User talk:MelanieN/Archive 81

About Flamengo

Hello, thanks for protection. I exposed my argument and the source in the talk page. After the end of protection, I intend to put the source in the article. In ptwiki we take the position that Flamengo has 7 titles in the Campeonato Brasileiro (Brazilian Championship). What Flamengo won in 1987 would be the Copa União (Union Cup), which is also a national title. The argument is based on the STF decision. Full content of the decision can be seen here. It's in Portuguese; unfortunately there is no English version. Best regards. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, A.WagnerC, and thanks for the note. But explaining this to me doesn't do you any good. You need to explain this to the other users, on the article talk page. Start a new section at the bottom of the page, don't add your comments to a four-year-old thread. And ping or invite the other users to come to the talk page and reply. That's what full protection is supposed to achieve: to give the different users a chance to establish why their position is correct. Lay out your evidence, even it if is in Portuguese. You can probably translate the key parts for them. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC) P.S. to remind me what this is about: Clube de Regatas do Flamengo. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion about the 1987 champion is very delicate. Even with the decision of last resort in the Brazilian Court, Flamengo himself still considers himself the champion. The fans know of this decision, but they do not recognize. I was thinking about to put a note explaining imbroglio, the same used in the ptwiki article. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be a good idea. And put it in a new section, at the bottom of the page, where people can see it. With a good clear section title explaining what it is about. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Can you block this user?

This user[1] is sending me "thank you" notices on every individual edit I've done. It's creepy, disruptive and annoying. Can you or another admin that sees this block this user? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done ~Awilley (talk) 05:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Awilley. Sorry, Snoogans, I was offline most of yesterday. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:23, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

P.S. They probably could have been blocked just for their username. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Re. Sense

Some preface before I ask two more favors... My sole reason for editing here relates to roughly 2,000 individual words or phrases that are too technical or expansive for me to independently define in my own yet-unpublished textbook comprising roughly 500,000 words. I've personally defined each and every one of the remaining 498,000 words in the form of pop-up text that is internally linked to the glossary within the e-textbook. A number of the 2,000 words or phrases indicated above, however, are externally linked to sources that include Wikipedia. When I find an article here that (1) suits my general purpose but (2) has an introductory paragraph whose definition dissatisfies me, I provide an edit so that my readers who follow the link won't be similarly dissatisfied, confused, or dubious of my steering them here.

In one such case, my textbook defines "eye" as "1. a sensory organ that (blah, blah, blah) ..." but didn't care to define "sensory organ" and instead opted to link the term to Wikipedia. Yet, "sensory organ" has no separate article here. The Wiktionary search engine for "sensory organ" redirects to Sensory nervous system. Until last week, my readers who followed the "sensory organ" link would have been greeted by the introductory verbiage shown here. In relevant part: "Sensation is the physical process during which sensory systems respond to stimuli and provide data for perception. A sense is any of the systems involved in sensation. During sensation, sense organs engage in stimulus collection and transduction."

For my specific purposes, there's no mention of "sensory organ" in that introductory paragraph. As a matter of general interest, however, it seemed untenable to me that an article on "sense" would open with a statement about "sensation."

Long story short, I heeded the article's whatever-it's-called notice that "This article's lead section may be too long for the length of the article. Please help by moving some material from it into the body of the article." In so doing, I re-worded the opening paragraph for accuracy and relevance, and I moved a huge chunk from the lead section into a separate sensory organ section. Now, readers who follow my link will wind up exactly where I intended.

As for the favors, could you look at the sense article and comment on the process for removing its "This article's lead section may be too long..." text box? Secondly, do you have a way to change the search engine so that "sensory organ" links either to a disambiguation page or to the newly-created section of the sense article? Cheers. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 02:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Nice work! I reviewed your new section; it is clear and accomplishes exactly what you want to accomplish. (Although I did remove or modify some of the wikilinks; it was suffering from an excess of blue-ness.) I have modified Sense organ, Sense organs, Sensory organ, and Sensory organs so that they now redirect to your new section. And I agree that your changes have fixed the "lead too long" issue, so I removed the tag and explained why at the talk page. Thanks for the note. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist. Your "over-linking" edits are a vast improvement. I had a mind to do some of it myself, but , lazy me... I wanted to give you a chance to improve your "most active editor" ranking. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 16:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

LOL! Well, this has added 12 edits to my score, and every little bit helps... -- MelanieN (talk) 16:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

On that score (*lame pun intended*), if you want to pad your edit count, have a look at the article on sport. After reworking some the lead definition's woeful definition, which now accords with my own standards for semantic accuracy and concision, I noticed how the entire article is rife with punctuation errors, pleonasms, circumlocution, etc. Hint: Making the needed edits one-by-one rather than en masse will move your ranking up to 700 or so in short order! --Kent Dominic·(talk) 18:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Pleonasms Ooh, you made me look one up! Score a point for yourself! No, I'm not going to tackle Sport. Got enough to do in the areas I actually know at least a little bit about. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

I know it isn't much, but wanted to send you a personalized "thanks" for the protection on the Seth Jahn article. Hovering around it was draining. Thank you so much. Pirmas697 (talk) 23:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Protection for Useful Idiot

Hi Melanie, there's been a spate of vandalism from different IPs in Slovakia today at Useful idiot. I don't know enough about Slovakian politics to know what's going on, but my guess is that someone called the PM a useful idiot, because suddenly all sorts of IPs are coming to the page to add his name and/or photograph to it. Temporary page protection would be helpful. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

It looks like what started all this was the Slovakian PM's decision to import the Russian Sputnik V vaccine. One of the IPs pointed this out on an editor's talk page: [2]. In any case, the vandalism continues, and there are too many IPs involved to play whack-a-mole, so page protection would help. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

In that case, it would not be vandalism strictly speaking. A possibly undue content POV. SPECIFICO talk 23:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Thucydides. A classic case of what protection is for. Semi-protected for four days. Let me know if the attacks resume when the protection expires. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC) BTW, I am happy to respond to requests at my talk page, but sometimes it is more effective or more reliable to make a protection request at WP:RFPP than to ask an individual admin. Case in point: I have been offline virtually all day today, and just happened to log on for a few minutes to see this request. How I deal with it if I want to make a request of a particular admin: I first check their contributions to see if they are online.-- MelanieN (talk) 03:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC) -- MelanieN (talk) 03:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for handling this. I'm glad you logged in at the right time to see it. I'll take your advice and go to RFPP next time something like this comes up. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Legislative Council of Hong Kong

So what now? I introduced sources but he still keeps claiming the thing that is on5 different languages simply doesn't exist. And no one from AIV is doing anything-AINH (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

AINH, there's nothing much I can do. Your dispute hasn't quite reached the point of needing full protection; you two are just reverting each other and getting nowhere. What you need to do is to post a message on the article's talk page, explaining your position and showing your evidence. Arguing in edit summaries does nothing to solve the problem. But once you explain your position on the talk page, other people can evaluate it - and maybe help to settle your dispute. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

San Diego Zoo Global

Hello I'm Chip3004 When you get a chance This Article San Diego Zoo Global needs to be moved from San Diego Zoo Global to San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance, See below and here is a statement from Paul A. Baribault President/CEO of San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance from The email I recieved from work.

The past year has brought incredible challenges for all of us. With you by our side, we were able to meet extraordinary, unprecedented needs during a global pandemic while caring for the countless animals and plants that rely on us each and every day. We are forever grateful for you and your continued support. What we have all faced reminds us of our strengths and proves that we are all connected to—and dependent on—each other. It has never been more clear that we must work together to safeguard the future of our planet and the wildlife depending on us. That responsibility requires us to focus our vision and advance our efforts in new and important ways. We are thrilled to announce that San Diego Zoo Global is evolving as an organization into San Diego Zoo WildLife Alliance

Chip3004 (talk) 04:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Chip3004. I somehow missed this change. I will make the move and do any other changes needed in the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

References

edit

I think it would be a good idea to strike this. I'm not sure I see it as a clear threat, and I know you didn't mean it that way, but I can see how to a non-admin it would feel like that coming from an admin. —valereee (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. But I responded explaining that it was a real question. I recall the TB, and I have not been following her career here to see if it was overturned. She could have just said "it was overturned" if in fact it was. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'd suggest the place to ask a sincere question is at her user talk rather than in the middle of a content dispute at one of WP's most politically-charged articles, but I've said my piece. —valereee (talk) 19:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The topic ban was lifted as a result of this discussion, which is worth re-reading in its entirety. MastCell ^Talk 20:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

One wonders (actually I don't really) why anyone who has shown (as you have) a distaste for the subject to the Trump BLP is not topic banned for deliberately working to misuse the website to slant the article to fit their biases. I don't edit articles on liberal politicians cause I know I am biased...and I would more than likely support negative views over positive ones as you routinely do at the Trump article (though I was impartial enough to support the Hillary Clinton article at FAC). You're not as bad as some and have shown some impartiality but I could easily provide diffs that show you harbor some deep seated animosity towards the subject. Misusing an article talkpage to threaten, insinuate or whatever an editor you are in disagreement with is, however, a departure for you. As I recollect, the heading of that section was merely an inquiry to remove some or all of what Atsme posted...not sure (actually I am sure) why it turned into a "get-Atsme" fund raiser. Oh well, least we know the Trump BLP wont fall victim to fancruft.--MONGO (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@MONGO, I think you need to provide some diffs for this: deliberately working to misuse the website to slant the article to fit their biases. That's a pretty serious accusation with no diffs. —valereee (talk) 21:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, valereee, but let it go. People can say what they want; I'd much rather not turn it into a "prove it!" thread. Those are generally a waste of bandwidth IMO. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

RFPP backlog - thank you!!!

Thanks for your (ongoing!) effort on the RFPP backlog. It's greatly appreciated! Ravensfire (talk) 02:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

My pleasure. Will keep it up as long as I can but it's getting late. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Can this IP be blocked?

Hello, can IP 148.252.250.132 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) please be blocked as soon as possible? --Ashleyyoursmile! 14:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

They have been blocked, sorry to bother you. --Ashleyyoursmile! 14:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

No problem. Glad it's been taken care of. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Mark F. Pomerantz

On 17 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mark F. Pomerantz, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that attorney Mark F. Pomerantz, who supervised the prosecution of mob boss John A. Gotti, is now assisting a criminal investigation into Donald Trump's finances? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mark F. Pomerantz. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Mark F. Pomerantz), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Our Lady of Medjugorje

Dear Melanie N, I need help on this page. Back in October I and another editor requested help because we need a more expert editor to help with a conflict. @Slp1: kindly came by and has been working with us. She asked us not to edit on the page, we had many discussions and in time she cleaned up the page in a sandbox and brought the draft back for us to see. Her intent was tweak this draft and place on the main page to replace what is there and to work with us to fix the page. The other editor has not come back since about 2/13. I responded to her request the best I knew how and she has never responded and that has been since February 14. I have reached out with no response and even sent an email to her. I notice that she is editing elsewhere now. I truly don't know what to do about it. Can you help me out? I am committed to finishing this page. I am not going anywhere. It also includes other pages that are related.Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, User:Red Rose 13, and thanks for the note. I'm afraid I am not going to be much use to you, since I know nothing about the subject. I do see that User:Slp1 made a draft in her sandbox; she seems to have taken the original article as a starting point and expanded and improved on it. I’m guessing her intent was to paste the sandbox version into the current article, replacing the content that is already there but not actually deleting the article. Pasting the new content into the existing article space would be acceptable per Wikipedia guidelines, since it would retain the history of the original article. She is currently active at Wikipedia; it is possible she did not get your email or ping, and simply got busy with other things. I would suggest you post on her user talk page and ask her where the situation stands: is the sandbox article ready to go? If so, would she be willing to paste it into the article or would she want someone else to do it? If it is not ready, what does she recommend to get it finished? She has done a lot of good work on this draft and I assume she will want it to “go public” sometime soon. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:40, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your help.Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Treasure Planet

You placed the Treasure Planet article under the Pending Changes protection on April 8, 2020, (with no specific expiration date, as far as I can tell). Could you please unprotect the article now? The article has been under continuous protection of one form or another since April 26, 2009 [3]. That has got to be some kind of a record. WP:PCPP policy says that "indefinite PC protection should be used only in cases of severe long-term disruption." That's not really the case here. I don't think the article currently qualifies for Pending Changes protection. There have been no BLP or copyright violations recently. Looking at the page history for February and March, I don't see any vandalism edit attempts either. There have been some edits that were not accepted but none of them appear to have been actual vandalism. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Nsk92, and thanks for the note. The article was placed under indefinite semi-protection in 2009 due to sockpuppetry. In 2010 they tried PC protection for a while but switched back to semi, so apparently the article was still under attack. In 2020 I responded to an RFPP request to lower the level of protection, and I dropped it to PC. In the year since then, about half of the IP edits have been reverted and half accepted - the type of situation that PC is intended for. However, the reverted edits have been only a few a month - a rate of problem edits that can usually be handled through normal page watching. So I will remove the PC protection. It can be reinstated in the future if it becomes necessary. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, very good, thank you. Nsk92 (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Question about adding a new article

Hello, MelanieN! This is a peculiar question but you are the most frequent editor with the most knowledge that I have spoken to recently and wished to hear your insight on this particular issue. Following the tragic shooting in Boulder, Colorado, I have been seeing renewed interest in the phenomenon of mass shootings being a relatively frequent occurrence in my home state. While other states don't appear to have list pages for mass shootings, I have conceived an idea for an article regarding mass gun violence in the state of Colorado. It would take some time to complete, but I wanted to know who to reach out to so that I could determine if this is a project worth pursuing. Thank you and sorry for the rather morbid topic. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

comment by (talk page watcher): Pbritti, we have List of shootings in Colorado, is that what you're thinking of creating or is your idea for something different? Schazjmd (talk) 14:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the thought, Pbritti, and thanks for pointing out the "list" article, Schazjmd. I see that there are "List of shootings in..." articles for several other states as well, including Virginia, Texas, California, and New York; it appears Colorado is not the only member of this unfortunate club. Pbritti, I guess the question here is whether there is enough Reliable Source coverage to suggest that this is a notable phenomenon for Colorado in particular. In a quick search I do find a couple of recent articles prompted by the latest incident: [4] [5] But IMO you would need more than just another recap to justify an actual article like "Gun violence in Colorado". I'm assuming you would want to analyze it as a phenomenon, rather than merely repeat the reporting on individual shootings. Are there scholarly studies or analyses, to suggest this is something that affects Colorado in particular and why? If so you could have the basis for a really meaningful article. Maybe the thing to do for now is to add more items to the "list of" article, which seems to be missing some of the ones mentioned in those recent reports. And if you want to explore the idea, you could create a userspace draft such as User:Pbritti/Colorado shootings where you could collect sources, make notes, and draft away to your heart's content without anyone interfering. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you to both Nsk92 and MelanieN. I’ll explore the draft page idea and collect sources there. I’ve been perusing news and academic sources and have some monographs from the ‘90s that actually suggest an earlier relationship between Colorado and shootings. It’ll probably stay in draft form until more reliable academic sources discuss the post-Columbine shootings collectively. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)