User talk:MelanieN/Archive 70

Indefinitely semi-protected pages previously pending changes protected

Hi, could you reset the pending changes settings for these indefinitely semi-protected pages?

Henry Kissinger, Harry Truman and Richard Gere.

These pages were previously pending changes protected but are now indefinitely semi-protected but the prior pending changes settings have never been reset.

Thanks, Putwood (talk) 01:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done -- MelanieN (talk) 01:16, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Irdeto Wikipedia Page

Hi Melanie,

Thanks for your reply about the re-creation of the Irdeto Wikipedia page.

For next steps, we will be pulling together independent reliable coverage and we will have someone from the industry, not affiliated with Irdeto that will be contributing to the new page.

Does that work? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Me2307 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Do whatever you can and make it into a Draft page. Instructions are at WP:Drafts and at Help:Your first article. Don't ask me to review it. Let the normal draft review processes work. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Regarding my request for page protection

Because I was requesting PC, that is a decrease in protection level according to Twinkle. Was it moved because I then requested ECP? Thepenguin9 (talk) 17:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Penguin, and thanks for your note. I moved your request to "requests for increase in protection" because it wasn't clear to me that you understood that PC was a decrease. You sounded like you thought it was an increase. You asked for PC because "semi-protection isn't sufficient enough," when actually semi-protection is stronger - more "sufficient" - than PC would be. (PC allows all edits, even those by non-autoconfirmed users, which then have to be manually deleted if they are disruptive). You then wondered if "PC would be too harsh" when it is actually is weaker than semi-protection. You then said "If PC is too harsh, then would ECP suffice" - when ECP is more "harsh" than the existing semi-protection and much more harsh than PC. In any case, the article is not a candidate for PC protection because PC doesn't work well on articles that get many edits a day - any time there is a pending edit, it blocks all subsequent edits until the pending edit is dealt with. Semi-protection is better in such as case, and semi is working well at that article. See my essay on page protection for more about the difference between the various levels of protection and when they are appropriate. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking about it in two different ways, with the reduction meaning more manual work for reviewers, and ECP being less harsh as it does not require manual work.

But, I was merely curious as to why it was moved and not really bothered about it either. I will read your essay soon when I'm more awake for it. Thepenguin9 (talk) 01:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Question about reversion and pending changes

Hi! Sorry if this isn't the appropriate place, but I had a couple questions I was hoping you could help with:

1. The Thomas Modly article has both the semi-protection and pending changes templates applied. According to this table, that should mean that autoconfirmed/confirmed users are able to edit normally. However, as an extended confirmed user, my edits were pending, which appears to only apply to unregistered/newly registered users when a page is in pending changes protection. Is this expected? Is there a level of protection where all non-admins/reviewers must have their edits approved?
2. You reverted my edit to the Modly article. The original (and current) wording stated that Modly was "castigating Crozier as "too naive or too stupid" to be in command of a ship." I felt this violated NPOV because what Modly actually said was Crozier was "[either] too naive or too stupid to be the commanding officer of a ship like this [or] the alternative is that he did this on purpose." Reading the rest of the speech makes it clear that his aim was *not* to say that Crozier was stupid or naive, but rather that Crozier intentionally wanted the memo leaked to the press. Using the word "castigating" along with taking his words out of context seems to be very non-NPOV to me.

Jaardon (talk) 00:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Jaardon. I was surprised, too, that your edit showed as pending. I have never seen that happen with someone who was autoconfirmed. I just checked your user rights and you are not only autoconfirmed, you are extended confirmed. So I have no idea how that happened. Anyhow, let's talk about your edit. I am open to something with a fuller quote, but I felt that your edits and modifications to the quote left too much out, or distorted it even worse than the brief "naive or stupid" snippet most sources are using. Should we just put in the exact quote as he said it? And in fact, include his qualification that he was talking not in generality about "stupid or naive," but specifically about Crozier not anticipating that it would leak to the press? The entire quote is

"If he didn’t think, in my opinion, that this information wasn't going to get out to the public, in this day and information age that we live in, then he was either A, too naïve or too stupid to be a commanding officer of a ship like this," Modly said of Crozier. "The alternative is that he did this on purpose."

I think we could leave out the "alternative" sentence because most sources are not mentioning it, probably assuming he didn't mean it. Maybe just put "..." instead of "either A,"? And now that I look at the quote, he has an unintentional double negative in there that messes up what he was trying to say. (If he didn't think... that the information wasn't going to get out.) How much of this do you think we should use? Let's craft a quote and use it. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your response and willingness to work together on this. Note that I think what Modly did in firing Crozier was absolutely wrong, but in the interest of maintaining a NPOV, I feel we should be fair and careful in how we characterize his words. Let's take a look at the speech—I recognize that most sources are conveniently leaving out the "alternative" part, but this seems disingenuous. If you read the rest of the speech, he makes it clear he felt Crozier intentionally leaked the memo. The question is whether Modly purposefully characterized Crozier as naive/stupid OR was he only using hyperbole to contrast with his actual beliefs (that Crozier *wanted* the media involved). Having listened to the audio a few times, I believe this best sums up what he meant to say:

"Crozier was either (A) too naive or stupid to think his email wouldn't leak to the press, or (B) he did it on purpose."

The confusion seems to come from the fact that he forgot to say "B" and didn't immediately clarify that he believes the answer is B, not A. Considering the context, you can tell he wants to highlight the absurdity of Crozier's argument (that he was didn't mean for it to leak, yet copied 20+ people). Here are some excerpts from the speech that show Modly's view that Crozier wanted the memo leaked:

• "he compromised critical information about your status intentionally to draw greater attention to your situation. That was my judgment"
• "there is no situation where you go to the media"
• "Imagine if every other CO also believed that the media was also the proper channel to hear grievances with their chain of command under difficult circumstances."
• "those facts show that what your captain did was very, very wrong"

These quotes characterize Crozier's actions as purposeful. Modly argues that Crozier knew *exactly* what he was doing when he sent out that email, he's not stupid or naive.

So how to quote it properly? Following your suggestion of including a fuller quote (and leaving out "castigating" for NPOV), how about:

"If he didn't think that information was going to get out into the public...then he was [either] too naive or too stupid to be a commanding officer of a ship like this [or] he did this on purpose."

I feel this captures the full context of the naive and stupid line (btw, the "unintentional double negative" doesn't actually exist, if you listen to the audio or read the CNN transcript he says "was." I noticed the Task and Purpose transcript has numerous issues like this). Jaardon (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

BTW I have removed the PC protection. It overlapped with and duplicated the semi-protection, and it seemed to be malfunctioning. You should be able to edit normally now. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I noticed that :). Yeah, that seems to have fixed the unexpected behavior I experienced earlier. Jaardon (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, I put that into the article, using the CNN transcript as source. That also solved a disagreement I was having with another editor about where to place the reference. And I notice we already have a quote in the same paragraph from when he apologized for the remarks, confirming that he meant to imply that Crozier did it on purpose. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Yay! Glad this all worked out well, and everything got resolved. Jaardon (talk) 01:49, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Legitimate Page Protection Request

Since you are one of the most trustworthy admins on Wikipedia, I wanted to ask you if you could add page protection to The Phelps School Wikipedia page. Persistent disruptive editing by IPs destroying the page. The school has been the center of some controversy lately so it is not surprising, but please add protection. It has absolutely been justified by these IPs adding unsourced information and deleting other information randomly constantly. -Editor940-Thanks. Editor940 (talk)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor940 (talk —Preceding undated comment added 23:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Editor, give it a rest. You have been trying and trying to get someone to protect that page, because you want to win your disagreement with an IP by making them unable to edit the page. You have tried WP:RFPP at least twice. You have tried several administrators. You have never made any effort to use the article's talk page, which is a basic requirement if you want anyone to take your requests seriously. You did manage to get the attention of an administrator, Eagles247, and they have been working to improve the article. Be grateful for them, work with them, follow their guidance and advice, and stop shopping your request all over the 'pedia. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Just a heads up, they didn't appreciate your advice. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Eagles: Thanks. I had seen that and was preparing a report about them redirecting their talk page, but you intervened and took care of it. I didn’t mind them criticizing me; as an admin I expect some of that. They were legitimately angry with me, because I was pretty strong here in my reaction to their forum shopping. But that scam with making their talk page into a redirect - that was a particularly sneaky way of getting around the prohibition on deleting talk pages. Anybody who can figure out that series of moves - and anybody who has the ability to move their user page to their talk page without leaving a redirect[1] - is no newbie and is almost certainly a sock of some kind. Thanks for your attempts to work with them - we all need to AGF - and thanks for dealing with them once they made it clear they were disruptive. Their gratitude to you can now be seen on their talk page. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that they're likely a sock (I was the one who moved their talk page back into place without a redirect). Anyway, I appreciate your support and hopefully this editor can be less disruptive when the block expires. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I missed that, sorry. I saw the redirect but missed that it was to a mainspace article. They are certainly angry right now.[2] At least Serial Number got them to change their tone a little. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Request for Undeletion of the article

Dear Melanie, I see that the article Ashwin Kumar Lakshmikanthan has been deleted in a AFD consensus. While reviewing the senior editor’s comments, I realize that the Overuse of the references had infuriated them asking for a Harsh Delete. I shall work with the article’s nominator and other senior editors who have commented on the page and rectify the references as per their guidance. I realize that my mistake is not reaching out to experienced editors thru talk for assistance as I was under the impression that seeking help during AFD deletion process is not permitted. I shall get their valuable inputs and remove irrelevant references and make it a better article. Please take this into consideration and help me with this request. Much appreciated.Adapongaiya (talk) 18:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Adapongaiya, thanks for your note. I will draftify it for you. I do advise you: don't be in a hurry to try to move it from draft to article. Get advice and input while it is still a draft. Try to make it actually different from the restored article; don't just add or subtract a few references. The reason I advise this is: an article which has been deleted by an AfD discussion, as this one was, can be "speedy deleted" (see WP:G4) if it is not significantly different from the deleted version. So make sure it is significantly different. I should also warn you that an article about this person has been deleted twice already, and if it gets deleted a third time it will probably be "salted", which means the title gets locked so it can't be created any more. So don't be in a hurry to put it back in the encyclopedia; get advice so you can be pretty sure it will be kept this time. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, you can find it at Draft:Ashwin Kumar Lakshmikanthan. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Melanie, thank you so much for such a quick turn around. I shall be patient this time, get ample inputs before submission. Very much grateful to you.Adapongaiya (talk) 20:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Second opinion

Hi Melanie, I wanted a second opinion on what to do about List of Henry Danger episodes. It's PC protection recently expired and I think it might benefit from indef PC protection. Amaury has been an active reviewer for it so maybe they have an insight too. I doubt there's a wrong choice, but I'd feel better with more heads. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

A good way to gauge a need for PC (vs. semi) is to see how many good IP edits are being made (i.e. how many are not reverted and kept in the article), if the number is too low in contrast to the total number of edits, then it's good to just semi it. AFAICS, only about 3/100 edits seem to be not reverted, in that case, PC is not helpful and just increases work imo. If you're starting off with RFPP, you tend to err on the side of caution and be more conservative (I was as well and Melanie pointed it out to me actually). Either way, whatever she says is probably going to be more insightful, hope I could help! --qedk (t 愛 c) 19:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Wugapodes, and thanks for the note. I always look first at the protection log. In this case, the article has needed almost continuous semi-protection since its creation five years ago, so IMO it is clearly a candidate for indefinite protection of some kind. For the last month it has had PC protection as an experiment. During that time editing has been heavier than I like to see with PC, which really only works with lightly edited articles. And I agree with qedk that the contributions from IPs during that time have mostly not been constructive. So I would restore the indefinite semi-protection. Sorry, IPs, but you can always request an edit on the talk page. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Might as well throw in another of my shameless plugs for User:MelanieN/Page protection. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks both! Strong arguments for indef semi-protection, so I've added that. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:19, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Sigh

How dare you abuse your position of authority by making a simple factual improvement of obviously encyclopedic relevance to an important Wikipedia article! And in a totally neutral way too - it's outrageous! ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your well earned reprimand. How foolish of me to think that there might be anything, anything at all, that could be considered uncontroversial when it comes to current American politics. I wonder if they would accept a mention that the sun came up this morning? 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 14:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, it could be fake sun :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't believe it's the sun at all, please obtain WP:CONSENSUS first. --qedk (t 愛 c) 15:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I dunno, I think Guy made a good point there.[3] On it's face the edit was fine but there are issues with editing through protection in general. PackMecEng (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I already reverted the edit and apologized for assuming it would be uncontroversial. Several of us made minor undiscussed edits to that page while it was under full protection; I assumed this could be another one. You know the old joke about what happens when we ASSUME; we make an ASS out of U and ME. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I was surprised by how many where editing through personally, I counted seven. I think you just got lucky! PackMecEng (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Or unlucky, depending on your viewpoint. 0;-D It was just luck that I saw that AN complaint; I hadn't been notified about it. But at least I did see it, so I could respond, hear the feedback, and react in a timely manner. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing uncontroversial about this.[4]. The DNC and journalists may have colluded to suppress the Tara Reade story until getting Bernie to endorse Biden.[5] Frankly I think it's time to discuss the bias of the mainstream media in the RS noticeboard (if we can get better sources than The Hill). Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Felipemelo5820

Hello. Sorry to bother you, but he's come off the block and immediately made the same revert. Perhaps an indef from that article, or a longer general block may be in order. Cheers, Number 57 11:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert. Blocked from the article for two weeks this time. Third time will be indefinite. About whether a general block might be warranted: That article has been his main focus, but I see a few edits at other long-ago elections. You would be much more able to evaluate those than I. This edit, for example, might be a problem? -- MelanieN (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

It seems to be ok; the 11 July date appears to be the Korean calendar date, not the Gregorian. Number 57 17:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Template:Editnotices/Page/2020 Summer Olympics

Hello there, could you please make this request for edit noticing users to remind about the 2020 Summer Olympics being held in 2021:

ApprenticeFan work 14:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, ApprenticeFan. Thanks for your work in creating this edit notice. But I think it should be discussed at the talk page before adding it. Once there is consensus to add it and agreement on the wording, suggest it to an admin who is more familiar than I am with how to add these. Thanks.-- MelanieN (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Douglas Mastriano and Drwillow

Thank you for stopping the continued vandalism today on this page. Would you be able to revert the page back to it's previous state? Hyderabad22 (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Hyderabad22. I suggest you ask one of the autoconfirmed users who post at that article, such as LuK3 or Ifnord. The history is confusing, and I am not sure what is and is not supposed to be in the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Understandable, MelanieN the page seems to have begun to be brigaded a few days ago starting with this edit. I've placed a check user request for DrWillow. The user seems to also be the subject of the article and has a clear undisclosed conflict of interest in the page.\

MelanieN request for revert back to previous state on this page and a semi-protected status be placed on article. DrWillow seems to have made a new account F&INerd and has continued the same pattern of disruptive editing and editorializing as before. I have a SPI investigation request in for the accounts. Request lock and revision to this version of the article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_V._Mastriano&oldid=953575094 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyderabad22 (talk • contribs)

Hello again, Hyderabad22. I have looked into the situation and commented at the SPI investigation. I hesitate to protect the article right now, while the issue is at SPI. Also because the F&INerd account is autoconfirmed so semi-protection would not help. As for deciding what version of the material should be in the article, I don't want to get involved in that and would rather leave it to the other editors at the article (which could use more eyes). I agree that the additions by these two accounts have been highly promotional and that they are almost certainly the same person. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Hyderabad22: You'll be glad to know that per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/F&INerd all three accounts have been blocked as socks. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Thank you for the heads up and your assistance. How can I get other editors to help check the article? I feel like there's a lot of work that needs to be done to the article to fix all it's issues. Hyderabad22 (talk) 23:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Hyderabad22, you're welcome. It would help to have more eyes on that article - more people who have it on their watchlist. For now, the socks are gone and you can clean it up. But you might look back through the history and see if there are other users - either registered users or IPs - who have been helpful more than once, and put a note on their talk pages thanking them and asking them to put the article on their watchlist. (There are currently only 13 people watching it.) A comment about yourself: now that you have registered a username I hope you will keep using it. It gives you a lot more abilities, such as filing the SPI request, and it allows you to edit protected pages, and it gives you an edit history which in turn gives you credibility. One other piece of advice: you did a great job filing your first-ever SPI request, but in the future when it asks for the name, don't list the name of the recent sock; you should list the name of the oldest account, the sockmaster - in this case Majorburton. If you think you have identified another sockpuppet of that group, list Majorburton as the name you are filing the report under. Or ask me first if I think your suspicion is reasonable. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The page Saheem Khan

Hello, How're you Sir? Recently you deleted an article Saheem Khan which I created it, saying that it's recreation of an article which has previously deleted. I accept the article was deleted already but it's been almost 1 year as it was deleted in June 2019. The title was not so much notable then and it didn't come in wikipedia notability guidelines. And now after 1 year, the title is qualifying the Wikipedia:Notability (people). And that's why I created it.SAHEEM KHAN (Google, News). Sir, Go and check in Google and also in News Section where now some recent published article showing on top which are not from so much notable websites I agree but many other notable news websites like Zee News, Navbharat Times, The Lallantop, KoiMoi etc published about his works and the awards he got at Creation Film Festival Canada.You are an admin, you are the senior wikipedian sir, please get in to deepness of the article and then create it because it's been 1 year almost when it was previously deleted and now the title is already been eligible for wikipedia Thanks. -Rama.dhanraj (talk) 11:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Rama.dhanraj, and thanks for your note. Yes, I deleted the article, because it was no different from the article that was deleted last June as a result of this discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saheem Khan (2nd nomination). That is a reason for speedy deletion, according to WP:G4. As of last June he had already received the CIFF award, so that was already taken into account in the June discussion. I also checked Google and did not find anything helpful. The article has now been created and deleted four times, so I locked the page so that it can't be recreated any more. The only way he could have an article is if he does some new, notable work, more than what he has done up to now. If he does, you could create a draft article in your namespace, at User:Rama.dhanraj/Saheem Khan. Then ask me or another administrator if it is different enough from the previous articles to allow it in the encyclopedia. Sorry, I know this is frustrating, but Wikipedia has rules about who can have an article, see WP:NACTOR. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Vetted Page

I see that the Operation Storm page has bene locked with reviewed edits. This seemed to have benefited one editor against another editor. The recent added UN info is dated with alter courts stating otherwise as the article has stated and the Veritas source doesn’t seem RS. Also it seems pov styled for one ethnic group in particular instead of being NPOV. Please take a look when you have the time. Thank you. PortalTwo (talk) 14:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, PortalTwo. I don't understand why your edits were held up as pending. You are an autoconfirmed user so your edits should be automatically accepted - just as Griboski's and Galendalia's are. I just looked at the history again and your latest edits have been auto-accepted - so the problem, whatever it was, must have fixed itself. Remember to discuss on the talk page if you and another user disagree. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

20XX-nCoV naming format

Hi Melanie. I see you've taken an interest in the Novel coronavirus page. Therefore, I'd like to let you know that I have just, for the second time, removed the invented 'pre-cursor' terms 2002-nCoV, 2005-nCoV and 2012-nCoV, for earlier coronaviruses. They weren't used, and aren't now, as is easily googled. I've similarly removed that term from the MERS page. I've commented, and invited any further discussion, at the Novel coronavirus Talk page. (I would have advised the original editor 89.206.118.4, as he inserted a well constructed table, but he only used his IP address, which has no active talk page.)
Thanks for keeping an eye on things. - Onanoff (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Onanoff, and thanks for the note. My only "interest" in the page was to semi-protect it in response to a request at WP:RFPP. I see the protection has just expired and already there has been one incident of vandalism. So I have added the page to my watchlist and will re-protect it if it seems necessary. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. - Onanoff (talk) 21:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For reverting this edit on the clerks page Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

De nada. Somehow I just had the feeling that person was not a clerk... 0;-D Amazing how trolls will find the strangest pages to vandalize. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Anarchism

Hi, can you have a look at Anarchism? An ip user is constantly adding a sentence at lede. Thanks! Cinadon36 19:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Semiprotected for a month. Thanks for the alert, Cinadon. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

That will do. Many thanks! Cinadon36 20:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Afraid to even discuss...

I saw the RfC you opened regarding Donald Trump's mental health.[6] I'm nervous to bring up this topic yet again, but it's such a noteworthy exclusion I have to look into it. Before I go any further, any thoughts on this first paragraph?[7] It's published in a peer-reviewed journal, and the other paragraphs are published by the APA (but not in a peer-reviewed journal). That first paragraph isn't actually describing Trump's health, so I thought it might serve to acknowledge the subject without violating the RfC decision. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Kolya, thanks for the note. Yes, I opened that RfC last year because I felt one was required by the closure of the AfD on the Trump's Health article. At the time I !voted to keep the material, not because I agreed but because I thought I should defer to the AfD discussion. But I was glad the result was not to say anything. We have discussed this many, many times with regard to Trump (as you can see from the links I provided). We have pretty much always managed to keep it out of the article and I concur with that. I also worked hard to remove the speculations about Biden's mental health from the Joe Biden article - it used to have a whole section implying he was losing it. I also worked to keep health speculation out of the Hillary Clinton article. IMO this kind of speculation, even from professionals, should be kept out per BLP. Some editor's opinions on the subject seem to be swayed by their feelings for or against the subject; they want to include it because they don't like the person, or because they personally believe the "diagnoses". IMO we should keep it out of all biographies unless it has strong reliable sourcing, regardless of what I think of the person. Your draft paragraph looks very much like the previous proposals and is based on the same material as the others were, so I doubt if it would fly. Not to say you can't try it, but you asked my opinion. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. What did you think of this existing article text: "Despite this letter, rumors and conspiracy theories concerning Clinton's health proliferated online. In August 2016, Trump questioned Hillary's stamina and Sean Hannity called for Clinton to release her medical records, fueling these theories."[8] I understand the opposition to repeating speculation, but I'm confused about the opposition to reporting that the speculation existed. If an APA publication reports this as news, why shouldn't we? Those are just some of the questions I've been asking myself. Now that I've slept on it I was leaning towards: In August 2016, for Psychiatric News, Aaron Levin wrote that "columnists and op-ed writers decided en masse" to speculate about Trump's mental health. He later wrote that "psychiatrists have publicly offered their views on the mental status" of the president. This text would simply cover the story. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

So rather than reporting what they said about him, you would simply report that some people are talking about it? You are free to suggest it, of course, or even to boldly insert it into the article and see if anyone reverts it. I would note that there have been dozens if not hundreds of books about Donald Trump; most are not mentioned in his biography. The Hillary material was apparently included as an example of "conspiracy theories" during her presidential campaign; there is nothing on the subject in her biography. But I'm guessing that "conspiracy theories" is not how you would treat this.

BTW I've been meaning to tell you, I like your name. It reminds me of Rumple Buttercup. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me how carefree my early editing days were lol! What do you think of adding my "Goldwater rule" draft[9] to his "Public profile" section? Everything is directly from the APA except for the last sentence. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not advising you to add it anywhere. You know how I feel about this kind of speculation/information, or references to such, in BLPs. As I said, if you want to boldly add it, you are free to do so, and see how it goes. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm actually really not sure how you or others feel about adding sources reporting on the speculation (and the reaction by the APA), vs adding sources who themselves are speculating. The RfC doesn't seem to address that. I heard you acknowledge that I might "simply report that some people are talking about it", but you didn't share your thoughts about it, besides the weight issue of the book itself. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I have told you that I definitely oppose putting speculation about people's mental health into their biography. You are now asking, what if you just point out that some people have speculated about it, without actually quoting what they say? You came here asking for my opinion and I'm not going to tell you what to do. I don't have the right to do that. You have the right to put into articles whatever you think is appropriate. But, if you want me to be more clear, I do not encourage you to do it, and I doubt if others would allow it to stay in the article. One, to me it's a backdoor way of bringing in a topic when we don't want to or can't bring it in the front door. Two, looking at the four different drafts in your sandbox and the trimmed version you just offered here: I frankly don't see encyclopedic value in any of them. Either they point out that lots of psychiatrists are talking about this subject (but we're not going to tell you what they said), or they expound on the Goldwater rule to explain why we/they shouldn't be talking about this. The Norman Ornstein quote is more to the point - it summarizes the fact that there have been lots of books written about Trump. There might be somewhere in the article for a statement like that, but it would probably be removed on the basis that the article is already too long and this doesn't really add anything. OK, there, I wasn't going to tell you how I felt, but you insisted. I am just one person, and at that article I am not even an admin, just another editor. I am not telling you whether to add it or not, and if you do, I will not revert it. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to say that. It's frustrating to hear that you were hesitant to either give me your opinion or directly tell me you didn't want to give me your opinion; that feels bureaucratic to me, but perhaps you're just an editor who doesn't want to argue. Thank you again for telling me. I hear very clearly that you personally don't want such information in articles, but I'm not hearing a policy reason for that. You said it is not encyclopedic, but that doesn't ring true to me. Although I don't ask you to share more of your thoughts with me. My thought is that the public perception of his mental health status is one of the most noteworthy things about the man, so I have to ask myself what is going on that this information is censored from the article? Describing the effort as "back door" makes it sound cynical. We have to consider the hypothetical of an individual who is 100% of the time identified with the perception of having mental illness; what would Wikipedia do in that situation? My thought is that we would do what we always do; report what the sources say about this person's public image. If I understand correctly, according to WP:HEALTHRS if we are to add information describing the mental health of a subject it must be from a professional who adheres to the standards of their profession, which would exclude armchair diagnoses. Therefore our purpose cannot be to inform readers of his mental health; our purpose must be to inform readers of this aspect of his life story, which is that this is the conversation around him. In that case, what are the appropriate RS? I'd say all we need is an analysis of the journalism, such as from Columbia Journalism Review.[10] But the least controversial route is just to use publications by the APA itself; they wouldn't print something in violation of their own professional standards (but if we're not actually reporting his health, what is the point of this source?). Regarding my Goldwater rule draft, the point of that information isn't to explain that psychiatrists can't opine about Trump; it is to tell the story of what happened around Trump. Perhaps it's too narrowly focused on his effect on the mental health profession...however the Goldwater rule is a huge part of how this media story is playing out with him. Thanks for helping me think through this some more; I think now it makes sense to prioritize the CJR perspective. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I just reread what you said above: "At the time I !voted to keep the material, not because I agreed but because I thought I should defer to the AfD discussion." It sounds like you are either misremembering or not being truthful. In the RfC you argued repeatedly in favor of including text about Trump's mental health.[11] Your honesty was questioned at that time as well.[12] I think that honesty is the most important thing when collaborating here. Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, my memory of that long discussion may be weak, so I just went through that long discussion searching for my name. My interpretation of what I argued for differs from yours. In any case, this discussion is about what you are going to do on this subject. You don't have to talk me into anything and you certainly don't need my permission to do anything. But if you want to rehearse your thoughts or arguments on me, that's fine. Here, I’ll give you a thought: The Levin columns are from 2016, during the campaign, and early 2017 when Trump had only just become president. The CRJ opinion piece is from February 2017, when he had only just become president. The Dangerous Case is from late 2017, when he had been president less than a year. The piece by Ornstein is more recent, from December 2018, two years into his presidency, but it may not make the point you are trying to make. Can you find anything recent, anything based on the now-three-plus-year sweep of his presidency, to show that this kind of discussion/evaluation is still going on? -- MelanieN (talk) 08:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Are you asking if this kind of discussion/evaluation is still going on? Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Sort of. I'm more asking if anyone has written ABOUT this type of evaluation, or called attention to this type of analysis, in a more recent reference than the ones you are using. This is the point you are trying to make, right? To report that his mental health has been written about and analyzed by many people? There is nothing wrong with your references, don't get me wrong. But they are several years old. I am just curious if - after all the furor about his mental health during the campaign and early in his presidency - no one has evaluated his actions of the last three years in terms of mental stability? (There is a book called A Very Stable Genius, but I think it's mostly reporting about his relations with aides, rather than a psychological analysis.) This used to be a very popular topic of commentary, but has everyone just dropped it? Or have I just missed it? -- MelanieN (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Of course.  This is like half of the conversation about the man.  We have sources talking about sources talking about sources talking about Trump.  What pieces about this from 2018 to now do you think would work?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't know. I was just suggesting that you might find something more recent to make the point that you want to make. If you are happy with your current sources then OK. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I was hoping that with all you have seen in the news discussing Trump's behavior/personality/temperment/potential mental illness that you'd have an idea what would work.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Never mind; forget it. I was just bouncing an idea off you since you seemed to want to talk. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes I did. You participated in the various discussions, including the merge and the RfC, and you said you thought if this were added again it would be removed, so I thought you might have an idea of which sources would comply with policy, because honestly I don't see a policy reason for people to be against including it, except IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Page Undeletion

Hi Melanie, back in 2012 the page for Rough Draft Brewing Company was redirected to your new page of List of Breweries in San Diego,California. It has been 8 years and there are numerous awards and citations about the company. Would you consider undeleting the Rough_Draft_Brewing_Company page and allowing for an updated version with info from the last 8 years? 24.94.18.164 (talk) 18:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for your note! The article was not deleted; it still exists as a redirect at Rough Draft Brewing Company. At the time the company was less than a year old and I can well believe it has gotten more notable since then. It would be possible to expand the redirect into an article. But first let's make sure the article would be kept. It needs to meet the WP:Notability criterion. A key indication of notability for a brewery is that it has received medals at the Great American Beer Festival and/or the World Beer Cup. Do you know if the brewery has gotten medals at either of those events? Those two are regarded as really establishing a beer as notable, particularly if the brewery has gotten more than one. Local and state and county fair type awards are generally not given much weight. I didn't find any listing of prizes or medals at the company's website. Can you give me any information? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Water polo European championship

Hi, I got a problem with Pelmeer10. Please, this is official LEN medals table for both competition, men's and women's. You can see what I say so many times - Medals from USSR belong to Russia, and from Yugoslavia to Serbia. Check this, please

However, read this

Serbia clinches 4th title in a row, though Spain falls only in shootoutFor the first time in the history of the European Water Polo Championships, the penalty shootout decided the title and it was retained by Serbia, despite an electrifying performance of the host Spaniards. This was the Serbs’ 8th gold medal, and the 7th in the last nine editions since 2001. Croatia got rid of its demons and clinched the bronze medal after four lost matches played for the third place in the past.

So, this is the prouv what i talking about, and Pelmeer10 delete this.

Again, this is OFFICIAL LEN SOURCE, i bring you adress check this. BudvaMontenegro (talk) 00:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Hello, User:BudvaMontenegro, and thanks for the note. The first thing you need to do is stop putting your version in the article. You are edit warring and that is against the rules. If you do it again you will be blocked from editing.

What you want to say has been removed by three different people. @Pelmeen10, M-Mustapha, and Sportsfan 1234: have all disagreed with you. You must not keep saying it when so many people disagree with you.

Go to the article's talk page, Talk:European Water Polo Championship. Post a note there, saying what you said here. You can copy it from here. Discuss it with them and see if they will agree with you. If they do not agree, it must not go in the article.

I will post a note on your talk page telling you that you must stop edit warring. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

How do u expect to put wrote when u block me?! Amazing!!

Firstly, Pelmeer10 and Sportsfan1234 is the same person. Check this ip adress. I talk withM-Mustapha he doesn't say that i m in wrong way. Second: did u see what i sent to you? I give you official source. This is a source from LEN! Third: Check Talk:European Water Polo Championship page, I wrote last year there, too, but nothing.

Again, check this link, there is a table. https://wp2020budapest.com/european-water-polo-championships/

BudvaMontenegro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.228.69.16 (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

User:BudvaMontenegro, you must NOT accuse Pelmeen10 and Sportsfan 1234 of being the same person. That is a very serious accusation, per WP:Sockpuppetry. If you accuse people of something without evidence that is against Wikipedia's rules and could get you in trouble. You have no way of knowing what their IP addresses are. On the other hand, YOU are a sockpuppet of DusanSilniVujovic. You have been blocked and you must not edit while logged out, as you just did here. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I told you check IP adress from this two guys. 99procent this is same person. DusanSilniVujovic is my friend from work, we re working in the same company. Anyway,

why are you avoiding the answer? I give you proof that I was right. The medals table are incorect here!!! I put you 3times correct link and you didn't get me any answer about it. BudvaMontenegro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.94.120.92 (talk) 11:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Distruptive editing at United States Congress

Hi, MelanieN, it seems editors are not following your discussion at Talk:United_States_Congress#Amash_is_officially_a_libertarian. and continuously changing it in-spite of 'Pending changes protection'. Please have a look and I have put a Temporary semi-protection request at WP:RPP. Thank you. Amkgp (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Amkgp. It's been semi-protected per your request. I had a feeling protection would be necessary, but couldn't do it myself per WP:INVOLVED. For that matter I couldn't do many more reverts either, so I'm glad other people are monitoring the page. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)