. But I seem to recall commenting at a recent AfD about your habit of adding your new articles to the "See also" section of literally dozens of other pages. I said there, and still think, that is inappropriate. Imagine what our articles would look like if everyone did that! --MelanieN (talk) 00:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. We appear to have different views on what is relevant to a topic or not. I happen to feel if everyone did that, then See also sections would be an excellent index of alphabetized relevant articles for future readers and researchers. I don't see the harm. Sagecandor (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure Wikipedia agrees. Per WP:SEEALSO, "The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number." --MelanieN (talk) 00:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Right, well, again, we disagree on what is relevant. And it's hurtful to refer to my efforts as "spamming". Please understand that was never my intention. Sagecandor (talk) 00:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: I see that you are starting discussions at many article talk pages. Could you ping me if you want me to participate? Not all of them are on my watchlist, and I didn't keep a list. --MelanieN (talk) 05:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay will do. Sagecandor (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Problem image

So I have another question, and maybe it takes someone on a different site?

The image that was inserted by StephanieH in this edit [8] is pretty obviously inappropriate, how does it get removed? It seems not to actually be on wikipedia and I'm not sure how that works.

Thanks Morty C-137 (talk) 03:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

You did the right thing: you deleted it. And someone has already commented at the user's talk page (although not as strongly as I would have). It should probably be removed from Commons also but I rarely do things at Commons. I'll see if I can find someone to carry it through to deletion there. --MelanieN (talk) 03:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Morty C-137: The image has been deleted. Thanks for the alert. --MelanieN (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

MelanieN,

Thanks for the good faith way we've interacted, I really appreciate it.

I've taken some time to reflect on your advice, and you're totally right, it is best to work links via references and sourced material directly into the article body, as opposed to "see also" sections, wherever possible.

Sagecandor (talk) 22:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Sessions article

Melanie, I think this was removed earlier per WP:QUOTENAME. Jeff is short for "Jefferson" or "Jeffrey", so I think they removed it per the guideline... some were going thru a bunch of articles removing nicknames for this reason... Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 05:52, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I see. I like to have the bold name refer to the article title, but QUOTENAME is pretty clear, so I will remove it. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 13:41, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with ya, but it'd be too much of a hassle (at least in my opinion) to try and change others' opinions! Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 14:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Procedural Advice?

Hi,

Could you look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/1.144.96.39 please? Given the recent editing history I think it may be being used by D.H.110 (various sockpuppet investigations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/D.H.110/Archive), whose sockpuppets like Heroin123 seem to have an axe to grind on LGBT issues. I'm not sure if it needs a full sockpuppet investigation filing or not? Morty C-137 (talk) 12:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I didn't follow that case, although I remember several sockpuppets were confirmed. And I don't have the time to get up to speed on it now. I notice that particular IP has been posting here, off and on, for several years; of course that doesn't rule out the possibility that they are D.H.110. You could file an SPI, but it might not do you any good. Checkusers won't publicly connect an IP address to a username, for privacy reasons - so even if they check and find out it is D.H.110, they will not usually say so. Is the user disruptive, or simply stating a particular viewpoint? Are they restoring edits made by D.H.110, using the same words and phrases, or simply expressing a similar viewpoint? Having similar opinions does not make someone a sockpuppet, although this one's emergence right after the registered users were blocked could be suggestive. IMO you would need really strong evidence (diffs where they are saying the same things in the same words; focusing on the exact same points in the same articles) to make an SPI case. --MelanieN (talk) 13:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Steve Scalise

Thank you for reverting the vandalism to the Steve Scalise article. Is there no way Wikipedia can prevent vandalism from (a) unregistered 'editors' (b) who come from IP addresses? That type of 'hidden vandalism' seems quite frequent. MaynardClark (talk) 20:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. As a matter of fact I have semi-protected the article for a week. --MelanieN (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

MENA/pending

Thank you for your message, Melanie.
I'll review the resource links you shared with me. I'll let you know if I have any hiccups. DA1 (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Liliya Watson "Unambiguous copyright infringement" It's not.

Hello, I have the authorisation to use this biography http://saintandrewcharity.org/en/about-founder) on Wikipedia. Should I contact real admin of Wikipedia? Put the the website, "can be use on Wikipedia for Liliya Watson" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LyvansB (talk • contribs) 20:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, User:LyvansB. I will answer your question, but first let me tell you frankly: there are several reasons why you might be better off not even trying to write this article. In the first place, there is the copyright issue, which I will address below. In the second place, with or without the copyright problem, there is a good chance that she would not meet our requirements for having an article here. Those requirements are spelled out at WP:GNG and WP:BIO. If she doesn't, the article would get deleted regardless of the language used. Personally I suspect that she would not meet the requirements, and the article would wind up getting deleted anyhow, after all your work. Just so you are aware of that possibility. Finally, since you apparently work for the charity or are associated with it, you have a conflict of interest. You need to read WP:COI and abide by what it says.

Now if you still want to try writing an article, I suggest you write it in your own words, without needing or using the exact wording or structure from the website - in other words, without using the copyrighted material. A much better way to create a Wikipedia article about her is to write a new article from scratch. using the website as one source of information (among other sources), but not using the exact words from the website. Write the article in your own words, without copy-pasting it from or "WP:close paraphrasing" it (that means using almost the same language but changing a word here or there). You could create such an article in your "sandbox". That is a private place where you can practice your writing and develop an article at your leisure. (You can't use copyrighted material in your sandbox, though.) There is a link to your sandbox at the top of the page when you are logged in. We would still need to have formal permission to use the picture of her.

In order to use copyrighted material, Wikipedia needs to have a formal release from the copyright holder, either via email, or via a release notice on the webpage where the material is posted. The copyright holder needs to clearly understand that when they release something to Wikipedia, it is not limited to just Wikipedia. It becomes free for ANYONE to use it for ANY purpose, including commercial purposes, and anyone is free to change or modify it. That includes the article here on Wikipedia, where other editors will almost certainly make changes to the material in the course of normal editing. I can guarantee you that other editors would quickly remove flowery language like "It is she who was the source of wisdom, spirituality and love for growing Liliya" or "Ukrainian beauty contests in 2002 became gifts of fate for her where Liliya won two really prestigious titles". This is an encyclopedia, and we will make sure it is written in encyclopedia style.

If after all this, the copyright holder really wants to use the exact language from the website (which I don't advise), they should read Wikipedia:Copyrights to understand exactly what kind of permission they are giving. In technical terms, material published on Wikipedia is available to the public under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License. If they are willing to release their copyrighted language - and the picture of her - on this basis, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. That will explain how to have the copyright holder affirm their permission. They would have to write from an email address associated with the saintandrewcharity page, and specify who they are and how they speak for the organization. A sample letter of permission is here: Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. The letter should be sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Another way to release the material is for the copyright holder to post a "copyleft" notice on the website where the material is posted, if they really wish to release everything there under this kind of license - which they may not. --MelanieN (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello Melanie, Thank you very much, you are the first one who explain me everything in details, you are very helpful ! I will follow your advises after study each solution... Thank you for all ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LyvansB (talk • contribs) 05:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Take it to the artlcle talk page

Hello Melanie, Apparently you have page protected the 2Chains pretty girls like trap music album notes - which is admirable. However, my client, Rijhay "RE" Sampson is a co-producer on the "OG Kush Diet" record and is eager to be recognized for his contributions. Please permit me to update this item on the page or kindly make the changes on our behalf. Thank you in advance.Ahonore1 (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Ahonore1. Sorry, but you will have to make this request on the article's talk page. You will have to provide a reliable source to show that Mr. Sampson actually is a credited co-producer. And you will have to let someone else make the addition to the page, rather than you, because you have a conflict of interest. Please read WP:COI. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. --MelanieN (talk) 23:08, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I see that you already have made your request on the talk page. That's good. Now you need to wait for another editor to respond. You said "the label" has not yet recognized Mr. Sampson's contributions. If that is the case, his contribution is unconfirmed, and the information will almost certainly not be added to the article at this time. --MelanieN (talk) 23:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Diffs v. Contrib link

Is it really too much to expect admins to click on the "Contribs" link? I agree I should have linked to the case history though.

Power~enwiki (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Admins have enough to do at that (or any) board. Don't expect them to do the research. Don't expect them to immediately understand, by glancing at the contributions and the edit summaries (if any), what you are talking about. On some boards, complaints without diffs are summarily closed. When I added the diff, I at least saved you from getting yelled at. --MelanieN (talk) 00:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

RE: Jessica Mulroney page protection request

Hello Melanie,

Thank you for answering my inquiry. I am okay with not having privileges on the page as long as the correct and sourced information is correct. As a casual user, I can understand why I would be prevented from making such edits, however I feel that the prevention of anonymous edits would serve the greater good in context of continued vandalism.

Could you be a dear and please put the page on your watch list, just to ensure that my request, whilst declined, is fresh on your mind in light of any future vandalism?

Bless! G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.230.246.33 (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Sorry, but I don't see this page as in need of protection or watching at this time. I see one edit reverted by you on the 20th, one on the 19th, and one edit modified by you on the 18th. The previous edit before that was in April, and the previous one before that was in December. This is not a long-term problem article. As for the current disagreement about whether to include the information about her being the publicist and stylist for Meghan Markle, you should really post something on the talk page explaining why you think it should be kept - rather than simply reverting people. (Of course you realize that you would NOT be blocked by protection if you register a username, which I encourage you to do - but if you'd rather not, that's your choice and you don't need to explain it to anyone.) Sorry I couldn't be more help. --MelanieN (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	I am still around. ;) Jim Carter 20:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Glad to hear it, my friend! I know you are busy. Thanks for the barnstar. --MelanieN (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump the Republican presumptive nominee

I believe you were the first editor of Donald_Trump–Russia_dossier to use the word "presumptive". I invite you to add any comment you may have on a discussion at Talk:Attempted assassination of Donald Trump#Presumptive nominee. —Anomalocaris (talk) 02:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Jane O'Meara Sanders

Unless you were there, you don't have any more information than any of the rest of us about what Maietta actually pledged. All we have are two competing claims. We should summarize what reliable sources say about the dispute without inappropriately claiming to know what "actually" happened. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, you are right. --MelanieN (talk) 03:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

In fact I have deleted the whole phrase about the donor promising an unspecified amount. We don't know what the donor said. We don't even know if there was a donor. --MelanieN (talk) 03:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, MelanieN. Just popping in here to apologize for my flaky attendance at the Jane Sanders article after your most recent proposals. I've been trying to throttle back my participation a bit, and allow other editors more room to participate -- but I didn't want you to think I had forgotten that we were still in the middle of a discussion. As other threads on that page may show, I can be rather persistent and forward when it comes to politically-fueled speculation and allegation on BLPs, and you've been reasonable and even accommodating during our recent interactions. A bit disarming, but nonetheless appreciated. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. No problem, and I think we have it worked out. Something I have learned, in life but particularly at Wikipedia: Arguing about principles and theoretical positions can be endless and never reach resolution, but bypassing the generalities and getting down to specifics (in this case "how shall we word it") can often lead to a swift and reasonable agreement. Funny how that happens. I think we probably have it to the point where we can go ahead and insert your version D.2.1 or wherever we are into the article. --MelanieN (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

For the love of Pete

Hi Melanie. Could you please do something about O.celebi who clearly is not here to build an encyclopaedia. All they're interested in is inserting Turkish and Ottoman everywhere (usually in the lead) by any means necessary (source misrepresentation, insertion of irrelevant foreign equivalents, wp:or, wp:synth, wp:fringe, etc). Attempts to guide them are ignored. At first, I removed their source misrepresentation here (the source is about the first world war not the Algerian war) without making a big deal, and then I removed their wp:synth here and warned them not to do it again (their response is not even worth mentioning). There are other examples: if you look at my last edits you'll see that they haven't ceased, nor do they have any intention of doing so. While I don't mind cleaning up after them, the fact that they are prolific makes it really hard to keep up with them. Your attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated. Best regards. M.Bitton (talk) 00:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, M.Bitton, I really can't help you. I don't know you, I don't know the other user, I'm not familiar with the subject area to be able to judge their edits. I suggest you ask for help from an admin who is familiar with those subject areas. --MelanieN (talk) 03:39, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

In all honesty, I was about to contact NeilN when I saw your comment about him being away and thought that maybe you could help, but it's not a problem at all. Best regards. M.Bitton (talk) 23:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seraphim_System#Reverts_under_DS

Is there something you are planning to do to me that I should be aware of? Morty C-137 (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

At this point, no. Your behavior will determine whether anything needs to be done. I will say that your comment to Seraphim Systems at Oath Keepers seemed like a reversion to the behavior that got you blocked previously. If you recall that block was for ""disruption, personal attacks, battleground attitude and general behavior that is inconsistent with building an encyclopedia". I hope you will be able to step back from that kind of talk and (as Wikipedia requires) discuss the content, not the other editors. --MelanieN (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

If you review (or maybe read for the first time?) the discussion, you will notice that it was Seraphim System who started in by making a snide attack of "please do not resume your old pattern of disruptive editing and edit warring" before literally attacking every other editor on the page with "if the regular editors here insist on continuing this pattern of POV editing,... It's been an ongoing problem on this article and I've had enough of it." If anyone has a battleground attitude here, it's not me - although I am noticing that wikipedians in general are really fond of playing games like throwing the first punch and then claiming their victim has a "problem attitude" if they don't meekly accept being bullied. I've dealt with enough of that manipulative form of abuse in real life, I know it when I see it. Morty C-137 (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

And KDS4444 has now decided I am an easy target to go after and make snide comments about. KDS4444 was extremely mean and aggressive in the "dispute resolution where nobody was informed they were a part of it" ploy. [9] Morty C-137 (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that KDS has posted on your talk page, several times. You do know that you are within your rights to tell someone to "stay off my talk page," and they are supposed to honor that request. --MelanieN (talk) 22:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I told them I want no part in what they have to say - and they messaged my talk page again anyways. What more do I need to do? Do I need to hit their talk page and post some kind of template saying "warning, do not message this user again per WP:HUSH" or something? They have had it out for me because I wouldn't be bullied into a "DRN" thing that (a) I wasn't informed I had been listed in and (b) was basically full of misrepresentations and insults towards me, and now they're jumping around hounding my edits and leaving the snide comment I linked for you a bit ago. It's this kind of WP:HARASSing behavior that drives people to anger, and that's clearly their intent, they're hoping they can drive me into some kind of angry statement or edit war. Morty C-137 (talk) 22:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

If this isn't WP:WIKIHOUNDING, what is [10]? KDS4444 is literally hunting me down to make attacks on me. Morty C-137 (talk) 07:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I do see that they had never edited at that article before until they showed up to comment on your editing. I assume you will be adding this to your catalog. I also see that your behavior at the article was problematic: after two established, non-sockpuppet editors agreed at the talk page that some material needed to be in the article, and one of them added it, you removed it (against the talk page consensus) with a rude edit summary about sockpuppets and POV material. I guess I need to take another look and see if this is still a pattern with you. --MelanieN (talk) 14:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

So if I react to someone who's deliberately trying to provoke me, I'm to blame. If I report bad behavior to you, you're going to find some excuse to threaten me and attack me for it? I guess basically nothing I can do is correct?

1. No, "two established, non-sockpuppet editors" did not agree on the talk page until AFTER I removed the material. I edited 13:26, 30 June 2017‎, Trystan's reply did not come until 01:32, 1 July 2017‎ and I would have responded and undone my edit but by the time I saw it, KDS4444 had already left that nasty personal attack and I thought I should report it to you and wait for your response first. But again, I guess nothing I can do is "right", because if I responded that would be wrong, but now you're apparently claiming reporting it and waiting was wrong too along with your getting the timeline wrong.
2. Axl's edit was very similar to D.H.110's wording (Axl: [11] D.H.110: [12]), including the issue of using Unreliable Sources. D.H.110 used youtube links from "Rebel Media"[13] and later "The College Fix"[14], then direct "open letters" pasted to a user document submission site [15]; Axl started off with "Life Site News" as well as then complaining about "censorship" - when Trystan, not me, removed the Life Site News linking. Morty C-137 (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

You removed it 13:26 June 30. By that time, Trystan had ALREADY (13:07) modified Axl's edit, deleting the unreliable source and adding a second reliable source. Trystan's first talk page edit came a few minutes later, at 13:44 on the 30th. So, I stand corrected about the talk page timeline, I didn't check the time stamps to see when the second editor joined the talk page discussion. But it was only a few minutes after your deletion, and he had in effect already endorsed the material (prior to your deletion) by improving and adding to it in the article.

Earlier, on June 29, you had invited Axl to "com(e) up with some wording for a brief section on controversies during passage that actually has reliable sourcing." On June 30 Axl did exactly that, citing a Reliable Source (the BBC) as well as an unreliable source. By the time you deleted it, the unreliable source been removed and a second reliable source (the Globe) had been added. I'm glad to see you have restored it, although I don't see why it required a second talk page comment from Trystan, on July 1, for you to realize that the material you deleted was actually quite well sourced. --MelanieN (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

On a lighter note...

Thanks for this. Actually it's the first time anyone here's ever invited me to anything  ;) Except AN/I I guess. Can you hear those violins! :p Cheers! — fortunavelut luna 17:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt that. Unless it's that no one recognizes you in your new clothes. (Very attractive by the way.) --MelanieN (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)