User talk:MelanieN/Archive 62

Is this some sort of legal threat?

Here. It mentions the "feds", which of course means either the FBI or the Bill. Adam9007 (talk) 01:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I would say not - although it's so incoherent it is hard to make anything out of it. They are apparently ranting about some edits they made to a school article, where they were deleting normal neutral information as "propaganda". I assume NYT is New York Times; no idea what LAP is (some other newspaper?); the "feds" could be anything. No, I would not bother Legal about this one. Personally I would treat this with delete and ignore, but Railfan can handle it however they want. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Southern California Wiknic & Bonfire invitation

270° panorama overlooking La Jolla Shores Beach as seen from the Martin Johnson House, Scripps Institute of Oceanography, during a late August sunset. Photo by Gregg M. Erickson

Meetup-San Diego-September 2K19

Who: All members of the public

What: Southern California Wiknic & Bonfire.

When: Sunday 1 September 2019, 2:00PM PDT / 1400 until 10:00PM PDT / 2200

Where: La Jolla Shores

Sponsor: San Diego Wikimedians User Group ( US-SAN )

Your host: RightCowLeftCoast (talk · contribs)

Please add your username to our attendees list so we know how many will be attending, and please add your intended potluck contribution to the list.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject San Diego at 18:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC). You can unsubscribe from future invitations to San Diego Wikimedians User Group events by removing your name from the WikiProject San Diego mass mailing list, and from the Southern California meet-up group by removing your name from the LA meet-ups mailing list.

BLP violations

Hi,

There are some pretty serious BLP violations in the recent history of Tellier. Do they need to be RD2'd? Adam9007 (talk) 23:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks. I also protected the page for a couple of days, since they sounded like they intended to keep up the assault. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I then went back through their contributions and found they have been making a habit of this. I revdel'ed a bunch of their edits, and I blocked them for a week. Would you mind looking further back through their contributions and letting me know about any others? Thanks. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Funny you should ask that: most of these edit summaries (and even sometimes the content) are copyrighted song lyrics (Baby by Justin Bieber). Adam9007 (talk) 00:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

As to your original question: I saw this, and this also rings a bell, but the rest seems to just be plain vanilla vandalism. Adam9007 (talk) 00:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I nuked the first one and let the second one go. I'll let Bbb23 decide if he wants to do anything about the song lyrics. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Six years!

Thought of you writing Melanie D. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda! You are so good about remembering! -- MelanieN (talk) 14:48, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

ugh

I just blocked User:Kepa2019, my first time, and I've screwed up the notification template and can't figure out what I was supposed to have done. I thought of Twinkle too late. Would you possibly have time to help me straighten it out? Asking you because I saw you'd edited recently. --valereee (talk) 19:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC) ETA...hm, I may have actually done it right. Still would appreciate you checking my work, if you have time. --valereee (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

valereee, looks to me like you did it right. Good block. (And welcome to adminship, where "did I do that right?" and "oh, crap, I screwed that up royally!" are part of the experience - especially at first.) Feel free to ask for guidance or second-guessing any time. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

BTW, there are things you can decorate your user page with now, if you want: The {{Administrator topicon}} mop-at-the-top and the {{User wikipedia/Administrator}} userbox. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Twinkle is by far the easiest way, but if you do it manually, you do just what you did, except most admins would sign it. Twinkle lets you sign it inside the notice; if you do it manually, the easiest thing is to just add your sig after the template. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both! Just signed it! lol Floq I was actually going to ask you since I knew you were editing, but thought, nah, he's busy. :D --valereee (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Nate Speed

Hi,

I don't know if you saw that message he sent me (not sure it was a good idea to send it to you by the way ), but I think someone (in real life) suggested that it should have been reported to the police. I mentioned this to Oshwah. I assume there's no need for that for reasons that have already been mentioned. However, when Nate Speed was banned, NinjaRobotPirate mentioned "escalating the situation beyond the WMF", which I assume means the Bill (I can't think who else it might refer to). As I understand it, this has been going on for donkey's years. Maybe it's time to do that? His socks were out in force tonight, and I'm not the only one who received such "threats". Adam9007 (talk) 01:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry you were subjected to that but I'm glad it wasn't just you; that makes it even less credible. Whether it gets escalated or not is a decision beyond our level of responsibility, thank goodness. Leave it to WMF, that's their job. (And if they do escalate it, you can be sure they won't tell us.) -- MelanieN (talk) 02:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Complicating matters (for me anyway) is that my brother saw it too. He actually seemed to think (at first) that it was my fault somehow. I think he had to be told that Nate Speed is mardy (and that's an understatement) by default. Adam9007 (talk) 02:33, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Argh, now I've come across a Caidin-Johnson sockpuppet. I think I've seen enough long term abuse for one night :). Adam9007 (talk) 02:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I might have used a much stronger word than mardy, but I'm too much of a lady. BTW one of the fun things about knowing you, and other Wikipedians in countries other than my own, is the new slang I learn. "The Bill", for example. Yes, I suggest you take a break from whatever is putting you in contact with all these trolls. Edit some articles or something. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

We at TV Tropes have been trying this, with little success and I think the reason why it leaves that website alone now is that he's now raiding Wikipedia instead. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Lucky us. :-( -- MelanieN (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

one of the fun things about knowing you, and other Wikipedians in countries other than my own, is the new slang I learn But for me, cheesing people off and causing argy-bargies jolly well seems to be a right doddle. Only yesterday, I was slagged off twice, and it narked me (okay, I was at fault for one of them, but the other one...). I used to have a cracking time, would you Adam and Eve it? I sometimes think I'm close to becoming Brown Bread here. I know I keep banging on about it, but (fully) seriously, that sort of thing has at least partially contributed to my troubles. Some people (including my aforementioned brother) seem to think that I'm some sort of bovver boy here. I actually don't think he was surprised by Nate Speed, and that's troubling... Adam9007 (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

LOL! I'll have to look up a dozen of these - which I'm sure was your intention. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN, Yes. Am I really that transparent? Adam9007 (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

In this case, yes. 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Wait. Is it a coincidence that this account has been pinging me randomly on august 2? Although it is pretty 'funny' i wouldn't call it harassment in my case. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 13:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Elitematterman, It would seem so. It doesn't look at all like Nate Speed to me. Adam9007 (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Wowza, okay while I was on vacation this guy spread it around on more talk pages and got indeffed at the noticeboard without me ever showing up xD insert link here --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 14:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute Resolution

I have mentioned you as a participate in a dispute resolution here. Thank you for your time and I apologize if anything I have said comes off as rough. I'm only trying to resolve things amicably for everyone. --Emma (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I've mentioned the talkpage and article in general terms at WP:ANI - I didn't mention any editors specifically and don't see a need to at the moment, but I think it best to let you know. Acroterion (talk) 15:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, Acroterion. I have wondered whether to respond to the allegations, but I think it best just to let it go. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Filipino School in San Diego

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject San Diego#Cultural school . RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 21:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Not completely misleading

The "Alleged state involvement" section contain contained allegations against government figures by government figures. Figured the former aspect was the interesting one, but fine your way, too. Most importantly, your "fly" made me get up, find a glass and leave feeling cheated; cruel, but amusing in hindsight, so thanks! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:36, August 14, 2019 (UTC)

Not an irrelevant dig at NBC, either. Seems to me Foster's suggesting it's trying to shut him up or laugh his theory off, since it doesn't fit the narrative. And no, it isn't the band tweeting in harmony; full of "I", "me" and "my". Reporter also writes "Foster defended himself". InedibleHulk (talk) 13:29, August 15, 2019 (UTC)

Following up a deletion

Hi Melanie,

I recently put my first few articles up after mainly doing edits when on holiday and haven't had much success. I was just wondering if you could provide some advice on some improvements I could make, I suppose specifically in what topics I should approach (as that seems to have been my downfall)? I've been following a process of noting things I've looked up on my phone only to find no Wiki page, and then looking online to see if there is proper external source material to fulfill the required criteria and support a page. Any advice would be most welcome, I'm on holiday and itching to be productive while relaxing.

Best,

Takingyourtime (talk) 14:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Takingyourtime, and thanks for your note. I see that you have already done what we advise for new users: taking your time (like your name!) to learn your way around, and making small edits to existing articles, before trying to write articles on your own. I see that one of your articles has been accepted while two were deleted. It can be very discouraging to have articles deleted and I’m glad you are seeking help rather than giving up.

Taking a look at the deleted articles: Glint was a well developed article; the problem was that the subject - Glint - didn’t meet the requirements at WP:NCORP. A company needs to be significantly written about by multiple independent reliable sources to show that it is notable enough for an article. If a company hasn’t been written about by the mainstream press or other reliable sources, it doesn’t qualify for an article here. Your article was mostly sourced to Glint itself, or to minor publications like Banking Tech and altfi. In a search I found only one example of mainstream coverage: [1] The only other things I found were not independent, they were from the company itself (that includes “articles” at Business Wire and Bloomberg, which aren’t independent because they are simply reprints of the company’s press releases). We need more than one source of significant independent coverage, so I would suggest you forget about Glint, unless and until it starts getting written about in more mainstream or general-circulation publications.

That was also the problem with Gelateria della Palma, which had only one independent reference: Conde Nast Traveler, where it was given a single paragraph. Just as a hint, a stand-alone local ice cream parlor is almost never going to be notable enough for an article here. So my advice is: your writing is fine, you just need to choose subjects that meet our guidelines for notability. Make sure you have at least two independent mainstream sources.

My other suggestion: take more time to develop or enlarge your article after writing it. For example, The Big Durian is what we call a stub. It is interesting but it is only a sentence or two. See if you can add more information (with references), such as how and why the Khmer Rouge destroyed the durian industry, or what the significance of the fruit was to Kampot. We who write articles almost never just create the article and walk away; we develop it, add to it, mention it at other articles (such as Durian), So keep trying, and be sure your subject is notable enough to be included here. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Melanie,

Thank you very much for the response. I can see what you mean about the notability, I think I was slightly taken in by the sources you mentioned for Glint, which seemed more external than they really were. I'll keep an eye out for similar things in the future. Gelateria della Palma stemmed from an argument amongs some Romans about the best ice-cream parlour, and my suprise when some of them didn't have Wikipedia pages, but being the cause of a summer debate in one part of the world definitely isn't one of the notability criteria.

I must admit that I hadn't adopted a particularly long-term view of articles after writing them, so I'll make sure to keep following up on any I create to develop them further.

Thanks for your help, particularly since you're on holidays,

Takingyourtime (talk) 07:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

new ask

Please consider rev deleting the criminal schitzoid commentary here and here. These comments are courtesy of an IP hopping disruptive editor, but I think the needed rangeblock, if I calculated it correctly, would be excessive. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy: Thanks for the note. The comments have been reverted, and I don't think they need to be revdel'ed. Do feel free to call to my attention any edits you have a question about. I may not always agree, but I don't mind you asking. That's what we're here for. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Sure, but please watch the version histories. The IP hopping has been taking advantage of the edit sum to be disruptive. The range is too large to block. Maybe being rev deleted is the wrong kind of attention to feed a troll, or maybe demonstrating that their work vanishes makes them lose interest. I'm betting on the latter. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Talkpage links to copyvios

Talk:School of Economic Science is now very peaceful but might need some copyright cleanup - or it might be fine. Maybe the rules for talk pages are more relaxed, I just don't know. Could you take a look?
1. This edit linked to an external copyright-violating web page. The link's been removed but does it need revdel?
2. Since this edit, the talk page mentions the website where that copyvio page is, though not the specific page. Does that mention need removing? Does it need revdel?
Sorry for bothering you if it's all OK already. 80.41.134.48 (talk) 21:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I revdel'ed the pages where the actual copyvio link is displayed. I don't think it's necessary to revdel all mentions of the website. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

That's great - thanks! 80.41.134.48 (talk) 23:00, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I made a mistake

I moved Samuel Shashoua out of my user space into main space thought he made his pro debut, but I just realised, I read a different name a little similar in the same squad and got confused. I was wondering if you could reverse my move for me please. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Looks like User:Adam9007 already took care of it. Thank you, Adam! -- MelanieN (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

that was pretty dam quick work! Sorry for my mistake. Cheers again. Govvy (talk) 20:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I've got some mighty fine lurkers on this page. 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 20:23, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Talk:Patricia Charache

Talk:Patricia Charache, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Patricia Charache and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:Patricia Charache during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. MartinezMD (talk) 15:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@MartinezMD: I've removed the mfd tag and deleted the mfd itself. It's an improper mfd. We don't delete article talk pages for lack of notablity of the subject.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:01, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

The mfd was for the article. I linked the wrong page sorry.MartinezMD (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@MartinezMD: Don't mfd the article. You must afd it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I think i got it right this time. I rarely nominate. MartinezMD (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Patricia Charache for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Patricia Charache is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia Charache until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. MartinezMD (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

List of most-liked YouTube videos (part 2)

Hi, there is a problem with this section of the page, because the only one source we had is "dead", so now this section I think is an original research, so can we delete it? What do you think? Thank you--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Luke! Hope you don't mind my moving your comment here to a new thread. Did you try looking for an archived version of it at the Wayback Machine? https://archive.org/web/ If you can find an old version of it, you can use that link to replace the original link, and add a comment to the reference citation something like "accessed via Wayback Machine on (today's date)." -- MelanieN (talk) 22:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there is, but it isn't updated, and for this section we need an "actual" and auto-updated source--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 22:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Then I guess you need to let it go. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:17, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

My opinion is that the entire section is an original research without sources, so I think we can delete it, but I don't know very well English Wikipedia's rules, I'm mostly involved on it.wiki, so what should we do?--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 22:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you post a note on the article's talk page. (You are not the only editor there, are you?) Explain the problem and see what others say. I see that an editor called Saucy just updated the section; ping them, from the article talk page, and ask them where they got their information. If it's someplace valid you can use that source to replace the current information. If it's not a site that keeps current, then you need to discuss what to do, with them and any others who edit that page. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

If you watch the history of the page, you can see that the 99% of the edits are mine, but ok, I'll ask someone opinion, thank you for your suggestions (and sorry for my "bad" english, I'm not english and I'm studying it)--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Don't apologize - in fact I was about to compliment you on your English. I am not very familiar with this type of keep-it-current list, and I'm sure it is challenging. Maybe someone who "stalks" my talk page knows more about that kind of article and can chime in at the talk page. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I just opened a discussion on the talk page, thank you for your help, bye--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 09:01, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know how RfC works, but in your opinion there is enough consensus to delete the section? Because only five users commented, and in total four agreed with deletion and there is one "weak Oppose", but we don't have sources for this section. Do you think it is enough? I opened this discussion one month ago but only four users commented.....--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 16:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Need your help with my page " Samantha Robinson (Actress)

Hi Melanie, I need help with the page I created for Samantha Robinson (Actress). People keep deleting my text and references and I don't know why. Please help. ThanksGlenn Francis (talk) 22:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Glenn. You'll notice that your edits were not only removed - they were struck out so that nobody can see them. (You can see that in the article history.[2]) That's because they were copyright violations. You apparently copied the material from http://lifeofastar.com/lovewitchpresskit.pdf. You must not copy-paste from any published source, Wikipedia is very strict about that. If you want to use any source you must use your own words to convey the information. As for references, I see that you have four external links; they're OK as external links they don't count as references because things like facebook and IMDb do not count as Reliable Sources. Neither do press releases. Now you have added a source but it is reference to Looper which I am not familiar with but I doubt if it is a reliable source either. What you need to do is (probably) start over, and don't try to put it directly into the encyclopedia. Create it as Draft:Samantha Robinson (actress) instead. As a draft you can work on it and improve it until it is in shape to put into the main article space. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

P.S. Actually I think the existing article can be salvaged. She clearly does deserve an article. Here are some better sources for the Once Upon A Time movie: [3] [4] -- MelanieN (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

P.S. And I'm sure you can borrow some good sources from our article The Love Witch. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)